Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » What do players think?
What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 11:37 Go to next message
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. Shocked
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. Confused

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. Trophy

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. Cheers

If you could vote and give feedback that would great.
I'd like to hear both perspectives, so feel free to share your opinions. Yes No


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 Smile







[Updated on: Sat, 15 January 2005 12:54]

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 12:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Staz is currently offline Staz

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 514
Registered: November 2003
Location: UK
I voted "it would spoil the game", but every player has the right to lose if they want to - there was another discussion here a while back along similar lines.

If I were hosting this game, and the top "team" was looking unbeatable, I'd be inclined to offer the other players the opportunity to end the game immediately.

Alternatively, declare the #1 player the winner and then allow the game to continue as an "everyone against the winner" affair Wink

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 12:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Staz wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 11:25

I voted "it would spoil the game", but every player has the right to lose if they want to


I agree with Staz that it would spoil the game.

I don't agree with the argument that everyone has the right to lose in the type of game, and in the fashion described...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.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne is currently offline Wayne

 
Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 74
Registered: November 2002
Location: New Zealand
One winner game, well thats simple isn't it the player in the 1st position slot is declared the winner.

Last man standing/one winner it's still the player in the number one slot isn't it?




Wayne

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 13:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
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 14:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
I play this game for fun. I get more fun with winning a game, and the ultimate fun is winning a really hard game. The situation you described gives me no fun, regardless on which side I would be.

If I'd be the game host I'd demand the leading alliance to break apart. If they wouldn't obey I'd kick out both players Evil or Very Mad and then check with remaining players what could be done with the game. Just allowing the rest of players to take their planets could lead to serious imbalance (an IS with its flying orgy or a SS with Robber Barron would have a big advantage). Proclaiming most of kicked players' planets off-limits could help, giving just some to each of remaining players for refuell/relay/repair purposes.

My my 2 cents.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 14:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
BlueTurbit

 
Lt. Commander

RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011

Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas
Laughing Some people just whine and whine and whine.
I recall many a game where there was only to be one winner and alliances formed.
I remember a few games where I was in first place until an alliance came along and chopped me down. The alliance continued until game end. Did I bitch? No. I just continued playing and had some fun, even though I was unable to convince other races of the dangers of this alliance early in the game.
I especially recall the series of championship games hosted by StarMaster. Even the final Championship game "Hall of Fame" ended up with two sides playing against each other. Yet, in the end there was but one champion. Did anyone bitch? I don't remember that. We just played until there was a winner.
So based on my expeience in many games of this type over the past several years, I would say it is par for the course, and to call it cheating or a spoiler is ridiculous IMO. Sounds more like losers whining about the likely outcome than any rule violation. If you don't want alliances to form then you should clearly state such in the game rules. Otherwise it has been my experience there will always be alliances to contend with. And I haven't seen many players attacking each other in the end game after they spent most of the game intercolonizing and trading tech, etc., one-winner or not.
So quit your griping and take your lumps as they come. If you can't beat them, join them. Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 18:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orca

 
Chief Warrant Officer 1

Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ...
Declare #1 the winner. #2 is just the highest rated loser. Smile


Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 19:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Staz is currently offline Staz

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 514
Registered: November 2003
Location: UK
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 Smile


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.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sat, 15 January 2005 21:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

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 Smile


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 01:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carn is currently offline Carn

 
Officer Cadet 4th Year

Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003
Steve1 wrote on Sat, 15 January 2005 17:37



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 Smile




I guess the only differences is that "one winner" does not include any criteria, while "last man standing" has the criteria, that no other race inhabits any planets.

Carn

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sun, 16 January 2005 01:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carn is currently offline Carn

 
Officer Cadet 4th Year

Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003
How do you know that #2 will not attack #1?

Maybe he is just waiting for a better position and therefore still proclaims his loyality to keep #1 from noticing, he is waiting for a better situation and starts working against this possiblity, which would lead to a to early war for #2.

And since you cannot be sure about #2 intents, you can argue, that as long as #2 is strong enough to threaten #1, winner cannot be declared, as #1 could still be brought down in the further game.


Carn

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Sun, 16 January 2005 19:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

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. Smile

[Updated on: Sun, 16 January 2005 19:12]

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 01:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Carn is currently offline Carn

 
Officer Cadet 4th Year

Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003
Coyote wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 01:11

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. Smile


Maybe he can, depending on the treaty, also get a better position without braking the treaty, though of course only helps if he is not to far off.

Carn

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 08:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
platon79 is currently offline platon79

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 185
Registered: February 2004
Location: Norway
Well, last man standing is last man standing.
But if two races intercolonize, tech-trade etc etc from the very beginning, that would give them a huge advantage compared to the other races...
But will eventually lead to problems such as this one, when the 2 races have cooperated so much that they will not attack each other, ever. And that will spoil the game for the rest.
My conclusion:
"Last man standing"-games should have restrictions on how close you can ally!
That way, this problem will not occur. So remember this, those of you who want to host the new Last man standing-game. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 08:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve1

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia
Quote:

"Last man standing"-games should have restrictions on how close you can ally!


