Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Annoyed by formation of large alliances (was Re: Backstabbing)
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Fri, 16 July 2004 14:16 |
|
|
Quote: |
Kotk is not talking about the limitations of various race designs in various situations; in each there is fun to be had and lessons to be learned as long as the players are playing to win. I believe the point that Kotk is making is that if the top players are not all playing to win then the fun and lessons get short circuited and the other players are left frustrated and bored. I totally agree
|
I don't. You are defending a situation where #2-#10 go out of the way to bring down #1, who is in a hopeless situation. Your arguements about what sort of grouping are 'ok' clearly do so.
In the situation I describe #1 is toast. No diplomacy in world would allow Kotk to save his QS if all the HP's stick together on delaying war and not giving territory. Anything he does to change situation makes him a rampaging #1 monster. The other players have effectively increased their chances from 10% to win to 13% by eliminating him (without even starting a war).
In the situation Kotk describes, the 3 players could very well be playing to win and increasing their chances. If they pull it off they increase their chances from 16% to 33%, one out of 3 of them will win. They may have a system to work out who wins in a way all have a chance once they toast everyone else.
To try and police what broad cooperation is ok when rules say nothing and what isn't ends up being just a matter of giving a certain style of race an advantage over another.
[Updated on: Fri, 16 July 2004 14:17] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sat, 17 July 2004 15:53 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
multilis wrote on Fri, 16 July 2004 20:16 | I don't. You are defending a situation where #2-#10 go out of the way to bring down #1, who is in a hopeless situation. Your arguements about what sort of grouping are 'ok' clearly do so.
|
I've been in many games and I can tell you there's no chance 9 races if 10 will join together to bring down #1. The only races that will ally will be those directly endangered, and maybe one or two players with real strategic sense. The rest will play their own games regardless of big monster looming in other part of the uni.
Quote: | In the situation I describe #1 is toast. No diplomacy in world would allow Kotk to save his QS if all the HP's stick together on delaying war and not giving territory. Anything he does to change situation makes him a rampaging #1 monster.
|
Kotk has already given you a recipe how to play in such a situation. I can only support him, as I know what faster races can to to slower ones. And a QS is really fast, compared to HPs. It can easily cripple econ growth of 2-3 neighboring HP races, while killing the 4th. And with its speed it can get conquered planets on-line really fast. Who cares if 3 HP's will each have at 2460 10 planets producing 40k resources, when QS will have 40 planets producing 80k, and many times more minerals to throw at HPs? The only real problem for QS is required MM and number of fleets limit, nothing else.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sat, 17 July 2004 15:58] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sat, 17 July 2004 16:34 |
|
|
Ok the theme of this thread is how annoyed that people AREN'T all working against the monster.
Now we have Kotk and Iztok describing how my senerio is wrong because as early monster others won't unite against Kotk so he will be ok as 'wolf among lambs'.
The senario which I describe, the QS is clearly the 'monster'. Everyone else will be behind in beginning.
I haven't seen or heard of Kotk's described 3 of top players unbreakable password sharing alliance at 2425 which alternatingly either is attacking you or not depending on the version.
Faced with Kotk as a QS with 9 other HP and with me in the opposite end of the universe, and following the described 'ethics' and I may join in against him.
I gain from the tech sharing, ship+planet trading, and other cooperation that come from working with 8 other players, we all get a chance to safely bloom into HP powers.
And on the other hand if you say then play HP rather than QS, you then face the opposite early Sotek suprise attack described which if done well will take down an HP.
IMO all you are doing with this 'only ok to cooperate against #1' logic is favouring races like SD -f, and penalising races like IT -f who needs a strong start and HE 3i who needs to become strong to compensate lack of gates.
[Updated on: Sat, 17 July 2004 16:53] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sun, 18 July 2004 04:19 |
|
iztok | | Commander | Messages: 1210
Registered: April 2003 Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
multilis wrote on Sat, 17 July 2004 22:34 | Faced with Kotk as a QS with 9 other HP and with me in the opposite end of the universe, and following the described 'ethics' and I may join in against him.
I gain from the tech sharing, ship+planet trading, and other cooperation that come from working with 8 other players, we all get a chance to safely bloom into HP powers.
|
OTOH if you join QS you gain tech from him AND part of a territory of QS's victim AND temporary safety from QS's attack. Wouldn't that make you stronger then to play as a peer among other equal HPs?
Quote: | And on the other hand if you say then play HP rather than QS, you then face the opposite early Sotek suprise attack described which if done well will take down an HP.
