Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » What do players think?
| |
Re: What do players think? |
Wed, 19 January 2005 02:23 |
|
Carn | | Officer Cadet 4th Year | Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Steve1 wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 14:43 |
Quote: | 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.
|
Well in fact that wouldn't be necessary. Given the situation, the #1 player wouldn't be able to take on the entire universe by themselves.
Besides, who wants a reputation as a backstabber? Just means for future games that potential allies might be far less trusting.
|
As i intiated the back stabbing posts, i have to say, that did also mean the possiblity of simple cancelling the alliance.
While then #1 has 5 years to ready himself, #2 can still do things, that offer a slight advantage.
E.g. argue, without lying ets., #1 into spending much resources upon a design useful against current enemies and secretly build up the counter design.
Or making secret alliance with some other players and trade them techs, ships or planets and maybe get some special devices, like robber baron or mines or cheap overcloakers or gate network.
Clever people will have further ideas how to prepare for ending treaty without breaking it.
Of course this never gives as much advantage as a full backstab, but if the difference between #1 and #2 is not too big it might be enough to have a chance.
Carn
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Wed, 19 January 2005 12:50 |
|
Crusader | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dixie Land | |
|
OK. I suppose since I'm to blame for this post being entered in the first place, I suppose I ought to throw in my
Where shall I begin?
Oh yeah, taking a poll for what is mostly an ethical situation is a bit amusing to me.
Calling me a whiner is throwing about names without understanding my stance on the situation, but I'll certainly not lose any sleep over it.
Asking me if I'm ready to concede to a winning alliance when the game conditions spell out a solo victory condition is just asking for my hackles to get up. I will not concede victory to an alliance of any number in this game.
I will, however, concede that the game leader is the clear winner of this game if his "allies" concede the game to him. Otherwise, #2 could decide he has a shot at any time and announce his intentions of breaking off his "alliance of convenience" and launch his own attempt at becoming the Ruler of the Known Universe and I'm hanging in there for that opportunity to join forces with the enemy of my enemy and continue the fray with improved odds. Until the game leader's allies concede victory to the game leader, I will stay in until I am ground down to dust or I win through sheer stubborness. (Yes, I am just that stubborn)
I am absolutely guilty of shouting, spitting, jumping up and down, and being a loud, obnoxious schmuck as regards the willingness of the game leader's allies to roll over and be good, little allies and hoping for an alliance win in a solo victory game. I was hoping that I could shame them into changing their minds, because I will never, ever recognize them as winners sharing in the glory of the victorious game leader.
Is some of this starting to get through to everyone?
All are free to comment on my position, but it will remain my position regardless of the results of the poll or how many other players tell me I am wrong. The only vote that I will agree to is the one to determine whether or not the current game leader has won the game, at which point I will agree with the majority vote. Again, I will not vote on whether or not the leading alliance has won.
Now, does this position realy make me a whiner? No, never mind, I don't care what the answer is after all.
The Crusader
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Wed, 19 January 2005 14:07 |
|
|
When I have been #1, I tried to give my friends a better chance of winning by being friendly to me then by backstabbing. Part of that is helping those who are friendly (giving planets, etc), part of that is good defences, and part of that is the clear understanding that I would focus my war efforts against the backstabber should such happen.
When not #1, then efforts are made to make it more profitable for others to gang up on #1.
All part of diplomacy.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Wed, 19 January 2005 17:37 |
|
|
multilis wrote on Wed, 19 January 2005 11:07 | When I have been #1, I tried to give my friends a better chance of winning by being friendly to me then by backstabbing.
All part of diplomacy.
|
Yeah, that's what I am talking about. The whole point of alliances is to gain more by cooperation than warfare.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: What do players think? |
Fri, 28 January 2005 17:16 |
|
Downsider | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003 Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
The main problem here is that if the rules state that only 1 race can win, some players will design and play their races around this fact. If unbreakable alliances form against the spirit of the rules, those players may feel they would have made different decisions if they thought they could get away with it too.
IMO, if the game rules state only a single race can win then they should also state that all other races are set to enemy from the start. This automatically limits the value of an alliance as intersettling, tech trade and mutual defence, while not impossible, becomes a lot harder.
If the "all enemy" rule is not in place, then you are bound to get some alliances that do not want to break up just to settle who is the winner. In these cases, I think the best solution is to make the top alliance wipe out all opposition and then stage a huge battle between themselves with every warship they had. The victor of that should be crowned the overall winner.
