The tournament and a question of ethics - newbie question

geoschmo · #1 August 23rd, 2002, 08:09 PM

Possibly. But a wise player will not advertise his alliances. So you will not really know who has alliances and who doesn't.

In fact a group that has an known alliance could be come targets themselves of the other players as a whole, rather than allow the alliance to pick off all the single players one at a time they will possibly band together and try to break them up.

Plus, an alliance may not nessecarily help you. Cause the single player facing an alliance doesn't have to beat everybody, only one person. Or they can survive by beating no one and just surviving long enough that some other poor sap on the other side of the quadrant gets it first.

EDIT: Not to mention, you could make an alliance before the game, and when the game starts you aren't anywhere near your allies in the galaxy. That would be an uncomfortable position to be in, especially if your alliance is well known to everyone.

Geoschmo

[ August 23, 2002, 19:19: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tbontob · #2 August 23rd, 2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Possibly. But a wise player will not advertise his alliances. So you will not really know who has alliances and who doesn't.

Yes...

But the alliance which numbers approach 10 members (50%), has nothing to lose and everything to gain to encourage the few "holdouts" to join. Better to join a 10 member group than a 4 or 6.

Quote:

In fact a group that has an known alliance could be come targets themselves of the other players as a whole, rather than allow the alliance to pick off all the single players one at a time they will possibly band together and try to break them up.

My point exactly, the single players know they have to join an alliance. So the choice is the larger one. And you end up with an imbalance of alliances with the the smaller one having the greater probability of losing one of its members in combat.

Quote:

Plus, an alliance may not nessecarily help you. Cause the single player facing an alliance doesn't have to beat everybody, only one person. Or they can survive by beating no one and just surviving long enough that some other poor sap on the other side of the quadrant gets it first.

I disagree...try fighting off a simultaneous attack by 2 or more empires alone... The larger alliance has more empires and all things being equal, can afford to throw more empires into the conflict.

Quote:

EDIT: Not to mention, you could make an alliance before the game, and when the game starts you aren't anywhere near your allies in the galaxy. That would be an uncomfortable position to be in, especially if your alliance is well known to everyone.

True and that is the risk you take. However, if your alliance is smaller, then the probability escalates that you will find yourself alone and with the consequence of becoming a prime target. Better then to ally yourself with the larger alliance.

What I am trying to say is the "lone" member is likely to be a sure loser. Therefore, if he wants to stay in the game, he needs to join an alliance. If he picks the wrong one (ie a small one), the odds are greater that he will end up dead than if he had selected the larger one.

So, this may well end up to be a battle of alliances. And when an alliance does beats all the competition, it will then have to breakup and new alliances will have to be formed...and the process starts over again.

tbontob · #3 August 23rd, 2002, 08:58 PM

Also, the larger alliance has greater resources through trade and sharing technology. Eventually its technology will seriously outstrip the smaller alliance

As I see it, the best chance a small alliance has in beating a larger one is to attack early and hard.

geoschmo · #4 August 23rd, 2002, 09:09 PM

I have no doubt it will be a battle of who can do the best job of making alliances and playing them off of one another. That's the whole point of the format. It's what I inteded to begin with. I am not sure if you are saying this is a bad thing or what?

If you think that by being in a 10 player alliance you are guaranteeing yourself success, by all means go for it. There will be others that will feel more comfortable with a small alliance of skilled players. Or no pregame alliance at all, prefering to form alliances with those that are close to them in the game and threfore more able to help them effectively. There are different ways to look at the problem. The only way to know for sure is to play. And even then what works in one game will not neccesarily work in another.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa · #5 August 23rd, 2002, 09:12 PM

that would be the point of this tourney....

Role the dice and go... or turtle...

One or the other... not both...

And alliances have a way of shifting depending on the current situation....

gravey101 · #6 August 23rd, 2002, 09:12 PM

I can see arguments from both sides. While I think I would *prefer* a situation where everyone took each game as a separate entiry, I think it;s almost impossible for that to be the case. Grudges will be borne. Friendships will be made. But in the end there can be only one, right :-) Think about the large alliance. Sooner or later that's gotta start breaking down. Who's gonna turn on who? Maybe your friends aren't so friendly after all. Plenty of room for intrigue and rumour spreading. Looking at the list in the S2 tournamnet I have played with probably more than 1/2 the players already. Some I have had strong alliances with in other games. Some I have fought against. I think clearly you will struggle if you try to go it alone in every game, but I think there are many routes to being the eventual champion. Looking forward to this.

tbontob · #7 August 23rd, 2002, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I have no doubt it will be a battle of who can do the best job of making alliances and playing them off of one another. That's the whole point of the format. It's what I inteded to begin with. I am not sure if you are saying this is a bad thing or what?

Geoschmo

Actually I am not making any judgements as to whether it is a good/bad thing. I am just saying that the lone player is a sure loser and the members in a smaller alliance has a greater probability of losing.

Let's say you have an alliance with 10 members, an alliance with 7 members and 3 loners.

The two alliances will "tend" to look at the loners for a victory. Having fewer resources, research points and ultimately ships and technology, their weakness will invite attack.

Now we have two alliances. Having fewer resources, research points and ultimately ships and technology, the weaker alliance will "invite" an attack on one of its members(because it is weaker").