Accounts e-mail HP

Victory conditions

a Voyage in men's Utopia

Victory conditions

Postby monamipierrot » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:47 pm

I didn't find a clear statement of how victory can be achieved in GT09.
Here is what I think could be agreed from almost evryone:

Victory can be achieved:
1. By being the 1st to have a Spaceship arrived at Alpha Centauri. (is Spaceship race on, am I wrong?)
2. By killing ALL other civilizations
3. By having all other surviving civilizations surrender and admit defeat
4. By administrator decision in certain conditions, such as there's a clear dominating player and surviving civilizations are idlers, or they play hide-and-seek in small islands without any chance of surivival in the long term.
5. In case condition for 1 is not true (spaceship win is not enabled), then the administrator could stop the game if he feels there's a clear dominant player but it could take >50 turns for him to slowly conquer all planet (quite possibly with current ruleset). A debate with other non-playing or dead players could be open to take the final decision.

If one alliance wins against all other players, then it has to split in order to have a unique winner.

It should be clear that there's no glory in helping someone else in winning, even if he is the Leader of your Alliance. There's no "2nd prize".

Administrator should have the power to reassign a nation to a different (dead?) player if a late-game surviving nation is too submitted and doesn't even try to win against a dominant player, expecially if formerly part of the same Alliance.

In other words: THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Victory conditions

Postby Corbeau » Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:17 pm

monamipierrot wrote:It should be clear that there's no glory in helping someone else in winning, even if he is the Leader of your Alliance. There's no "2nd prize".

What exactly is the "1st prize", again?

For the records, yes, there can be more than one. I'm not playing "to be the best and to hell with the rest". I'm playing to be good. With 30 players, being in top 10% would be nice. Top 30% is ok, top 50% is acceptable. Being in the bottom half, now that I really want to avoid.
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Victory conditions

Postby Captain Clown » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:48 am

By administrator decision in certain conditions, such as there's a clear dominating player and surviving civilizations are idlers, or they play hide-and-seek in small islands without any chance of survival in the long term.


Dang, I was counting on the hide-and-seek strategy. :)

Seriously, I disagree. Consider hide-and-seek an incentive not to try to win by conquest, if you will. The winner is decided when the game software says so, no sooner. Conquerers have their work cut out for them, given the large map size.

It should be clear that there's no glory in helping someone else in winning, even if he is the Leader of your Alliance. There's no "2nd prize".


I disagree. I've played a lot of free-for-all strategy board games, and one thing I can tell you with certainty is that rationality is out the window in many end-game scenarios. When players find themselves deep into a game and with no reasonable chance of winning, they're going to invent their own goals, and sometimes those goals subvert game play for other players. This is called the king maker pattern. That is, when a player has nothing to do but decide who else wins, they very well may choose to make that choice. It's up to the game designer to minimize this effect, as desired. The so-called “German-style” board games do a good job at this by keeping players occupied with their own goals till the end. Greatturn? Probably not so much.

Anyway, I mention all this as a practicality, not theory. Trying to convince people to do what you want them to do—say, be “good sports” or “play fair, not favorites”—is impractical. Bored and/or angry players will play as they see fit, just as engaged and happy players will, and any cure for this is worse than the disease. Consider king maker an incentive not to anger other players so they decide to thwart you later in the game.

Administrator should have the power to reassign a nation to a different (dead?) player if a late-game surviving nation is too submitted and doesn't even try to win against a dominant player, especially if formerly part of the same Alliance.


Too late. These rule addenda should be decided before the game started. No changing rules as we go. Hopefully everyone is taking notes for rule adjustments in future games.

Specifically, I like personality factoring into the game. If I didn't—if, say, I wanted to play against a machine that always tried its best and never got discouraged, even when it has no chance of winning, then I would be playing against the AI via single-player, not online against humans. I like the idea that war is risky, exactly because one doesn't know the enemy's heart. Maybe an early battle for something small will trigger an unending, destructive vendetta from the other player. Maybe the other player will lose spirit and fold. Consider judge of character to be an important part of the game.

Curiously, we might be on our way to figuring out what bike racing figured out long ago: free-for-all contests where alliances are beneficial are inherently unstable, and you'll end up with teams anyway. It's just a matter of time before players figure out, “Hey, I'll scratch your back this game if you scratch mine next game, etc.”—just as they did in bike racing a hundred years ago. In bike racing they decided that if individuals were going to use team tactics anyway then the races may as well make teams official. I see that as a possibility in Greatturn, too—enabling allied victory but with locked teams. Who knows? Not me!
Captain Clown
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Victory conditions

Postby monamipierrot » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:19 am

Corbeau wrote:What exactly is the "1st prize", again?.

