Requirements for winning a game and having it posted

[Ragnars Wolves]

I ran across something kind of strange and am looking for some clarifacation about what constitutes a win, and who will oversee that it is a valid win. I myself don't have any hope of being in the winners circle so to speak so I have no axe to grind.

However, I think the players who HAVE made that accomplishment should be looked up to and not have it watered down by wins that perhaps whould not be counted.

I was purusing the forum the other day and came across an interesting game name so I thought I would see who was playing and try to pick up some pointers from the thread. I was very suprised what I saw...

There is one player playing agianst 4 to 5 nations left in a game. But all but 2 of the nations are AI and the other 2 have been abandoned (one has 19 stales and the other 14 stales).
the player left has announced that he should be the winner since no one is left (one of the nations is almost STILL even with the player after 19 stales).

I have noticed that he is playing out the game and has made it clear that he intends to be declared the winner and log it in the winners circle (or whatever you want to call it).

Maybe it isn't my business to mention this and I am not the one to determine if it is kosher or not, but it seems I could set up a number of games and be up there in the HOF with the legends if I wanted to win this way.

Someone with some rank might want to check it out and see what is going on...hell, for all I know he didn't really mean it when he said he was going to claim a win, and is just playing staling players for the fun of it.

Game is called NewbBunkers and is on the other forum if anyone cares

[Septimius Severus]

Wraithlord might be able to tell you more and the Hall of Fame/Honor thread might state some other requirement, but seems to me that many times just being there, sticking it out for the long haul, can win you a game. How valid it is or not, is not for me to say, though hate to rob someone of a default win. Unless the victory conditions say something other than last player standing.

[Gandalf Parker]

This has often been debated.
On the one hand you have the serious competitors who want all games to be decided purely by strategy to a single person so that they can judge themselves against each other like battle ladders in other games.

On the other hand, some people are more interested in seeing the games strange concept of balance be vindicated. And in just giving kudus even if its in a less serious and more-for-fun game.

Some of the more serious wargamers dislike wins that are allied wins, wins by turtling, or wins on really large maps which they feel is a win just by putting up with micromanagement more than other people can. They dislike wins by certain tactics even if its a feature that is built-into that nation on purpose. The points are justified. To do a decent ladder would require an agreement on game settings, lower random settings, map size or even agreeing on one balanced map. There are threads discussing that and how to make the game results less affected by luck at the games initial creation. But as far as winning because everyone else went AI or stopped playing, Im not sure you will get an agreement on that. If a player gives up, then they give up. Does it matter when and how they give up as far as deciding who won?

Any kind of ladder rating has been fought here. What we do have is less strict than that but I still find it useful in arguments about nations to prove that any nation can win, just that its features might lend itself more to a certain type of dom3 game other than king-of-the-hill on medium sized maps. I like that it records all kinds of games, all kinds of wins. Im not as interested in who won, as much as what they won with.

There is a Dom3 forum at dom3mods where its apparently been said the serious dom3 gamers hang out. You might check there. They might be interested in a ladder competition.

[TheConway]

What is it w/gandalf and thinking that everyone at dom3mods is some hyper-competitive pro-gamer? Sombre (the founder as I understand it) only plays casual games of ~6-8 players that I've seen. Tbh, having lurked for some time here, Gandalf talks more about a dom3 "ladder" than just about anyone else. The only things that people at dom3mods seem to take more seriously than people here are staling and setting AI. Balance doesn't seem like its really some huge issue over there, except when it comes to posts on the CBM thread, which is understandable.

[Fantomen]

I looked at the game thread of NewBunker. I'd say it's a valid win, Earacaxe can't help that other players were being douchebags and bailed out of the end game. And it was a quite standard game to begin with. I have no idea if he intends to list it in the HOF, but IMO he could if he wants to.

[Ragnars Wolves]

Thanks guys, it seems that a standard has been set and i applaud the outcome...congrats to earcaraxe.

Now I know not to give in when everyong calls for 'exhaustion' in a game and just ride it out, not sure I have the Patiance...but will dang sure give it a try!!

[Amhazair]

Originally Posted by TheConway

What is it w/gandalf and thinking that everyone at dom3mods is some hyper-competitive pro-gamer? Sombre (the founder as I understand it) only plays casual games of ~6-8 players that I've seen. Tbh, having lurked for some time here, Gandalf talks more about a dom3 "ladder" than just about anyone else. The only things that people at dom3mods seem to take more seriously than people here are staling and setting AI. Balance doesn't seem like its really some huge issue over there, except when it comes to posts on the CBM thread, which is understandable.

Can't talk about the "other" forum, as I haven't been there much, but from what I have seen Gandalf pretty much has (or pretends to have) a ton of preconceptions (not to use the word prejudice) about what other people think, and clings to them fiercely in his crusade against those same preconceptions, that mostly only exist in his own imagination to begin with. There's probably a psychological term for that.

(No offence Gandalf, I know it's in an attampt to do good, and it even might serve that purpose, but I still think it's funny. Or occasionally boring, but then I just stop reading. No harm done.)

About the win in question... Meh. The HoF pretty much exists by the grace - and the fairness - of those posting their wins. I know one of my wins is slightly dodgy in a "Yeah, I probably would have won if we kept playing, but it was still quite early so who knows" kinda way, but the other players felt I should claim it as a win and - well - I didn't protest. Nobody polices it, and god knows you'd have to be mad to want to do so. I know I'm not going to go over the game thread you mention to find out exactly how lame that win would or wouldn't be, so yeah, I hope the player in question has the fairness to decide for himself if it's legit or not. And if he doesn't... Well, it's not like it's an exact science anyway, one win won't majorly skew the results, and if he posts 7 dodgy wins I think it'll quickly become general knowledge, so yah, not really too worried.