Home World Forum: The Bar » Sense of playing a senseless game?

Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Sense of playing a senseless game?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Sense of playing a senseless game?

Tue, 16 August 2011 17:20

Galien

Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 31
Registered: October 2008
Location: Nodnol

Centaurian wrote on Tue, 16 August 2011 05:46

AlexTheGreat wrote on Mon, 15 August 2011 22:42

The picture has degenerated badly. We probably would not have played this game if we had realised that it might become 2 teams of 4 &, had we done so, we would have designed our team accordingly.

I know I didn't plan for 2 teams of 4. I planned to win (which is still my intent) and put in a lot of effort into the design of races with my partner. We discussed as many possibilities as we could think of and built around them. NAP's and tech exchange were clearly always a possibility. As was/is the possibility of being attacked on more than one front. I know how my team planned to deal with it. You certainly should have considered it. So it seems your real gripe is the tech exchange.

The comments of the 4th team are conspicuous by their absence, especially if they are aware of your concerns.

Centaurian.

I tend not to check the forum too much after a game has started.
I thought things were going along fine. Crying or Very Sad

I was not aware of the concerns until I read the forum a hour ago.
I have given my tuppence in the game forum but for those not in the game and interested. Basically I expected trading between teams and think its too early for this team trading to have had much effect ... in fact its possible the MT trades were more significant. I think it would be a great shame if the game ended so soon.

Report message to a moderator

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 Smile

. 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 13:50

BlueTurbit

Lt. Commander

RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011

Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas

My sarcasm mixed with irony at times. Or display of anger in these "senseless" threads is no different, in fact probably milder, than some past posts. For example, recently, those made between ma@ and Nmid and others in the Mac is a cheater threads. In fact Ron even locked up a couple of those threads. Smile

Were their reputations doomed? I seriously doubt it. I still regard these people highly. And don't hold it against them for expressing some extreme emotions on rare occasions.

And there is a much longer history here than a few recent posts.
As you well know. You've been here long enough.

BlueTurbit Country/Rock

Report message to a moderator

Re: Sense of playing a senseless game?

Thu, 18 August 2011 20:27

XyliGUN

Ensign
Stars! V.I.P

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. Smile

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". Wink

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. Cool

[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 Love

Report message to a moderator

Re: Sense of playing a senseless game?

Thu, 18 August 2011 20:37

XyliGUN

Ensign
Stars! V.I.P

Messages: 325
Registered: July 2004
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg

TRSMMaiden wrote

... we (though majority definitely Blue who has been essentially training me to hopefully be a stronger player in future)...

Also BlueTurbit remember me to play a team game with you somewhere in the future, seems like you are a good in doing all the dirty work in planning/testing for the game. Razz

"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 Love

Report 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. Laughing

BlueTurbit Country/Rock

Report message to a moderator

Pages (2): [ « ‹ 1 2]

Previous Topic:	Annoyed with Germanium
Next Topic:	Surrender

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

Current Time: Wed May 01 20:44:50 EDT 2024