IMO all you are doing with this 'only ok to cooperate against #1' logic is favouring races like SD -f, and penalising races like IT -f who needs a strong start and HE 3i who needs to become strong to compensate lack of gates.
|
Man, you sound like you got kicked badly in a game or two. But that's a part of Stars! Every race and econ model can be successful in certain situation, and destroyed in another one. One part of success is to recognize conditions in the universe and design proper race. But there are many random factors you can't control: the strongest of them is planet draw, the second one is neighbour draw. If they are against you then your race will fall among the first.
I have only one general rule when playing Stars!: never be deliberately weak. The rest is just a matter of execution . So far I've been quite successful at that.
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Sun, 18 July 2004 12:24 |
|
|
Quote: | Man, you sound like you got kicked badly in a game or two
|
No, never got kicked. Watched others get kicked.
Borg faced Sotek attempt at kicking this game. Sotek had flawed execution, so instead Sotek suffered. But any HP would be weakened if Sotek had propper execution including perhaps getting help from another neighbour. Just as I continue to snipe the transports he has heading to fresh territory.
Agreed others may help QS. Though possible with good diplomacy that multiple HP could be stronger including techs (dedicated focus on single tech beats even -f spread out).
But considering thread was about being annoyed that #1 sometimes got lots of help from others so #2 or whoever can't bring him down, I find current line of reasoning funny.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Backstabbing |
Mon, 19 July 2004 08:49 |
|
|
You really think QS can take every other player? That was my proposed senario following this threads all should unite to stop #1 monster logic. QS is clearly #1 monster.
Sotek was starting pretty similar to a QS with his AR getting extra minerals and terraforming from Transformer ships in our current game. Sotek isn't doing so well right now.
Quote: |
All HP can do if neighbour QS decides it is not needed on the map by 2440 is to die.
|
If the HP gets help from other HPs as described by me then you are wrong.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Backstabbing |
Mon, 19 July 2004 15:39 |
|
|
Normal AR has no production capabillity. Sotek had remote mining of equivelent of 500 mines from turn 1 on top of usual. Plus he had more resources than any normal AR from OA ships. That combined with his 1i, 1w, 1n gave him at 2425 all the resources of your described QS.
I got some but not full support from neighbours, and what I got I paid for in trade. When the trans game is over I can publish the archive game files and show just how wrong you are.
...
Ok, do you wish a duel where you control a QS, and 3 other players control HP races that were not designed as a team and all of them are completely allied (and against you) till they bring down '#1'? And you being QS are obviously #1.
[Updated on: Mon, 19 July 2004 15:43] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Annoyed by formation of large alliances (was Re: Backstabbing) |
Mon, 19 July 2004 18:10 |
|
Hooga | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 31
Registered: July 2004 | |
|
Yup. Few people like to cause others pain, even within the context of the game. Especially others you have worked with and are friendly with.
I find it enjoyable to work in cooperation with others, to plan joint wars, to coordinate mineral transfers, etc. Especially when we work together to bring another, bigger race down.
Hold on, that's a contradiction. Didn't I say that few like to cause others pain.
Well, destroying others has its pleaseures too. Even when it comes to backstabbing. Example:
I am in a game (gotta be careful to give as little as possible away) where at one point I had every other race set to friend. Some were closer than others, but I was pretty much tech trading or sharing info or negotiating intersettlement with everyone. Of course this situation can't last, and so I picked some races that I thought would make better friends in an alliance. Not the #1 or #2 guy (I was #8 at this point). I used the diplomatic information I was getting to determine where "hot spots" were developing and picked sides in the conflict where my help was needed most. I used the friendly status with the others to lead some of them on into thinking they had my support when that fleet I was massing was meant to destroy them. Was this backstabbing? Probably. But there's no reasonable expectation for me to stay friendly with all races, and there was no formal agreement between me and anyone. And I didn't pick the allies that would be most beneficial to my own ranking, or the enemies that would be best for myself to destroy. I'm hoping I picked the allies and enemies that will make the game the most interesting it can be.
EDIT: I have to say now (just so ppl don't say I helped the bigger guy with no gain for myself) that I think now I have a reasonable shot at winning this game.
Ok end example.
I felt comfortable turning against those I had helped and those that had helped me because I was helping others I had helped and who had helped me more. If that makes any sense.
With regard to one victor only games, its obvious that an alliance cannot last. So the alliance members are going to have to ditch their conscience and kill their ally. I would understand in such a game. But then, I would be prepared for such an eventuality.
[Updated on: Mon, 19 July 2004 18:11] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Annoyed by formation of large alliances |
Mon, 19 July 2004 18:12 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
I could get real philosophical right now and argue that there is no uniquely human nature, but I will confine myself to saying that what mazda describes is not human nature.
