Is this gamey?

[teal]

Yes. What happened was I saw a post and said, "oh look a message by Fyron I bet I'll be extremely ticked off by it" and sure enough I was... I probably would not have been ticked off if any one else had said the same thing.

I suppose I object to the use of the word "opinion". It is not actually my opinion, but the way the game is set up (i.e. it IS the default position of the game that Last man standing determines the winner. It is clearly written in the code for all to read...

And furthermore I 100% agree that victory conditions should be declared before game start. The question was what should be the default position if regretably they are not...

And yes Fyron. People can stop playing whenever they want to. That does not mean that according the rules of the game they have determined a winner (they have not), but it does mean that according to the rules of society they have determined a winner. In this situation I personally would prefer to follow the rules of society, but it is not my "opinion" that the rules of the game are different. It is fact...

[ July 30, 2003, 19:30: Message edited by: teal ]

[DavidG]

Originally posted by teal:
However, I do wish that there was a way to end a game with a mutually agreed upon single winner say when one empire takes over 3/4 of the known galaxy and it is only a matter of time before the others fall.

I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:

---

Originally posted by teal:
However, I do wish that there was a way to end a game with a mutually agreed upon single winner say when one empire takes over 3/4 of the known galaxy and it is only a matter of time before the others fall.

I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.

---

I cannot recall ever having a game where an obviously defeated foe would not conceed the game if asked. Very few people enjoy dragging out a game which they serve no purpose in. I have stayed in a few sometimes beyond when I had a chance, but there were still viable empires and the issue of the winner was very much in doubt. So in that case I wasn't holding up the end of the game or anything.

There are also victory conditions other then LMS. I don't particulaly like score as a determining factor between empires that are close in power, but the "Quadrant at peace" victory condition is a good one. Because if anyone still thinks they have a shot at winning and aren't in first place they can simply declare war on someone and the game continues.

Geoschmo

[Fyron]

I probably would not have been ticked off if any one else had said the same thing.

That is rather offensive.

I would say there is. Tell the host to declare the game over. I don't think most hosts (me included) expect the eventualy winner to hunt down every Last ship and mine.

Exactly. It is silly to expect the winner to have to go crush every Last ship and planet on the map.

[DavidG]

Originally posted by teal:
I never really understood the idea that "if people understood that it was a Last man standing game they would be more hesitant to trade technology".

Well I think many (such as myself) might be a bit hesitant to trade or give away that really expensive tech when you know it will eventually be used against you.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by teal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loser:
Garrison Kielor?

I shouldn't refer to cultural icons since this is a worldwide forum. My apologies. I might have spelled his name wrong. He is the host of "A Prarie Home Companion" on National Public Radio in the U.S. where "All the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average"

---

LOL!
Isn't that supposed to be "All the men are strong, all the women are good looking, and all the children are above average"

[geoschmo]

I think that we all will never agree on whether one winner or team winners is better, but we don't need to. What we can all agree on is that it should be stated up fron if team winners will be allowed. Because if one person is playing on the assumption that there will be only one winner, and two people are playing with the assumption that they will be team winners, the single person is going to get stomped almost every time. It's not fair to simply say that "Well he should have got an ally then" because many people don't like playing that way. If you tell them up front there will be team winners they will probably pick another game. If you tell them up front that there will me only one winner the two people can still ally, but they will probably not cooperate quite as closely. They will only help the other guy as much as is neccesary to remove the other empires. Which gives the guy more or less going it alone a more level playing field.

So the moral is state the objectives up front and stick to it.

Geoschmo