The original idea (not mine) behind GT09 was to have a game in which Alliances don't have the last word - and can't win.
In Longturn comminuty, Alliances and also pre-fabricated alliances (alliances that cross from match to match) have been a terrible issue. It may sound silly, and it probably is, but it is what does happen, and spoiled the game. A lot.
My opinion is that a HARD rule which forces limited-size alliances is quite useless, as well as ugly.
However, if we state that "there can be only one" it sounds much nicer, althou still some artificial and forced.
So, you can ally with anybody, but watch your back! Your best friend knows everything about you.
What's the 1st prize when you play tennis with a mate of yours? Nothing. Except to win, of course. In a tennis tournment you can train with your best friend but ONE DAY you'll find him in the final match.
So, there can be only one winner. If there's more than one, than there's no winner. And no loser, not even the dead ones. And no game.
Maybe my proposals are a bit drastical but I think "there can be only one" is a nice experiment. It will work if everybody take as seriously the assumption. This will not mean you can't have your own goals. Being in the 1st half? That's the same of saying "dying in the 2nd half" or see your recorded points in the higher part of the final table.
Ok, you may find some other folk that doesn't like this special darwinian environment as you don't. You can ally with him, mix his blood with yours and swear on our God's name (Davide) that you'll die rather than letting him fall under the Enemy.
But say that you and your mate find yourself in the top, and each with half of the world in your hands. Will you stop there? Or will you go talk with him, stare him in the eye, shake his hand, choose a weapon, turn back at the same time and walk away counting every step, slowly: "one... two... three..."

Your 2nd prize may be for "reaching the final match". Now: will you play it?
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Victory conditions

Postby monamipierrot » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:41 am

To Captain Clown.

Your reply is very interesting.
My proposals are only meant to radicalize the experiment. IF Centauri is ON (please somebody confirm this), and if as a general agreement the name of the ONLY winner will be engraved in the rock of GreatTurn pages while the other names will be written on the book of shame for the rest of the Internet, I'll bet backstabbing (and fun) is guaranteed.
As you said, there's no victory till the software decides so. Allied victory is OFF. All other victory are ON.
OTher players expect that you play to win, and in this match there's no other way to win than ALONE.
You don't start a football game just to leave the ball to the other team, sit down and do a picnic in a corner of the field cause "well, everybody decide his own goals", as Corbeau puts it. Well, at least I hope this!

As you said, there's still the issue of "I'll scratch you now, you'll scratch me next match". That's the main reason there's no $ prizes to win a GreatTurn (or LongTurn) match. However in LT there was "ranking" so matches were just a part of a bigger game, spoiling single matches. If you play only for the glory (as I do), there's no point in scratching the winner's back, and if backstabbing is enabled and incouraged and considered as "good" as any other ingame action, I would also carefully watch my back while being scratched.

By the way, the most important thing in this match is to convince other players that "no, I'm not going to backstab you, my friend!", so why should we take Captain Clown's and Corbeau's publicy "tearing their hair out" as sincere? I mean, COMPLETELY sincere? :)

See you in the game and, of course, watch your back!
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Victory conditions

Postby Captain Clown » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:34 am

monamipierrot,

I won't tell you or anyone else what they should be getting out of Greatturn. You're playing for glory. Morphles thinks diplomacy is supreme. I've chatted with a few other players who claim to want little more than to build some cool stuff. Call me gullible because I believe them. As for my goals, I'm here because I think single-player against the AI is boring, and I'm intrigued by the prospect of epic gaming without epic requirements on my time. Who knows what I'll do! I don't!

If you have some notions about how players ought to behave—what strategies they may and mayn't use—and those notions go beyond what's covered by the software rules and by decency we all agree on—e.g., don't DOS the server—then those notions should have been codified before the match started. Feel free to encourage players to behave as you see fit. I hope most players choose to play honorably. Nevertheless, this isn't an “experiment” beyond what the software dictates. My hypothesis is that a lot of players, when faced with no reasonable chance to win, will give up or otherwise play irrationally. I further hypothesize that a lot of players will cut deals. But we'll see!
Captain Clown
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:54 pm

Re: Victory conditions

Postby Corbeau » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:09 am

About being sincere, I believe this is where "reputation" comes into play ;) Since this is my first game here, your question is valid, but I guess it will be answered by actions, not words.

Also, I never said I'm a pacifist. If war becomes needed, I'll embrace it with open arms ;) However, in all my single games so far I found that victory by conquest is awfully boring. So much territory to cover, so many cities to manage and you don't even get into the complexity of higher level management, only produce-attack-produce-attack. Nah, that's for simpletons. I like Civilization, not Warcraft. You may as well play Xbattle :P

As for "not trying to win", you got me wrong. Of course I'll do my best to come on top. However, even if I don't, I won't consider myself a loser and, if it happens that, out of 30 players, I'm currently number 10, my goal will be to jump to number 9 or higher. But also to build a reputation of a fair player and a person who can be trusted on his word.

Some things are more important than winning, y'knoy? ;)
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Victory conditions

Postby morphles » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:00 pm

The only thing I'm concerned is that people would generaly try to score as high as possible. I do not really see kingmaking as that big of an issue, cause good player can aticipate at least some of that and thus take some measures to minimize peoples wish to backstab him. There are plenty of caveats, but I still think that it should be workable. Exploration, and keep your friends close but enemies closer and all that jazz. This will also force you to evaluate your assumptions about other players more/at every turn. So in short, try to be as close to the top of the ladder and don't wory much ;)
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: Victory conditions

Postby Corbeau » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:22 pm

What exactly is "kingmaking"?
User avatar
Corbeau
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:23 am

Re: Victory conditions

Postby morphles » Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:46 pm

morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Next

Return to GT09

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests