Perpetuality - 62 Player MegaGame (Finished!) - Page 197

Xietor · #**1961** November 22nd, 2007, 03:44 AM

Me a deceiver? I lost 16 mages in that fight. MA Ermor lost 2! His angelic SC(maybe he got it from MA pythium)had the Ark and most of my surviving army is blind.

MA Ermor's 3 armies were 1 mage and a few archers to bleed my gems, a small stealth army that was uncovered by patrol, and a suicide attack with a tartarian gate casting multiple rain of stones and a seraph with the ark to blind my troops.

His Seraph escaped-along with the Ark!

I would say it was a decisive victory for MA Ermor since his goal was to maim my army. I doubt he expected to defeat it with 3 sc's.

Stelteck · #**1962** November 22nd, 2007, 04:02 PM

It is funny to notice that many power use titan from the tartarian gates.

May tartarian be empty soon ?

Stelteck from LA abysia.

Hadrian_II · #**1963** November 22nd, 2007, 04:31 PM

Tartarians are just the TINA summon. I think there are 4 solutions to that problem:

-Make Tartarians unique so that there wont be hordes of them in the endgame. (--> tartarus might become empty)
-Give other SC capable summons(--> there will be other units than tartarians)
-Add Tartarian Markata, Tartarian Imp, Tartarian Crow and Tartarian Goat to the list of possible tartarians. (--> Most tartarians will suck, so there will be less of them on the battlefield)
-Create some unit that can kill tartarians with ease and that is cheaper than a tartarian (Like some angel that has 20str and wields a flambeau)

Somehow the endgame is always ruled by tartarians (and i think that is boring).

Lingchih · #**1964** November 23rd, 2007, 09:50 PM

Why don't we agree to set a turn limit on this game? That might keep important players from dropping out, if we have a clear goal that we are shooting for. Determine some conditions for who is the most powerful player on turn X (100? 120?). It seems that while still interesting to some, the game has become a beating to others.

Velusion · #**1965** November 24th, 2007, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Lingchih said:
Why don't we agree to set a turn limit on this game? That might keep important players from dropping out, if we have a clear goal that we are shooting for. Determine some conditions for who is the most powerful player on turn X (100? 120?). It seems that while still interesting to some, the game has become a beating to others.

I suggested this along time ago but players didn't want one.

Xietor · #**1966** November 24th, 2007, 02:26 AM

I still do not favor turn limit games. When a clear winner emerges the other players will resign. Happens every time.

Lingchih · #**1967** November 24th, 2007, 02:27 AM

Well then, let us suggest it again. This game could literally go on for years without a turn limit. I do have a life away from this game, and it gets harder and harder to find subs when you need to be away. This game needs a turn limit!

LoloMo · #**1968** November 24th, 2007, 02:41 AM

I'm not in favor of a turn limit either, but I think a victory based on number of provinces would have a lot of supporters. I would agree to as low as a 51% of all provinces victory.

Xietor · #**1969** November 24th, 2007, 02:45 AM

The game has not even reached turn 100 yet. When it hits 110-115 we can reevaluate winning conditions. Alpaca was played on Cradle of Dominions and I think that went 110-115 turns before it ended suddenly.

How many turns did it take to bring EA Oceania down from number 1 to near dead? 10? In the next 15-20 turns I think more players will be eliminated, and a clear favorite may emerge.

Reay · #**1970** November 24th, 2007, 03:02 AM

I am for any change in the rules that will give us a justified result in this game and prevent people from going AI.

I only have a mid ranged sized empire so it is not too much of a hassle to play and I am still enjoying it. If I had an empire as big as LA Ermor I would struggle to play a turn every 3 days.

If LA Ermor goes AI then I will probably go AI as well. I would then back LA R'lyeh for the win.