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Fri, 28 January 2005 22:01 |
|
LEit | | Lt. Commander | Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003 Location: CT | |
|
In RWIAB (all -f in a single winner only) I formed an alliance early when I was in 4th or 5th place with a neighbor who was also in 4th or 5th. After a while, I moved into 1st place, but my ally wasn't able to keep up (mostly because I was IS and able to get worlds up to speed fast, even in the face of enemy packets). My ally could have attacked my, and probably prevented me from winning, however, there is no way he could have won. If we hadn't allied (it was a very close alliance) I wouldn't have won. My ally was not declared a winner of the game.
Forming alliances is a big part of the game, even in 'last man standing' games. You can say that every one must be an enemy, but that is a very different game. My feeling is that the host makes it clear at the start that only one person can win, and leave it at that, if two people form an unbreakable alliance, and one of them ends up winning, then they win, and their ally loses.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Mon, 31 January 2005 11:00 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
A couple of comments:
If a player is in the top half of the score then failure to attempt to win is laziness. True, the probability of winning may be very low, but that does not equal zero. True, winning from 5th place is more difficult than winning from 1st, but 1st also has its downsides. The biggest downside is that being in first in the end-game should make you the target of all other players. Being in first also likely means that you have more management issues; more planets and production queues, more fleets to move, minerals to balance, and territory to defend.
Not being in first means that you have to work harder on the diplomatic and cooperation areas. If the first place player has twice as much economy and twice the military of the second place player it is still likely that he has significantly less economy and military power than ALL of the other players. The key is to effectively cooperate against number one. If you can do this then even a fifth place player may find himself in position to win if he plays the end-game with focus and some chances break his way.
[On Edit] My statement that, "If a player is in the top half of the score then failure to attempt to win is laziness." is entirely too harsh. I overlooked the obvious potential for real life priorities to intrude. Obviously if one has been playing a Stars! game for months and months, putting off relationships or work issues at some point one is likely to decide that increasing your time committment to properly do the diplomacy and strategic planning necessary to defeat a monster number one player is just not worth the time. My apologies for impuning anyone's work ethic.
[Updated on: Tue, 01 February 2005 10:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Mon, 31 January 2005 12:23 |
|
Kotk | | Commander | Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
I have found there only 3 types of stars! games that are interesting to play:
"last man standing",
"prearranged team" or
"all enemy" games.
Rest of the games i have found to be mostly boring.
Do these settings mean no allies? Nope. None allies whatsoever you usually have only in "may not communicate" games. Finding and motivating allies is decent part of winning any of these game types i named. Running away with score from the start so you win solo without any allies is probably possible in total novice games, for rest of skill levels its quite hard these days when all the bits of race design and economy management are discussed and explained to death.
If the player (or team) #1 is better in external relations than #3 or #4 ... well, its fault of #3 and #4, not his. If he is so good that he can exploit #2 as his loyal ally ... well, bow down to such diplo skill, guys, dont whine.
Lets say that #2 does not ally with #1 and is better in finding allies than #1 then he will soon be #1 and his best ally will probably improve into top ranks as well. Is it any better scenario for you, #3 & #4, etc. down there? I see no big differences.
Naming that #2 (who is loyal to #1) at the end as "biggest loser" does not certainly help you any, next time you meet in game its even harder to brainwash that #2 as your own kingmaker. When dust settles the "last man standing" game has only one winner. All the rest have something to learn from him. That #2 seemingly accepted it, so why dont you, guys?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: What do players think? |
Tue, 01 February 2005 22:43 |
|
|
Ptolemy wrote on Tue, 01 February 2005 20:08 | This is a common occurrence in many games. I have not voted since the end result is clearly defined.
In the rules of the game it is specified as a one winner game. The race in 2nd place is one of the losers if the game ends.
Since the 2 races together are currently very powerful and probably unbeatable, get a vote from all the players and if they wish to terminate the game, declare the 1st place player to be the winner. In a game like this, there is no satisfaction with being in 2nd place - there are no accolades and no honors to be won since the 2nd place player is just as much of a loser in teh game as any of the other players. If he is happy with that - well, that's his own choice. The most important thing is NOT to declare the alliance a winner - ONLY the 1st place player may be ceclared the winner. In this case, the 1st place player has won by being smart - getting someone to ally with him that was strong enough to provide lots of tech and be in 2nd place yet, won't attack him. I'd call it a good win.
Ptolemy
Emperor of a Thousand Suns
|
I concur with the above.
The 1st place race *won* by means other than military predominance. It could be economic dependence, political supremacy, or other means by which his government has effectively subdued the lesser empire to his will.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Wed, 02 February 2005 17:39 |
|
mlaub | | Lieutenant | Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003 Location: MN, USA | |
|
overworked wrote on Tue, 01 February 2005 21:43 |
I concur with the above.
The 1st place race *won* by means other than military predominance. It could be economic dependence, political supremacy, or other means by which his government has effectively subdued the lesser empire to his will.
