| Ending a game by voting |
Mon, 06 February 2006 21:43  |
|
 LEit |
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
This came up in the Sanity game, but since I think it applies to other gase as well, here are my thoughts on ending a game by voting:
My preference on voting is it has to be unanimous for all active players. I'm not sure if it should be open or secret. But in either case if there is just one nay, most often the leader can figure out who, and attempt to convince them to change their vote.
The vote is only held when some one nominates a player for victory, you can nominate anyone, including yourself, everyone else tells the host (or everyone) if they accept the victor or denies it.
After hearing one person mention that the person winning refused to accept that because he wanted to grind everything down (and the other players didn't want to drop, but figured the game had already been decided) I have modified it some: The person nominating and the person nominated cannot vote against the victor.
I informally used this method in one game by claiming victory. One person disagreed, and a few turns later I'd convinced him of his mistake.
I've also formally used this method in a game I hosted, and one player nominated another to call attention to that other player, that vote failed, but broke up a long standing alliance that the nominated player had.
One problem I could see is if two players get stuck where neither can make much progress against the other, and neither is willing to conceed the game. Of course, if they cannot make progress, then the game isn't truly over.
The other is if two allied players both want to exterminate everything else, and the other players want to end the game, but don't want to drop.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ending a game by voting |
Mon, 06 February 2006 22:35  |
|
|
|
Well, in the case where 2 allied players are stomping on the universe and simply don't want to end the game, all other players can end the game anyway since the alliance can be considered as one winning player for the purpose of the vote. If the game has a single player victory condition then the 2 allied players either must determine a winner between them (or the highest score simply has to apply). Those allied players do have the option of continueing by themselves to see who will ultimately win.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ending a game by voting |
Mon, 06 February 2006 23:13 |
|
|
|
I always liked the idea of players declaring themselves the winner and allowing the other players to object..obviously, declaring yourself the winner is an objection to all other declarers..thus if only one player declares and no-one objects then they win...kinda like voting but sorta backwards...has the advantage of everyone knowing who to stomp on to get a clear vote.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ending a game by voting |
Tue, 07 February 2006 00:44 |
|
|
|
Hmmm, I guess you could add this to the game rules:
All NAP and alliance agreements automatically include the following exit clause: "If a player is nominated for victory, and the only people that don't vote for that player are allied to that player, then those alliances become null and void 3 gens after the results of the voting are presented."
That would give a means for all players to be able to honourably break up otherwise 'unbreakable' alliances.
Of course you can't _force_ people to fight each other, but at least this gets rid of one more possible end-game barrier to total victory...
[Updated on: Tue, 07 February 2006 00:44] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ending a game by voting |
Tue, 07 February 2006 01:03 |
|
| LEit |
| Lt. Commander |
Messages: 879
Registered: April 2003
Location: CT | |
|
I was thinking one winner only. Winner may thank whoever they want in post game write up of course.
And in the game I was in where I declared victory, the person who objected was my ally up until that point. We'd mostly kept seperate, so didn't need much of an exit clause. The game I hosted, the declaration of victory did end an alliance.
As host, I don't like to put any limits on what players agree to, (limiting what they can set each other to is fine, what they choose to do within that is up to them) so I wouldn't require NAP exit clauses to have anything in them. However, a suggestion would be fine.
- LEitReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