Might help to have a rule wherin all races must set each other to enemy after a given year, somewhere between 2450 - 2500. Surprised


Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 08:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve1

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia
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. Rolling Eyes

Besides, who wants a reputation as a backstabber? Just means for future games that potential allies might be far less trusting. Razz


[Updated on: Mon, 17 January 2005 08:46]

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 10:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
There should be other sort of voting system where such sentenses can be marked disagree/agree. Smile

Arrow The players are well within their rights to not attack each other.
I agree. They are not breaking game rules.

Arrow This situation would spoil the game.
I agree. It often does. At least it sure spoils the game idea. To beat #1 and #2 allied you got to form wide solid alliance and if you finally manage to beat them its hard to make the new #1 and #2 to attack each other. What spoils the game lot more are drop-out players. One can at least fight with mean alliance. Drop-out is worse playmate than AI.

Arrow I've seen this happen in a lot of games.
I agree. I have won their alliance, i have usually lost to them. All happens. I must say i have long time not seen anyone winning solo victor game without allies.

Arrow It's annoying.
I agree. But this does not always spoil my fun. There are lot more annoying things. So should i drop dead? Never.

Arrow I'm okay with it.
I agree. If i can win without they attacking each other i try to win it. If i cant win, but some 3th guy can, i try to be his kingmaker. The game is over only when all agree its over. The idea is to have fun.

Arrow I've done myself this a couple of times.
I agree. However i am rarely #1 or #2 in score before end. My races have usually other qualities. I always try to trade tech and planets if its allowed by game rules. I have won solo victory game being in NAP with the guy who was #1 in score. All voted i won so i won it. Cool Who can demand that fellow player fight me to find out if i really can wipe floor with him or no?

Arrow What are you whining about, just get on with the game.
I agree.

With rest of the things i disagree. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 18:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Steve1 wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 05:43

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.


Besides, who wants a reputation as a backstabber? Just means for future games that potential allies might be far less trusting. Razz


In a one winner game, you shouldn't be so trusting. Very Happy

In a game that allows alliance wins, backstabbing like that would be self defeating - unless someone else gives you a better alliance offer.

Basically - you can trust someone only as far as you are useful to them. This is true in any game setting. If you want to have a solid alliance, you need to help each other out a lot and give each other a reason to be loyal.

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Mon, 17 January 2005 19:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

Kotk wrote on Mon, 17 January 2005 07:59



Arrow I've done myself this a couple of times.
I agree. However i am rarely #1 or #2 in score before end. My races have usually other qualities. I always try to trade tech and planets if its allowed by game rules. I have won solo victory game being in NAP with the guy who was #1 in score. All voted i won so i won it. Cool Who can demand that fellow player fight me to find out if i really can wipe floor with him or no?




This is why I like voting for win (with no public scores). A skillful player can bluff his way to victory by charisma and cunning diplomacy, without having to actually fight. It makes intelligence gathering and roleplaying a lot more important. It also gives a pacifist race that loves everyone a chance to win by trade instead of bombing.


[Updated on: Mon, 17 January 2005 19:04]

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Tue, 18 January 2005 00:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve1

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia
Quote:

I have won solo victory game being in NAP with the guy who was #1 in score. All voted i won so i won it. Who can demand that fellow player fight me to find out if i really can wipe floor with him or no?


Quote:

This is why I like voting for win (with no public scores). A skillful player can bluff his way to victory by charisma and cunning diplomacy, without having to actually fight. It makes intelligence gathering and roleplaying a lot more important. It also gives a pacifist race that loves everyone a chance to win by trade instead of bombing.


Okay I don't get that. If you have a NAP with another player you can still opt to end it at some point and if the #1 player doesn't get voted for, then that player could still challenge the one voted winner. If the #1 player is far enough ahead and accepts the vote as legitimate, then that's just silly on their part. Silly hair


Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Tue, 18 January 2005 00:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve1

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia
Quote:

In a one winner game, you shouldn't be so trusting.

In a game that allows alliance wins, backstabbing like that would be self defeating - unless someone else gives you a better alliance offer.

Basically - you can trust someone only as far as you are useful to them. This is true in any game setting. If you want to have a solid alliance, you need to help each other out a lot and give each other a reason to be loyal.


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 Shocked

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. 2 Guns


[Updated on: Tue, 18 January 2005 00:44]

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Tue, 18 January 2005 01:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

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 Shocked

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. 2 Guns



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. Shocked
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. Twisted Evil
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 02:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve1

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia
Quote:

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


I've always wondered how much more it must cost to protect against an ally you can't trust. You certainly need extra ships kept aside just in case and then your ally sees those extra ships and raises the stake. You in turn might be inclined to do the same ..... Lurking

Meanwhile those ships could have been used in the assault or defense against your current opponent.
Furthermore all your planets of any worth must have a decent amount of defences and a powerful starbase. Thumbs Down

My question is: how do you achieve any good results when you're having to concern yourself with a backstab all the time?

I'm not saying that I'd never ally with someone whom had previously backstabbed me, but I certainly wouldn't set them to friend and intercolonisation would only occur (if at all), to a very limited degree. Personally I think it would be better to go to war with someone you don't trust and ally with someone you do, but sure there's always exceptional circumstances.
my 2 cents

Report message to a moderator

Re: What do players think? Tue, 18 January 2005 02:53 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

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

Previous Topic: Are u obsessed with SAH?
Next Topic: In-Game Messaging
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 22:32:10 EDT 2024