Paradigm Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Outlandish scenarios? It has just been demonstrated that someone took out another player through the use of buying 3 positions. Since there is no limit to how many positions one can run, it is a n+1 equation. There is no limit. Don't think there haven't been PBM games where players have "bought" victory. This game doesn't make that as easy as some, but it is certainly possible if you have the time and money. What Flagritz did was legal within the rules, so I'm not going to berate him about it. I do feel it is unfortunate for the player of the single empire to get knocked out so quickly due to that. If someone captures a drop I expect them to make full use of it. Anything less would be foolish. But that doesn't mean I like the current system of drops doing nothing to defend themselves. I would much prefer if drops at least built something while dropped and put up some sort of fight, or perhaps slowly eroded away, explained as degeneration due to anarchy. As is it is too random. Someone can get lucky and have several people drop around them leaving homeworlds virtually undefended to be snapped up at little cost. Someone else might be surrounded by long term players and have no such opportunities. . I don't like luck having that big an impact on an open ended long term game like this. High luck games benefit the less skilled. I would rather play poker than roulette. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 Outlandish scenarios? It has just been demonstrated that someone took out another player through the use of buying 3 positions. Since there is no limit to how many positions one can run, it is a n+1 equation. There is no limit. Don't think there haven't been PBM games where players have "bought" victory. This game doesn't make that as easy as some, but it is certainly possible if you have the time and money. What Flagritz did was legal within the rules, so I'm not going to berate him about it. I do feel it is unfortunate for the player of the single empire to get knocked out so quickly due to that. If someone captures a drop I expect them to make full use of it. Anything less would be foolish. But that doesn't mean I like the current system of drops doing nothing to defend themselves. I would much prefer if drops at least built something while dropped and put up some sort of fight, or perhaps slowly eroded away, explained as degeneration due to anarchy. As is it is too random. Someone can get lucky and have several people drop around them leaving homeworlds virtually undefended to be snapped up at little cost. Someone else might be surrounded by long term players and have no such opportunities. . I don't like luck having that big an impact on an open ended long term game like this. High luck games benefit the less skilled. I would rather play poker than roulette. Oh, some dropped HW defend itself with tenth to even hundredth of division, others do not. And I am pretty sure, that the divisions were not build by the original owner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairman lar Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 This whole thing is a spacious [pun intended] arguement. Multiple positions in an open-ended game are a fact of life. When you consider the randomness of the universe and the effort involved to find & co-ordinate 2 or more 'bought' empires; if you have the resoures - Good Luck! If you find & capture another HW [dropped or not]; even better from an economic standpoint, but it still requires dedication to exploit. Getting hammered is the risk you run, and has been since this game was 1st conceived. How it happens is moot. Perhaps we should start a new thread titled 'Rants' ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Capitan Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 There are so many possible scenarios involving luck that would both benefit the lone player or could spell his doom that they balance out in the end. Same goes for groups of allies. Is is fair that a lone player who plans to turtle up and build an economic powerhouse gets set up around very few other players and those few drop or are not agressive and he gets to sit there for endless turns and buildup unmolested? Someone else trying that strategy might get set up in the middle of a bunch of agressive and hungry warmongers. Luck of the draw is a huge factor in this game, especially when it comes to who you get set up around. The question is, are you skillful enough to deal with multiple scenarios or did you set your empire up to only be able to survive under very limited circumstances? If the later is the case, and you get put out of the game, especially if it's early, start another position and try again. You'll have more knowledge from your experiences and you should be able to start a better/stronger position anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 > Oh, some dropped HW defend itself with tenth to even hundredth of division, others do not. And I am pretty sure, that the divisions were not build by the original owner! RTG does nothing to drops. What is there is what was left there. > This whole thing is a spacious [pun intended] arguement. I doubt the player that got whacked by someone running 3 empires finds it specious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 > Oh, some dropped HW defend itself with tenth to even hundredth of division, others do not. And I am pretty sure, that the divisions were not build by the original owner! RTG does nothing to drops. What is there is what was left there. That statement is wrong. RTG *does* something to the drops! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paradigm Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 > Oh, some dropped HW defend itself with tenth to even hundredth of division, others do not. And I am pretty sure, that the divisions were not build by the original owner! RTG does nothing to drops. What is there is what was left there. That statement is wrong. RTG *does* something to the drops! If they do it is damn rare or so minor as to not matter. I've seen many captured drops and there was never the slightest sign that RTG did anything to them. Positions that were dropped for years hadn't had a single ton of defenses built or a single division added. I've also talked to people that picked up a position that had been dropped for more than a year and when they picked it up, it was exactly like they left it other than things kept running as they had left them for better or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 > Oh, some dropped HW defend itself with tenth to even hundredth of division, others do not. And I am pretty sure, that the divisions were not build by the original owner! RTG does nothing to drops. What is there is what was left there. That statement is wrong. RTG *does* something to the drops! If they do it is damn rare or so minor as to not matter. I've seen many captured drops and there was never the slightest sign that RTG did anything to them. Positions that were dropped for years hadn't had a single ton