The tournament and a question of ethics - newbie question - Page 3

Grandpa Kim · #21 August 24th, 2002, 04:10 AM

But I have already joined and will play it through to the end no matter what the house rules-- and Geo, do not let my position influence your decision.
Unlike too many others, I have made a commitment and will never quit because things are not going my way.

Sincerely
Kim

geoschmo · #22 August 24th, 2002, 04:36 AM

Grandpakim,

I can totally understand your position. I just feel that this tournament is different enough that the rules should be slightly different.

I don't know how many of you are fans of the "Survivor" Television series. I am slightly ashamed to asy I am thouroughly addicted to it. And that dynamic of constantly shifting alegiances is what I was trying to capture with teh first Survivor tourney. I didn't feel like I captured it quite right, but I think this one comes a bit closer.

Personally I won't bother trying to make any pre arranged alliances. But mostly because I just don't thenk they are practical. It makes more sense to find a few players close to you in the quadrant and band together in my opinion.

But the fact is with 35+ players in the tournament it would be nearly impossible to get a set of rules that everybody likes 100%. So then my objective becomes what is practical, and what can be enforced. I don't want to have to mediate a bunch of disputes, or try to decide whether or not someone was emailing before they met in the game. So I take the easy way out and allow it.

There are already a couple good players I know of that I wish would join but aren't because they don't like the format. That's ok. I will miss having them, but that's their decision.

I would not hold it against you if you chose not to play. But if you choose to play I think you will find that those pre-arranged alliances aren't as good as the people think they are going to be. One thing that was proven time and time again in Survivor 1 was that your alliance is only as good as the weakest player in it.

Geoschmo

Grandpa Kim · #23 August 24th, 2002, 05:42 AM

I think I'm starting to get used to the idea. Like you, I don't think I will make any pre-arranged alliances and I'm beginning to think they may not be that useful anyway. In all the games I've played, supporting your allies is always logistically difficult and often interferes with your own plans. The best alliance is with a neighbor and you will only find that in-game. From there you can find a victim-- and the early games will be lucky to Last to turn 30!

I will not withdraw; my conscience would crucify me.

Besides I will have to learn an entirely new philosophy to win (or even do well) in this tournament. And, at my age, that's a good thing. I will be there, loving every minute!

Kim

Zarix · #24 August 24th, 2002, 09:27 AM

I don't think that large alliances will work very well in this tournament. If the first empire that you meet attacks immediately you won't even get in contact with your allies.

tbontob · #25 August 24th, 2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zarix:
I don't think that large alliances will work very well in this tournament. If the first empire that you meet attacks immediately you won't even get in contact with your allies.

Which is why I said,

Quote:

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

But allow a large alliance to establish itself....

I expect this game to be quick and bloody...any comments?

geoschmo · #26 August 24th, 2002, 02:37 PM

[quote]Originally posted by tbontob:

Quote:

I expect this game to be quick and bloody...any comments?

I hope so. That's what I was going for when I set it up.

With 35+ players, 20+ rounds, if each game isn't quick and bloody we are going to be very old before the tournament is over.

Geoschmo

tbontob · #27 August 24th, 2002, 02:49 PM

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by tbontob:

Quote:

I expect this game to be quick and bloody...any comments?

I hope so. That's what I was going for when I set it up.

With 35+ players, 20+ rounds, if each game isn't quick and bloody we are going to be very old before the tournament is over.

Geoschmo

And, if the attack fails, a situation is created where there are two potential "victims" as both will (in all likelihood) have been weakened in the battle. The attackee, however strong he/she may have been in the beginning may end up losing the game.

geoschmo · #28 August 24th, 2002, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tbontob:
And, if the attack fails, a situation is created where there are two potential "victims" as both will (in all likelihood) have been weakened in the battle. The attackee, however strong he/she may have been in the beginning may end up losing the game.

Now you are getting it. See why I like this format so much? Truely anything can happen. And over the course of the tournament alomost anything will at one time or another.

Geoschmo

tesco samoa · #29 August 24th, 2002, 04:57 PM

IT's all about the game within the game....

tbontob · #30 August 24th, 2002, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:
Originally posted by tbontob:
And, if the attack fails, a situation is created where there are two potential "victims" as both will (in all likelihood) have been weakened in the battle. The attackee, however strong he/she may have been in the beginning may end up losing the game.

Now you are getting it. See why I like this format so much? Truely anything can happen. And over the course of the tournament alomost anything will at one time or another.

Geoschmo

Actually, I always "had" it.

Just commenting...

And I still stand by my opinions about alliances.

Nothing has really changed