So the peaceful sky nation isnt’t even going to tell people beforehand wether they will gracefully allow someone to play somewhere or if they’re going to be taken out in a team effort, for making a move that is not desired by the highness… 
Looks like we have different expectations, the first two matches of this were great but this is going in a direction I’m not a huge fan of - so if someone would enjoy to take my place, feel free to do so 
1 Like
Honestly, I’m not too sure at this point exactly what moves would play out in response to Green at F8, but Skwe* did promise Orange assistance in response to such obvious provocation and aggression. Skwe would have to consult with the Glorious Tangerine Leadership about how best to proceed, but remain dutifully committed to maintaining the peace. Of course, Skwe see no benefit in telegraphing specific tactics in advance.
*In the Sky dialect, “Skwe” is Skour form of the “Royal We”.
3 Likes
Speaking out of character for a second: Are you saying that you would rather have another player take over for you? Did we bring too much diplomacy to the table for your liking? From my perspective, being the last player in the playing sequence, I think that making strong alliances is my only option to be able to compete.
3 Likes
Before someone else points this out, this may be written as “Skw’m”.
3 Likes
I’m staggered that we made it ~164 posts in with no references to Highlander. Dang, I’m showing my age
1 Like
And of course saying that you’ve royally screwed up would become “Skwew Skwew”.
Hmm, meh, it doesn’t quite work out… Sky dialect is hard…
1 Like
I sympathise. I see the appeal of diplomacy, but having participated in / spectated a couple of these types of games by now I’ve formed the opinion that the added depth (in terms of negotiating, forming alliances etc) is not worth the risk of people getting hurt.
I think one could limit the dangers by being very clear about boundaries between in-game characters and real people, but even then it would never be possible to completely keep personal feelings out of the game.
So if I’m thinking about what would need to change to make a game like this enjoyable for me, I would either remove all communication (or perhaps allow some light chat but not negotiation about the game), or change the mechanics drastically - for instance one could have a 4v4 team game, which would remove all incentives to break promises (again I know this is part of the fun of diplomacy, just for me personally it seems like it brings more harm than good).
3 Likes
Out of character: If we have 4 people playing as a team, they are able to decide at will without any need for strategy who to take out whenever they want. So if someone wants to stay in the game they have to please the biggest group or expect to be eliminated.
That’s not a game I enjoy playing, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t others that do.
So yeah, it would be great if someone is spontaneous and would like to take my place!
3 Likes
So gunboat? I think Brother Bored would have some words to say about that avoiding alliances and betrayals.
That would be a different game, but would be fun too.
Red declared themselves as pacifist, so I doubt they would want to take part in such an assassination. Besides the first person to attach to a stone (perhaps hoping the other three will follow) is carrying a big risk, because there is no guarantee that the other teammembers will follow.
Furthermore Yellow may view Sky as an ally, but does not feel obligated to their promises to Orange.
1 Like
I didn’t say removing communication would remove betrayals, but I think it makes it easier to separate the game from real life: as go-players we’re all pretty used to not taking personal offense when we’re outplayed on the board, but having a verbal promise betrayed is different (and for those of us with no diplomacy experience it can be difficult to handle).
4 Likes
If the team is part of the rules, then I have no objections against merciless murder.
1 Like
But in this game, the teams are not defined by the rules.
Yes, but I think @Civilian was talking about the variant where the 4 people teams are decided prior to the game (or at least, that’s how I interpreted it).
2 Likes
I do believe Civilian was talking about the game we are playing right now, because they answered to my post, which did not mention another variant.
3 Likes
Martin is right I was talking about this game. I’m not against a match full off diplomacy, betrayal or against ruthless murder (well in Go atleast 
). But to avoid huge feel bads for someone I’m not going to play in a team with auri for example. Having an all powerful team that can kill at will isn’t creating a good experience in my opinion either, so I would avoid forming such a situation even if it increases my chances to win. I expect a group that plays a game to regulate itself and how that should look like is different for everyone I’m not taking this personally, I don’t like this group dynamic, we are having the second big discussion today after all. But for those who do like it, it’s good - no hard feelings
I’m reapeating myself but who ever wants to take my place go for it
5 Likes
Ah, makes sense. I don’t think I’d want to play that though.
Could it be that Civi1ian was being considerate of our feelings and for this reason did not team up with anybody, not expecting that everybody else would shameless create alliances and everything? Being alone while others form teams feels bad …
… this is easier said than done though, and I hope Civi1ian does not feel excluded. I appreciated their comments on the game, but if this playstyle triggers bad feelings for Civi1ian, then I think we should probably stop playing.
3 Likes
I mean that’s kind and all, but there is no reason for that. I’m grown man with obviously too much time on his hands to be able to write so much here at the moment 
But we can simply leave it at: we had a weird group dynamic and you go on with your match
When I say I’m not hurt over a match of Go, I mean it
1 Like
I was convinced that Civi1ian formed the southern team with Auri and Samraku.
How about @Civilian attaches someone and triggers the non-aggression pact? (I’m personally interested in how that pact would turn out in the end)