of defenses built or a single division added. I've also talked to people that picked up a position that had been dropped for more than a year and when they picked it up, it was exactly like they left it other than things kept running as they had left them for better or worse. I think Pete adds them when he is aware of the GATK or just for fun when he has time. So of course nothing has changed when you pick a position up after some time. The get added on the GATK! I have captured a couple of HWs myself, and I have prove on two, that some divisions were added (got the last turn result !). How do you explain increased division count after each (failed) attack on a dropped position? If you had simple starter division drop conquests, lucky you. I just had my *first* conquest of such a HW this turn. And I have conquered over 10 previously. Good Luck jumping in on drops with just enough to kill off the starter divisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 > Oh, some dropped HW defend itself with tenth to even hundredth of division, others do not. And I am pretty sure, that the divisions were not build by the original owner! RTG does nothing to drops. What is there is what was left there. That statement is wrong. RTG *does* something to the drops! If they do it is damn rare or so minor as to not matter. I've seen many captured drops and there was never the slightest sign that RTG did anything to them. Positions that were dropped for years hadn't had a single ton of defenses built or a single division added. I've also talked to people that picked up a position that had been dropped for more than a year and when they picked it up, it was exactly like they left it other than things kept running as they had left them for better or worse. I think Pete adds them when he is aware of the GATK or just for fun when he has time. So of course nothing has changed when you pick a position up after some time. The get added on the GATK! I have captured a couple of HWs myself, and I have prove on two, that some divisions were added (got the last turn result !). How do you explain increased division count after each (failed) attack on a dropped position? If you had simple starter division drop conquests, lucky you. I just had my *first* conquest of such a HW this turn. And I have conquered over 10 previously. Good Luck jumping in on drops with just enough to kill off the starter divisions. I have heard this from other players also although I have not seen it myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 They may occasionally add divisions if they were tooled up in production. The Industrial queue will keep running with the last orders sent in. I have also taken more than one HW, one had over 100 divisions and another had 4. In fact for one, I actually inherited the previous owners production queue! So Pete may do something to some, but I doubt it. He just doesn't have the time to worry about dropped HWs. Why would he adjust one and not others? THAT would be unfair. I do agree with Paradigm to the extent that one player should not be allowed mutliple positions in the same area. So, if I start 3 new empires, I should expect that they are nowhere near each other. Conquering a dropped HW is just part of the game. Empire in decline, anarchy ensues, etc. Yes there is some luck in the game, I have no problem with that. There may be only one vibrant race (player) in an area with a bunch of decaying races (drops), and that is just how it is. Part of the problem in all this, is that the game is just not complete ( insert a random Locklyn comment here ) and requires intervention by Pete on numerous occasions. Either we accept that and play or not. I have been in this game since day one (or day zero for those perfectionists out there) I would be extremely upset (after spending 6 years and lots of moolah) if a single player showed up at my door wielding 3 or 4 races. Do I drop and waste 6 years? no, maybe, I don't know, but I doubt anybody would enjoy that. If there were 3 or 4 races that were allied? I wouldn't enjoy it, but I would have no complaints, I'd just call on my allies. And one final note, conquered HWs are much different than a separate race. One empire with 3 conquered HWs has 4 production bases but only ONE set of 25 RCs. 4 empires have 4 production bases but 100 RCs (4 sets of 25 RCs). And I don't care how good of allies you are, one person running 4 empires is MUCH different than 4 empires run by 4 different people. I'm just saying. and while we are discussing this, let's all go to the local StarBars and continue this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soerenjev Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 I'm just saying.and while we are discussing this, let's all go to the local StarBars and continue this conversation. I am on my way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breoghan Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 If I were to leap back into the (many) reasons that I disagree with the "anti's" (including that last post), this would come out as an escalating argument - but as I've tried to point out in all of my other posts, I think, this is a game. My world won't come apart at the seams if others disagree. I doubt if the game will come apart either. So, 'agree to disagree and let it go', is the way I'm gonna go. Be lucky, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairman lar Posted October 7, 2008 Report Share Posted October 7, 2008 > This whole thing is a spacious [pun intended] arguement. I doubt the player that got whacked by someone running 3 empires finds it specious. Didn't say 'specious' [seeming to be good, sound, correct, without really being so]. Said 'spacious' [having more than enough space, vast]. Although both definitions now seem to be correct. So much for a subtle attempt at humor. I need a StarBars closer to home! Orderly! More tolerance adjuster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-t-akua Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 I'm just saying.and while we are discussing this, let's all go to the local StarBars and continue this conversation. Wait for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted October 8, 2008 Report Share Posted October 8, 2008 I agree with Paradigm, insofar as Dropped Empires should come with more "smarts" than they currently do. I have stated this before, years ago. I also understand that the game still has more than a few "bugs", missing and incomplete components. It is my philosophy that writing up some code to "take care of" Dropped Empires, similar to that which exists in Victory!, would actually save Pete time in the long run. The Dropped Empire Artificial Intelligence Module, if you will, doesn't even have to be particularly "smart". It could limit itself to a fixed set of Surface Fortresses, Defensive Satellites and Ground Troops then construct and research what it needs to support those builds. Heck, it could all be in one Army and one Fleet. I'm not even going to comment on the part of the thread. YMMV, -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.