- Kurt
|
Errrr. No. The game was specified as a "Last Man Standing" game, not a "One winner" game. Reread the first post, there was an addendum.
A "One winner" rule, IMO, implies that only one player will be elected victor, through whatever means necessary. So, yes, if that were the case, then the last 2 posts would be correct.
A "Last Man Standing" game implies just that. No one, other than the winner, is left standing. All other races have either stopped submitting, or have conceded through loss of planets and fleets. Having a game long ally concede victory doesn't sound right for that situation, nor do gaining advantages inherent of such a relationship.
Of course this is all a question of semantics, and the definitions are strictly my opinion. It is up to the *host* of this game to clarify this situation for the players. It is up to the *players* to abide by the hosts clarification of those rules. If the host isn't interested in interpeting and enforcing his own rules, then he should not have hosted the game.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Thu, 03 February 2005 09:41 |
|
Steve1 | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003 Location: Australia | |
|
Quote: | The most important thing is NOT to declare the alliance a winner - ONLY the 1st place player may be declared the winner. In this case, the 1st place player has won by being smart - getting someone to ally with him that was strong enough to provide lots of tech and be in 2nd place yet, won't attack him. I'd call it a good win.
|
Quote: | I concur with the above.
The 1st place race *won* by means other than military predominance.
|
Quote: | Errrr. No. The game was specified as a "Last Man Standing" game, not a "One winner" game. Reread the first post, there was an addendum.
|
Quote: | A "One winner" rule, IMO, implies that only one player will be elected victor, through whatever means necessary. So, yes, if that were the case, then the last 2 posts would be correct.
|
Quote: | A "Last Man Standing" game implies just that. No one, other than the winner, is left standing. All other races have either stopped submitting, or have conceded through loss of planets and fleets. Having a game long ally concede victory doesn't sound right for that situation, nor do gaining advantages inherent of such a relationship.
|
Quote: | Of course this is all a question of semantics, and the definitions are strictly my opinion. It is up to the *host* of this game to clarify this situation for the players. It is up to the *players* to abide by the hosts clarification of those rules. If the host isn't interested in interpeting and enforcing his own rules, then he should not have hosted the game.
|
Some interesting comments there .......
Personally I see a perspective that is somewhat intermediate between all, but that may be objective at best .....
Anyhow, I have in fact tried to remain as neutral as possible thoughout this debate, but would like to reveal that my position in the game is no. #1.
I found it very interesting to view the varied and many responses to this vote and in fact tried to give a second/third party perspective to this poll, to hopefully elicit a very honest and 1st perspective response from other players.
The vote seems to be overall based on player position and perspective. Overall players allied or friendly to no. #1 within the game, voted in favour of the status quo and players in the opposition for such a proposition voted against it.
Players not involved seemed to vote on an "approximately 50/50 basis", so were not particularly included (no offence intended).
The thing that interested me mostly, was the varied and particularly extreme positions many players took regarding this matter. It certainly is a subject for debate, but I doubt the situation could be solved by any conventional means.
In creating the poll, I tried to give voters as many options as possible, but sincerely do apologise if a viable option for you was left out. I gave the option to the "Keeping it Simple" community to submit other choices within 24 hours, but beyond that I thought it might spoil the poll.
Anyhow, the option "other" was provided "just in case" and only one person chose that, so it seems you guys had plenty of choices available.
My perspective is that unless alliances are specifically excluded, then my position is acceptable. I do understand other race's arguments on this matter, but I ask you this:
When I've been allied with the no. 2 race for a long, long time, and when we have have shared tech, ships, intercolonised for almost all of the game, then how can anyone expect my race to attack such a valuable ally. Furthermore, with such rapport, how can he attack my race? The only way to understand this position is to experience it.
Btw, Contrary to popular suggestion, my race cannot take on the universe by itself .....
We're talking some serious butt kicking here and um ... that would be against more experienced players than I. IMO I got somewhat lucky and happened to ally/friendship status with some fairly high calibre Stars players. As it happened our habs were very compatible and being IT I took advantage of this.
...
[Updated on: Thu, 03 February 2005 10:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: What do players think? |
Thu, 03 February 2005 11:15 |
|
mazda | | Lieutenant | Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003 Location: Reading, UK | |
|
Steve1 wrote on Thu, 03 February 2005 14:41 | When I've been allied with the no. 2 race for a long, long time, and when we have have shared tech, ships, intercolonised for almost all of the game, then how can anyone expect my race to attack such a valuable ally.
|
They don't. They expect the no. 2 race to attack you.
It is totally in your interest to keep him as an ally.
OTOH what would you say he was now gaining from you ?
You see, it is the attitude of "Well, I can stay 2nd, and I'll still be on *the winning side*" that is the problem.
