Anyway I'm tired of debating point-by point about something so silly in my view. Besides, the rule pdf is meant to be a template with yes and no, so I see no harm in adding another one. You can even invent the wording Nova, how's that. It has to be more precise than "no gang bangs" though and can't have multiple interpretations so it's enforceable is all I ask.
Nova Andromeda wrote:-You should refrain from ad hominem attacks. It's not polite.
I don't see any ad hominems, or attacks on character. If you mean I've misrepresented your point, then fine, but "it sounds like an ego trip" isn't an ad hominem by any stretch of the imagination assuming that's what you meant.
-There are a few reasons for wanting someone to admit defeat. Players won't be so eager to gang up on another player that doesn't have a serious advantage in the game if they have to admit defeat first. It creates a clear point at which a player knows they can expect to be ganged up on and she can then decide to quit right then instead of wondering if the other players are really teamed up against her (I didn't know you had formed that alliance in Adamant even if I prepared for it). The players can work out a reasonable match up at that point instead of creating a complete mismatch (I guess that is what happened in B5, but I wasn't there).
Wondering is part of the fun in RP games.
Gups didn't complain in B5 because of a mismatch. It was something else but let's not get into it.
As for clear point, I do not see why it's necessary at all. You will see partnerships in the treaty grid (we would've all partnered up in one or two turns) and you can quit.
If necessary you can quit when you see two fleets coming for you. You can quit when two fleets destroy your one fleet. It's possible for anybody to quit any time.
-One can't be very certain what is going on from just the treaty grid.
Why exactly is there a need for certainty?
-The AI is always given unreasonable bonuses in computer games to make it competative since AI's can't match a good player without such handicaps. This is totally different from player vs. player. We generally don't give one player 2X the resource production rate for instance.
I'll give you that, but you kind of missed the point.
The AI has a clear definition when it's okay to gang up. You don't, except that 2 versus 1 is not okay because resource bases are uneven (I assume that's what you meant by the soccer example). That's wrong, as Nephtys' counter point and practical examples show. It's not the number of players, but the resource and technology base, and sometimes skill, that determines whether one group versus another are evenly matched.
-No, but it would mean players could stay in the game even after defeat. One of the arguments made was that you guys wanted to keep the maximum # of players playing and that gang banging was a good way to do that.
Yeah but I doubt players would like being restricted from making alliances of necessity and being taken out one by one with some reassurance that later they're subjugated if they lose.
-I don't know much about the ST game, but you missed the point here. Eliminating gang bangs doesn't eliminate complex multiplayer war senarios. It was argued that getting rid of gang bangs would prevent multiplayer war senarios.
Why is that a problem? 2 versus one is unfair? Why is it unfair? If your point is about uneven resource base, that is wrong as evidenced by the fact that sometimes two weaker players do not have as much resources or technology as a stronger player, for example you in Adamant were more powerful and technologically advanced than all of us and would have won most likely barring major catastrophe.
The bloodiest wars in history were not fought by equal numbers of opponents.
-A backstabber isn't likely to get many allies in the future are they? In any event, that risk is taken regardless of whether an alliance is fighting another alliance or a lone player.
No. If you make allies with someone, they can bypass your wormhole defenses. First shot is crucial in most modifications, and can usually hold off a 2 to one disadvantage or greater in stock at least and in most mods. First shot is so important that if there's a stupid ally who shares the same sector as you and won't move and there's an enemy fleet bearing down on you with 3x or 4x the numbers it's necessary to declare war. As for allies in the future, yes people have long memories, but that's again the reason for the "attacking the turn right after" rules for all the treaties to explicitly spell out backstabbing conditions. If the rule isn't active well... you take the risk with an alliance.
-You don't need to actually combine fleets. You just need them to arrive at the same target at the same time. Also see my point on backstabbers.
Sorry, that's wrong. Ask Dalton. His ships all arrived in small groups and were annihilated by Dilgar. Combat happens every five days (30 days in a turn) and depending on ship movement your entire fleet can be destroyed before your new one comes in (also depending on the modification). Also in ST Mod if I didn't have Nephtys fusion cubes to soak damage I would've lost more than half my fleet.
Usually, after thirty turns of combat, it's over. Covenant was thinking of changing that with his mod and making ultra durable ships but even in Adamant unless something strange happens like crystalline technology, one combat and it's over.
-Ah, the irony. You should ask Trogdor about my diplomatic skills and my ability to coordinate alliances before saying such things. Sometimes I don't mind when people completely underestimate me (as you did in the Adamant game), but I don't want to hear any complaints if I make full use of the options you are so keen on keeping.
You are worried that I'll complain? Or that other people will?
You do not need to. I do not care. I don't speak for other people though. The only thing I ask is you make alliances based on in-game considerations instead of who's your friend in RL.
-I'm not sure I'll have the time to create a new empire by then. If you have time you could create one for me. I like research bonuses, but if tech. isn't primarily researched in this game drop that to 0. I like to weight my resource production based on the primary resource needed for the empire. I like bonus ship yard rates. Maint. should be minimal. Extra planet facility space is a must have as well as at least one extra propulsion rate. I don't need extra supply. I'll take gas giants again and a random atmosphere (not O2 though). Everything else I leave to you....
You need to upload an empire as a placeholder so I can replace it then when I make the turn. I can't upload for you.
Sometimes I don't mind when people completely underestimate me (as you did in the Adamant game)
Incorrect. I knew declaring war on you was suicide (ask Trogdor) and I knew from the very beginning when I saw your research skyrocket and my own stagnate at 17k that I had lost
. It was earlier than turn 30. May have been turn 10 or 15, when I decided to build research outpost. Research outpost is a losing strategy and I knew it and I knew I could never keep up but I kept playing since it was well, damn fun.
Why did I do it then? I got sick of seeing your planets in my space and I also didn't know that graviton hellbore fighters could outrange weapons platform PD. But that's not the point, I already knew any fleet of yours could destroy mine so even if my planets hadn't gotten glassed it would have been inevitable. I was hoping five or four on one might beat it, but to be honest 250k research is a nearly impossible barrier.
Brian
.