Slynky's Demise

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Sounds like you enjoy the challenge and don't enjoy the backstabbing. Just summing up for my next point: Start a game with pre-defined allies and the rule that if one side has, say, 25-50% more score than the other, they automatically win. No backstabbing, no one-sided battles.

Just suggesting; if you decide not to play at all, that's your choice.

[Roanon]

I can understand you, Slynky. Although I have less problems with declaring war on someone I "just" have a trade alliance with. When it is standard to have a trade alliance with everyone and the game is Last man standing, everyone should know that these kind of alliances are very temporary. I too like Ruatha's NGC series - partnership with only 1 other, and a partnership of 2 can win. This way, you can choose one trusted ally and, at least in my style of play, stick to it without backstabbing.

But I can understand that it becomes boring at the start of these games if trades are allowed. Considering the importance of colonization tech and alien breathers, you MUST trade or suffer defeat, and I hate this diplomacy-like game approach too. I also liked the KOTH due to the lack of that game aspect, but it has a too narrow focus eliminating too many game choices. It starts with setup where little choices are left if you don't want to be handicapped from start. And after you have learned the optimum strategy the game is more dominated by luck and starting placement than by skill.

I know it is not enforcable by setup, just by trusting the players not to break houserules, but wouldn't it be fun to play a game where you can't trade at all and breaking of treaties has to be announced one turn ahead? Would you have fun to play such a type of game, Slynky?

[Roanon]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Sounds like you enjoy the challenge and don't enjoy the backstabbing. Just summing up for my next point: Start a game with pre-defined allies and the rule that if one side has, say, 25-50% more score than the other, they automatically win. No backstabbing, no one-sided battles.

Just suggesting; if you decide not to play at all, that's your choice.

Make it 400% of the score of the second, we had this in NGC3, and it still will not be fully decided. Depends on the number of players. Plus, it can be frustrating if there is a winning empire in one end of the galaxy and your fleets has not even reached its borders when victory and game end is declared.
What I do not like with pre-defined alliances is that you are depending on the skill - or lack thereof - of your allies. I prefer to choose partners in game depending on their success and skill, or not to ally at all.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Roanon said:

Make it 400% of the score of the second, we had this in NGC3, and it still will not be fully decided. Depends on the number of players. Plus, it can be frustrating if there is a winning empire in one end of the galaxy and your fleets has not even reached its borders when victory and game end is declared.
What I do not like with pre-defined alliances is that you are depending on the skill - or lack thereof - of your allies. I prefer to choose partners in game depending on their success and skill, or not to ally at all.

The cumulative score of all the players on one side.

[geoschmo]

Well, at first I was a little disturbed. This was turning into the week when everyone quit playing SE4. But it's good to hear you are going to stick around and continue playing 1x1 games.

To enjoy multiplayer diplomacy, you really have to be the kind of person that can separate what happens in the game from what is outside of the game. Not everyone can do that, but that's ok.

[Roanon]

I don't think that is exactly the point, although some truth may be in it especially in this extreme dislike of any sudden change of in-game politics.
I can very well separate in-game diplomacy and outside of the game, and have no problems to change the attitude of my rulers from game to game even when dealing with the same players. I still to not enjoy the diplomatic part. It is just no fun for me - a matter of personal taste. Although I seem to have a higher tolerance level for this than Slynky, and do not take it that serious if someone does the inevitable step to stab in a game where there can only be one. After all, it's only a game, although it still hurts if you see an empire crumble and fall that has costed you a lot of time and effort to build up.

[Slynky]

Roanon seems to feel just about the same way I do.

A long time ago, I was, it seemed, perpetually the DM for Dungeons and Dragons games (just about every weekend). I had a partition where I keeped my notes, maps, books, dice, etc. When I started, I rolled all the dice out in front so the players could see what they showed. But after a while, I started rolling the dice behind the partition and just announcing the results. You see, I hated rolling a 1 or 2 on the percentile dice (for chance to be hit) and then roll for damage and get a whopping roll that killed a character. I hated seeing the look on the player's face to see a character s/he had built up for weeks or months get killed.

Playing a game of SE4 for months (or over a year), like Anklebiters and then "rolling the dice" to pinpoint the next target is like the game of D&D I was talking about. Nor do I like it when 2 or 3 other players in a game decide MY time is up. In both instances, the poor "wilderbeast" singled out of the herd for "eating" by the lions has got to be asking his 4-legged god, "Why me?!"

Throw in allies who are backstabbers and allies who make mistakes... well, you can see how it additionally affects your game and you have a recipe for disatisfaction. Well, at least I do

[deccan]

geoschmo said:
Well, at first I was a little disturbed. This was turning into the week when everyone quit playing SE4. But it's good to hear you are going to stick around and continue playing 1x1 games.

Well, no game Lasts forever. But I'd bet interest will pick up and this board will fill back up with new players again when Aaron Hall gets around to releasing SEV.

[Atrocities]

Backstabbing allies, hum, sounds like the real world.

[tesco samoa]

Geo I did not say i was leaving pbw... just that it was my Last seiv pbw game.

Slynky as for backstabbing and multiplayer games. This is all part of multiplayer games when only one player can win.

Hence why many games have the allied victory or when people feel it is time to end the game.

Take ankle. You have given the game to rex. The combination of you and rex and atom cannot be stopped. I say end the game. YOu 3 can figure out what you want to do with the victory. Judging by the post. Atom would go down next then you would surrender to rex. So lets end that game as the rest of us cannot stop that.

Now I know your at the point where this is causing you to hate the game.

You need to walk away from it for a few weeks.

Your a good player and a good member of the se community who has put alot of effort into this community. Do not let ingame experience ruin this envolvement with the community. I personally would be disappointed if you left or if you stopped doing a pasttime that you enjoyed. There are still aspects of it that you enjoy so take a breather. Your talking about it. Thats good. Go enjoy the long weekend and do not look at se or think about it.

Then on tuesday read this thread over and carry on with what parts you enjoy.