What do players think? |
Sat, 15 January 2005 11:37 |
|
Steve1 | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003 Location: Australia | |
|
What do players think?[ 42 votes ] |
1. |
The situation is unfair and the host should ban the players! |
1 / 2% |
2. |
The players are well within their rights to not attack each other. |
7 / 17% |
3. |
This situation would spoil the game. |
11 / 26% |
4. |
They should be forced to attack each other or no winner can be declared. |
3 / 7% |
5. |
I've seen this happen in a couple of games and it's annoying. |
4 / 10% |
6. |
I've seen this happen in a couple of games and I'm okay with it. |
1 / 2% |
7. |
I've seen this happen in a couple of games and I think it's par for the course. |
2 / 5% |
8. |
I've seen this happen in lots of games and it's annoying. |
2 / 5% |
9. |
I've seen this happen in lots of games and I'm okay with it. |
0 / 0% |
10. |
I've seen this happen in lots of games and I think it's par for the course. |
2 / 5% |
11. |
I've done myself this a couple of times. |
1 / 2% |
12. |
I do this in many games I play. |
1 / 2% |
13. |
If I was in their position I wouldn't attack either. |
2 / 5% |
14. |
I regard this practice as cheating. |
1 / 2% |
15. |
What are you whining about, just get on with the game. |
3 / 7% |
16. |
Other. Please be specific in your posting. |
1 / 2% |
17. |
I'd never do this and players that do are scumbags! |
0 / 0% |
We have a situation in a current game whereby the top two races are allied and have no intention of attacking each other.
Alliances are allowed but it's a "one winner only" game (refer last paragraph of this posting) and I'd be interested to know if other players have experienced this situation before.
The races are saying that they've been allied from the start and shared tech, ship designs, fully intercolonised, etc. and therefore have built a good relationship and are unable to war with each other.
The second placed player realises by taking this course of action that he can't win unless his economy is improved substantially or the #1 player takes a bit of a beating from the rest of the universe, but says that he's happy to be part of the leading alliance.
They also state that they probably wouldn't be in the #1 and #2 positions if they hadn't assisted each other to such a degree, which may well be true.
It seems their intention is to wait until a vote is called or wipe out the rest of the races until it's only them left, but even then to not go to war with each other.
If you could vote and give feedback that would great.
I'd like to hear both perspectives, so feel free to share your opinions.
Update: One of the players pointed out that my wording wasn't quite correct and rather than calling it a "One winner game", I should have said "Last man standing game".
Seems the same to me (perhaps a subtle difference), but has been included for arguments sake
[Updated on: Sat, 15 January 2005 12:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Sat, 15 January 2005 13:00 |
|
Steve1 | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003 Location: Australia | |
|
Quote: | I see little difference between 1 player playing 2 races, and 1 player sacrificing their race's potential to win, just to fortify the leading players position.
|
But one player is playing two races and it doesn't involve the #1 or #2 positions ......
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Sat, 15 January 2005 21:01 |
|
|
Staz wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 16:20 |
Steve1 wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 16:37 | Update: One of the players pointed out that my wording wasn't quite correct and rather than calling it a "One winner game", I should have said "Last man standing game".
Seems the same to me (perhaps a subtle difference), but has been included for arguments sake
|
That is a significant difference, IMO. If you didn't explicitly rule out a team victory before the game started then this sounds like a perfectly legitimate alliance win.
|
But alliance wins are not allowed in the rules. "One winner" means ONE winner, not an alliance.
Declare #1 the winner and don't give any glory to #2, he should expect none.
[Updated on: Sat, 15 January 2005 21:01] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Sun, 16 January 2005 19:11 |
|
|
Good point. If there's ever a good time for a backstab this would be it. That's the price you pay for allying in a one winner game.
[Updated on: Sun, 16 January 2005 19:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Tue, 18 January 2005 01:14 |
|
|
Steve1 wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 21:43 |
Backstabbing is still backstabbing no matter how you legitimise it. Some players view this as a valid strategy and they can see it that way if they so desire, but when it comes down to it, the player you backstabbed is still far less likely to be trusting of you in another universe and usually tends to spread the word around to other players within that game
You'll also need to do a good job of it. Personally, I would do whatever it takes to ensure that the backstabber doesn't win from that point.
|
Now, you will see this differently, but as for me I would rather ally with someone who has pulled off a successful backstab than ally with someone who altogether refuses to backstab.
I wouldn't trust him behind my back, but I wouldn't be able to rely on a white knight no matter which way I'm facing.
Simply put, someone who understands and uses subtle trickery would be more useful to me than someone who doesn't. Plus, scoundrels are easier for me, a scoundrel myself, to understand.
And if I get knifed in the process, c'est la vie, it's just business. In the end we all get what we deserve.
On the other hand, someone who *always* backstabs whether it makes any sense or not is just retarded. It's a bit like bluffing on every poker hand, it'll break you faster than anything.
[Updated on: Tue, 18 January 2005 01:19] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Tue, 18 January 2005 02:53 |
|
|
Steve1 wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 23:23 |
My question is: how do you achieve any good results when you're having to concern yourself with a backstab all the time?
|
Don't give him a reason to backstab you then.
Be a good ally to him and he'd be stupid to.
Ignore him or get in the way and he'd be stupid not to.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|