Re: Is this gamey?
 

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. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is rather offensive.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would like to publicly apologize to Fyron for my rude comment. Publicly commenting on another forum member's general behavior is extremely bad forum etiquite. It is distracting from the facts at hand and has no place in civilized discussion. Consider myself thuroughly spanked.

[ July 30, 2003, 22:51: Message edited by: teal ]

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you will use his tech against him. And you will use your tech and his tech against everyone else. As long as the trade is fair, both of you are better off than if you had not traded.

This point is completely independent from whether team wins are allowed or not. Players who trade will have an advantage over those who do not. Players who trade as much as they can will have an advantage over those who trade in a limited way.

Which means everyone should get into an alliance right away, correct ? Yes, however :

- Alliance-type players assume their alliance will hold until everyone else is eliminated. A clever player may turn on his allies (or create an 'alliance within the alliance') when the non-allied players are almost, but not quite, beaten. Ironically, this tactic is often called 'gamey' by alliance-type players.

- Trades are not always fair. If you are receiving less than you give then it might be better not to trade at all, or at least to find another partner.

My opinion is that full cooperation with my partners, in the long run, beats isolationism and/or backstabbing. But that's just IMO.

Re: Is this gamey?
 

True Erax. I can't disagree with that one bit. The players working together will be at an advantage. Probably not quite as big of an advantage, but still an advantage. But if the allies are not allowed to declare themselves co-winners, you can use that possibility of breaking the alliance early against them as a wedge to try and break up the alliance. It's the classic weapon that small empires can use to survive in a game with larger empires. One of my favorite ways to play actually. My empire stays small so less MM, but I get to feel like I am still a factor in the game and manipulating the other players. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Of course you can't always do it succesfully. It's a skill that takes practice and talent, just like straight up empire building does. But with co-winners it's not even an option. Give me the option of at least trying it and I can deal with being a small empire among big guys. If I only wanted to be the biggest I would make alliances and trade tech. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Is this gamey?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And you will use his tech against him. And you will use your tech and his tech against everyone else. As long as the trade is fair, both of you are better off than if you had not traded.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True, however, in an alliance game you would benefit from making one sided trades or just gifting tech to your ally. that's the kind of trading I think would stop in a Last man standing game.

[ July 31, 2003, 22:56: Message edited by: DavidG ]