Possible Survivor 2 tourney...

geoschmo · #1 June 14th, 2002, 07:34 PM

Well in survivor one it never came up, but I was sort of prepared for that. The rule was to be that if you had no more planets, and no colony ships that could establish a colony you were eliminated.

We could go beyond that even and say you must not lose contact, then the colony ships wouldn't be enough. You'd have to have at least one planet somewhere to remain in the game.

As far as allowing your ally to hide on a protected moon or something. That could be considered a bit cheesy. I would hope something like that would not happen. What would concern me most about something like that is if the protected player were then assumed to "owe" the other guy where in a later round they would maybe take a dive. That would be definate collusion. But two players agreeing to band together in an alliance and help each other out until they were the only two left would be ok I think. Although they might not be in a position to help each other in every round. Helping an ally survive is OK I think, where laying down so an ally can advance without you is not.

I would hesitate to make a strict rule there though cause where do you draw the line? Is one moon not enough, but trading a whole systems worth of planets for one that is on the other side of your allies territory ok?

And what of the legitimate case where the empire happend to colonize that planet and it happens to be the only bastion of their empire left, but is well protected. There they weren't really manipulating things intentionally, it just worked out that way?

Also, I didn't say this, but if two empires were eliminated on the same turn I would just drop both of them, instead of trying to split hairs and try to figure out which one went first. That DID almost come up in Survivor I.

Geoschmo

[ June 14, 2002, 18:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

geoschmo · #2 June 14th, 2002, 07:38 PM

The other nice thing about this is we don't have to worry about disallowing surrender. That was a BIG sore spot in Survivor I.

Since each round ends as soon as one player is eliminated, there is no reason not to allow surrender. You won't be forced to play on to the bitter end if you don't feel like it. Although you would be wise too cause all you have to do is hang on a turn longer than at least one other player. And who you surrender to is unimportant too since the game ends at that point.

Geoschmo

rextorres · #3 June 14th, 2002, 09:06 PM

Cool! Count me in. When do we start.

Spoo · #4 June 14th, 2002, 09:09 PM

I'm interested, although w/ 36hr turns, vacations would be a bit painful. Having the No AI mod would be quite useful. Also, will you be using GOLD or 1.49?

geoschmo · #5 June 14th, 2002, 09:20 PM

Gold or 1.49, probably Gold, but whichever I can get the most people with. (Hey, maybe one of each!

)

As far as the No AI mod, I would say no on that, but you can use the "None" minister style when setting up your race and it will do the same thing. That way if you want your AI to nothing they will. But some people would prefer the AI play for them to having nothing going on while they are gone.

If anybody is unsure how to do that check out this thread,

NONE AI THREAD.

Geoschmo

[ June 14, 2002, 20:23: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Gandalph · #6 June 14th, 2002, 10:17 PM

I think I might like to give this one a go. I have no idea who the strong PBW players are, nor anything to measure myself against (I can beat TDM races on high diff.-med. bonus, but who can't).

Stone Mill · #7 June 14th, 2002, 10:42 PM

geo-
Seems to be a good idea.

I'm just curious... what were the results of Survivor One? Was there an official thread with standings and the renound final "Survivor"?

This would be an interesting read, in my opinion.