Mazda describes the basis for this discussion very well prior to reaching his human nature conclusion. But I believe that this perceived problem is likely to be very receptive to a peer pressure solution, should such a peer concensus arise.
Look, if the game parameters say that there can be only one victor, then you are bound to do your best to ensure that you are that victor, else you are denying yourself and the other players the game that you all signed on to play.
[Updated on: Mon, 19 July 2004 18:13] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | | |
Re: Backstabbing |
Wed, 21 July 2004 12:13 |
|
|
Quote: |
Why i have to say it 10 times that AR is no QS? I play AR most of the time. It has to be played like -f not like QS.
|
Have you ever played AR with extra 500 mines in the beginning and free terraforming for all early colonies?
Each his own opinion. I was talking 2425, later the AR gets weaker due to not enough minerals.
But having 500 mines from turn 1 on compared to QS who is going to take years to get those mines going... gives enough extra minerals for 2425 warfleet as far as I can tell.
AR strength is NOT full worlds but MOSTLY EMPTY ones (due to square root nature). Comparing full worlds is misleading, and an AR with more abillity to focus on Energy thanks to Trans ships is ahead of usual AR curve.
I assume that the AR coloniser is a fairly good early bomber against the smaller initial colonies that spring up. Perhaps I am wrong.
...
For a suggested 'duel', some of the talk on this thread was 'ok for everyone to unite against #1 till threat taken out' and my example was specifying that. I assume that all 3 HPs would be required to working together against the #1 QS monster, though perhaps not allied as mlaub says.
I currently have trans game to finish, I am one of the larger powers, there is lots to manage. Most of the players are now either directly in wars or nearly eliminated.
My real life is more busy than usual as well. So not sure if I can manage before Trans is over.
Since it would be a 4 player game we could likely have hosted on Autohost, perhaps medium density small universe.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Wed, 21 July 2004 13:26 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
LEit wrote on Wed, 21 July 2004 17:08 | My take on HP is more then 3500 resources from a 100% world.
That's generally 1/2500 15/x/20+/3 where x is at most 9, and probably lower.
|
Yes ... i thinked HP in classical sense. 1/2500 pop efficiency taken as trade for 15/7-8/20+/3 factories, so it gets more econ per planet than HG-s.
Primeval QS was 1/2500 with 15/6/18+/3 factories, more modern times it mostly means 1/1000 pop with quick (factories cost 8 ) and strong econ (mostly 3500+ per planet like HP).
[Updated on: Wed, 21 July 2004 13:27] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Wed, 21 July 2004 14:14 |
|
|
My take on HP is definition should also allow HE to qualify, like Kotk definition does rather than Leit definition.
Done properly broader hab and/or immunes would compensate for less resources per planet (more good greens to work with) in describing hp potential of a race. So for example, TT trait makes race more HPish. (more long term potential)
On other hand a OWW may easily get 3500 resources per green planet but not be HP.
[Updated on: Wed, 21 July 2004 14:17] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Backstabbing |
Wed, 21 July 2004 14:21 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
multilis wrote on Wed, 21 July 2004 11:13 |
Why i have to say it 10 times that AR is no QS? I play AR most of the time. It has to be played like -f not like QS.
Have you ever played AR with extra 500 mines in the beginning and free terraforming for all early colonies?
|
That is why I never commented on the whole AR QS line. An AR without the worry of early minerals *would* be a QS. I very much doubt any experienced AR player would argue against this point.
Quote: |
I assume that the AR coloniser is a fairly good early bomber against the smaller initial colonies that spring up. Perhaps I am wrong.
|
Nope, your not. Wow, 2 in a row!
Quote: |
I assume that all 3 HPs would be required to working together against the #1 QS monster, though perhaps not allied as mlaub says.
|
Phooey on that. If you are my neighbor, and are in my way...It won't matter if you are the QS, or another HP.
I assumed it would be a "normal" game with no pre-existing alliances or co-operation assummed. Only the fact that the QS will gunning for the HP's, eventually. <shrug> So, a normal game for me... I'd still be willing to TT with everyone, but only after "normal" ingame negotiations.
Quote: |
My real life is more busy than usual as well. So not sure if I can manage before Trans is over.
Since it would be a 4 player game we could likely have hosted on Autohost, perhaps medium density small universe.
|
Well, we need a 3rd HP. I wouldn't mind if the game puttered along until the end of summer. How about getting it set up, and play 3-4 turns during the week till everyone is ready to go faster?
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Jun 05 03:06:56 EDT 2024
|