There is no winning side.
The no.2 in the game is effectively preventing the other players from winning the game, without trying to win it themselves.
People form alliances because they are a good means to win the game. However it has to be stated that it is just as likely that they do so because it offers comfort, cameradery and generally makes things easier throughout the game.
I find it hard to believe that people going in to an alliance are thinking so far down the road that they have the foresight to manage the alliance so that it turns out in their favour (i.e. attack from within rather than without).
I'd be happy to be proved wrong though.
[Mod edit: fixed quote]
[Updated on: Thu, 03 February 2005 15:50] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Fri, 04 February 2005 08:50 |
|
Downsider | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003 Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
mlaub wrote on Wed, 02 February 2005 22:39 |
A "Last Man Standing" game implies just that. No one, other than the winner, is left standing. All other races have either stopped submitting, or have conceded through loss of planets and fleets. Having a game long ally concede victory doesn't sound right for that situation, nor do gaining advantages inherent of such a relationship.
|
This is true. However, in most Last Man Standing games I've been in, alliances have formed that follow the "I'll kill you last" scenario, where two or more races band together to wipe out all opposition before they battle it out between themselves.
Quite often though and especially in larger games, by the time that comes to pass the races are intersettled over the whole of the universe and it would require a mammoth task with tons of MM to completely kill your former ally. The game would become tedious and would remove all fun from it.
The easiest, quickest and (IMO) most enjoyable way to find a winner in these situations is the "battle royale" concept. Gather the fleets, have one massive battle and to the victor go the spoils. The race in 1st will most likely beat 2nd, but it's not impossible for #2 to win, given the right battle orders and/or race advantages (and some luck ).
If you want a true Last Man Standing game, then you need to set the rules up to disadvantage alliances. Either that or only accept bloodthirsty, paranoid players
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: What do players think? |
Fri, 04 February 2005 10:38 |
|
vonKreedon | | Lieutenant | Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003 Location: Seattle, WA USA | |
|
Downsider wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 05:50 | ...[SNIP]...
The easiest, quickest and (IMO) most enjoyable way to find a winner in these situations is the "battle royale" concept.
...[SNIP]...
If you want a true Last Man Standing game, then you need to set the rules up to disadvantage alliances. Either that or only accept bloodthirsty, paranoid players
|
To me the "Battle Royale" concept is a cop-out. It does not allow for the strategic maneuvering of forces, attempting to force or deny combat in order to set up battles that favor your side that is, for me, what is really really fun about playing the end-game. I assume that Downsider's concept involves everyone setting everyone else to Enemy, which in many end-games either means that a random race wins or that the monster number one player shows up with so many more AMP Nubs than anyone else that we might as well have simply bowed down and moved on.
I don't think that a true Last Man Standing game requires rules to disadvantage alliances, but I do agree that in any Stars! game one should strive to be a Machievellian player which would mean paranoid and selectively bloodthirsty.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: What do players think? |
Wed, 09 February 2005 20:28 |
|
Downsider | | Crewman 1st Class | Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003 Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
vonKreedon wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 15:38 |
To me the "Battle Royale" concept is a cop-out....
[snip]
I don't think that a true Last Man Standing game requires rules to disadvantage alliances....
|
I agree it's a cop out. But when 2 races refuse to fight each other to decide the winner, you might as well end the game with something of note rather than a drawn out MM fest that no-one wants.
The outcome might already be a foregone conclusion, but what does that matter when both remaining players are ready to finish the game. Besides, if #1 turns up with far more nubs than #2, then #2 hasn't been doing his job properly and deserves to lose.
IMO, if a host wants his game to be certain of finishing with a single winner then he needs hard-and-fast rules that say so. Just stating "Last man standing" is not enough as the benefits of an alliance are far too attractive.
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | |
Re: What do players think? |
Tue, 15 February 2005 12:38 |
|
platon79 | | Chief Warrant Officer 3 | Messages: 185
Registered: February 2004 Location: Norway | |
|
Crusader wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 11:59 |
Downsider wrote on Wed, 09 February 2005 19:28 |
... you might as well end the game with something of note rather than a drawn out MM fest that no-one wants...
|
Ahhh, but you don't understand. I do want it. You see, he tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him ...I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom, and 'round perdition's flames before I give him up!
[img][url]http://services.tos.net/pics/st2/st2-khan.gif[/url][/img]
|
That's the spirit!
This is my first game vs human opponents that have lasted to the nubian area, so I will not give in myself until I am utterly defeated, even though I know that it is 99% certain that there is no way I can kill those 1100+ and counting nubians of his..
I cannot win, but at least for me, the game is still a good learning experience..
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 14 22:31:38 EDT 2024
|