| Re: EYITYOTG has ended |
Wed, 08 June 2016 17:30   |
|
 ManicLurch |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 462
Registered: May 2009 | |
|
Quote:"Please reply yes/no if you agree that the Illuminati / Coders have won. A majority of votes either way decides."
I voted yes for the Coder/Illuminati team to win. I did not vote for the Crushers.
Part of this confusion is that I also called for a vote at the same time you did, declaring the Illumaniti/Crushers winners. I didn't realize until I read the forum that someone else had also called for a vote. I thought the host had made a mistake in his email when the vote was for Coders/Illumaniti.
Quote:you organized your game-play in a way that made it nearly impossible for you to sort it out again to conform with the victory condition
Before the 3 of us started cooperating we were all willing to let the other two have the victory. We were confused by someone else calling for a different vote at the same time.
Quote: It took a three player team to take down the DC/GG team. That is clearly breaking the rules of the game
Quote:take part with obvious different interpretations of the rules, or let's call it spirit of the game
I am sorry if you think we broke the rules or spirit of the game. Our intention at the time was survival.
Quote:The sad thing, though, it could had been even a lot more exciting game without that kind of 5-player-alliance that after a while developed as those games usually do: devasting, single-sided and without a real challenge. And as strong as the Guards and Dreamclouds were in the first 60 turns, I am not sure wether we could had won.
We didn't believe this. Your team was very close to owning the entire middle. That would mean all those planets would be so easy to defend. The game would have ended up singled sided if we hadn't worked together. No one would have come close to stopping you. That is what we believe.
This is not the first time this has happened in a game set up for two player victory, I have been on the other side of this and didn't have an issue with it then:
http://starsautohost.org/sahforum2/index.php?t=msg&th=52 91&start=0&rid=0&S=b2e1b27fb123acd91d8c75b338fb6 65e
Quote:Let me dive a bit into the history of our games here at autohost to explain my problem: Diplomacy is a very powerful part of Stars and some like it and some not. To get rid of the diplomacy part the non-communication-games were introduced. Those are too lonely for me while the diplomacy games bore me. For those like me the games with a hard alliance restriction were introduced (I think originally by Wizard) to allow one ally but no super-alliances. Our game followed those settings, so I was surprised and a bit disappointed to see that also this setting was somehow hijacked by the diplomacy players. My problem is, the way our game developed, I have lost the last defined set of game rules I find fun and thrill to play.
Those reasons are why I started and played in the Dynamic Duos series.
Quote:to allow one ally but no super-alliances.
I think this needs to be explicitly stated if that is the intent. The game rules on said 2 victors and the restriction on friend/neutral status. It didn't say anything else about cooperation limits. I think you can have a rule set that would still allow communication but limit alliances to two players. First state that alliances are limited to 2 players, I realize what an alliance is is subjective. But to make it more concrete say something like no intersettling, no ship transfers (you can transfer a ship to someone you have set to nuetral), something like that.
I wasn't trying to mess up the game. I wanted to surive and make the game more competitive, which I think we did. If you think we didn't follow the rules you can declare the DC/Guards winners.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
