Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Sense of playing a senseless game?
|
Re: Sense of playing a senseless game? |
Thu, 18 August 2011 12:23 |
|
Taka Tuka | | Master Chief Petty Officer | Messages: 102
Registered: March 2004 Location: Germany | |
|
Hi guys,
thank you for your feedback. Even if only less of the view stars-players gave a feedback to me, it was almost clear. That I was asking for . So I will continue to play.
But some final remarks:
1. I had a different idea of the game, my fault of course. If I would have imagined that a game of four teams only will change to a 2v2 or 3v1 or 2v1v1 game, I wouldn't like to play. For what? For easy winning or for chanceless losing? Waste of time imo, but a minor opinion only. So my fault to have a wrong idea of such a game.
2. The game-setting isn't perfect as there are no rules. Even a pregame alliance wouldn't have been against the rules. Sorry if I didn't use my limited english propperly: I didn't want to affirm, that any player made pregame negotiations or agreed something before the game started (even if wouldn't have been against the rules). Sorry for this possible understanding out of my post. Anyway, in a game with less players there is not much room for diplomacy, if two players don't want to communicate with us because of their knowledge of our races.
3. It's my first team-game and it will be definitely my last one. It's much more time-consuming than a single-player game - especially if the two teammates have very different points of views about some details. So such a team will be mostly dominated by one player (Thx to Eagle of Fire and ForceUser for dicribing their experience) or you have an endless discussion where the one with less time or the one, for whom the game has less importance than for the other one wants to end the discussion for any price. Better would be, of course, to retreat from the game, if you can't agree to a common strategy or to common expectations before the first turn. But I don't want to say by this, that this happend with Alex.
4. Even if somebody is angry about what somebody else is writing, there is no need for personal offenses. It is understandable if somebody does it in the first moment of anger. But later he should realise that it wasn't a good idea to do in this way and should apologize for offenses over the limit. If somebody doesn't want, even if friendly criticized for being highly abrasive by third persons (Thx to Iztok and ForceUser!), it shows his bad behavior. I don't like to have to to talk with such unpolite, rude people in business and much more I don't like it in my free time. Unfortunately such kind of people like Blue you find in internet much more than in RL. To have such kind of people don't make a community more attractive.
5. Thanks to all, who posted a constructive statement in this thread!
Regards, Taka Tuka
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Sense of playing a senseless game? |
Thu, 18 August 2011 20:27 |
|
XyliGUN | | | Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004 Location: Russia, St.Petersburg |
|
|
Here is my 2 cents (sorry for my poor English, it's not my native one).
Taka Tuka wrote | If I would have imagined that a game of four teams only will change to a 2v2 or 3v1 or 2v1v1 game, I wouldn't like to play.
|
This is still a game of 4 teams since only one of them could win. Also due to universe mapping each of the teams actually have only two real enemies (those which are the closest ones) and one (on opposite side of the universe) potential enemy, since it's less likely that someone would attack thru the center instead of running around the wheel. So the opposite team in any case is not an enemy from the beginning, but it could be perfectly used as temporary allyer.
I'm actually think that teams without CA simply HAVE TO agree on a temporary NAP or something like this just to survive. So, Taka Tuka... they simply afraid that if they will give your teams enough time you will overproduce them in the late game. They are "afrading" you and that's the main reason why they are together. But as soon as one of them or one of another two teams become too big and too strong, beleive me, all these NAPs/tradings will be ended, and the strongest team will be headed alliance of 3 (OFC if all of them will survive)... nothing personal just a diplomacy.
And the best answer to those type of a temporary alliances is an another temporary alliance, and keep watching... there will be a time when one of the allyers become too powerfull - it will be a good time to try to talk to another team and said: "hey they are becoming too powerfull, we have to stop them now or never".
So, Taka Tuka, don't worry too much about that alliance and this is good that you find it so quickly, just keep playing and do your best to win. I have access to your game files and I've just checked turn 2458. I obviously cannot disclose things there, since game is going on, but there is nothing decided yet, there is no major advantage as far as I can see.
PS: This thread remembered me a game of 8 players, it was played without pregame alliances, but 1 player or team of two could win. I was a CA and have 4 IT enemies around me, but finally I allyed with IS, and we win this game, mostly because those 4 IT players are fighting each other all the time, while I spent about half of the resources to boost my economy and a bunch of time to wrote a diplomacy mails. In the end they were trying to make a coordinated strike... but it was too late.
[Updated on: Fri, 19 August 2011 07:17]
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something."
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For LoveReport message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: Sense of playing a senseless game? |
Fri, 19 August 2011 17:18 |
|
BlueTurbit | | Lt. Commander
RIP BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 | Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002 Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
Yes, XyliGUN, I'll do all the dirty work and you do all the info gathering.
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 16 10:19:16 EDT 2024
|