PlanetsCentral

We need something here. Game can't last for years.

We need something here. Game can't last for years.

Last man standing?

Last man standing?

I suggest using voting.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

Last man standing?

I suggest using voting.

Holding 150 planets for 10 consecutive turns?

I sugest voting

What means "open end" ?..

And if it'll be voting, what are the rules of voting?..

What means "open end" ?..

And if it'll be voting, what are the rules of voting?..

Open end means the server does not automatically end the game.

Voting means what you agree on. This could be the typical "do we want to end this game" vote.

I think the server can also do a "150 planets for 10 turns" condition (means: I programmed it but never tried for real )

--Stefan

In a game setup where there are no alliances the strategy for each race to win the game differs quite a lot. Some will quickly expand, others need to build a good defense first.

There are still 5 strong players in this game, the outcome is still not cear. Holding 150 planets for 10 turns doesnt say much about the whole thing.

Also, I proclaim that I will win this game.

To keep 150 planets for 10 turns is a very difficult condition to meet if all players are playing on a decent level - on this server unfortunately it won't work. We have turn 45 and six races are already out of importance - beaten or left. But even if we agree to such winning condition it has to be done at the start of the game.

I guess if someone wants to win this game he needs to beat four other players or at least convince them that he will be the winner in a long run.

Open end means the server does not automatically end the game.

Voting means what you agree on. This could be the typical "do we want to end this game" vote.

I think it is strange a little. So, if somebody wants to end, he'd ask others for end, but those, who won't end, will just doing nothing - no need to asking at all.

I think, it'd be good to have the end condition. So, those who wants to end earlier, may vote to end earlier, and those, who wants to continue further, may vote to continue further

It's not means much for me, what exactly condition will be chosen. Maybe standart "nearly turn 80" will be OK. And if somebody wants to end turn 60 or turn 100, he will need to ask others.

doesnt say much about the whole thing.

And what is "whole thing" exactly?.. Yes, some of races should win fast, and for some easier to win after long period. That's why we need formal end condition.

Also, I proclaim that I will win this game.

Look, if you want to win, and we believe you really can, we may vote to end game immediately, and you'll left at your current place. So, I think, we need end condition.

Well, if we want to improve the gameplay on this server I believe we should abandon this stupid (in my eyes) idea that the winner of the game is a person who accumulated the most ptscore. With such winning condition some races are not able to compete at all. Also the end game condition should be the winning condition. In other words if we set the end game condition to keep 150 planets for 10 turns a player who fulfills it wins the game (no matter how ptscore looks like).

End game/winnging condition should be set before the game starts. Now, after 45 turns, I don't think we can find a fair solution anymore. So as I said we are stuck with voting. If a player wants to win a game he needs to start a voting that he is the winner or he will be the winner in a long run and all other players (with any game influence) should agree to it. If someone doesn't just destroy him and start a voting again. That's how I see it.

Siba I won't agree to any force ending turn 80 or 100 and winner decided by ptscore. This pattern is bad as hell and make pleiades type of game not interesting at all (at least to me). I joined this game to compete and to try to win it. The real game is about to start. So far we've just eliminated the weaklings. Now the fun begins. Enjoy.

But feel free to propose something, maybe you find a decent solution all others can accept.

End game/winnging condition should be set before the game starts. Now, after 45 turns, I don't think we can find a fair solution anymore. So as I said we are stuck with voting.

Voting for what?.. To end game or to find the winner?.. What about other places?..

Well, I propose voting to end at turn 80 Or let us vote for end condition.

If a player wants to win a game he needs to start a voting that he is the winner or he will be the winner in a long run and all other players (with any game influence) should agree to it. If someone doesn't just destroy him and start a voting again. That's how I see it.

What if race with one advanced anticloak ship hide it, and say he'll never agree to end?.. Which players may vote?.. What weight will their votes have?.. What are the rules to make decision agter voting?..

I think we need some formal conditions, if players couldn't find the consensus. Just remind you first message in this topic

Siba I won't agree to any force ending turn 80 or 100 and winner decided by ptscore.

If you'll not want to stop at turn 80, you may offer others to continue, turn 150 or so But if others will not agree, we should end, even you personally wish to continue. That's how i feel it.

This pattern is bad as hell and make pleiades type of game not interesting at all (at least to me).

But feel free to propose something, maybe you find a decent solution all others can accept.[/quote]

I also don't like PTScore, but now c'est la vie.

At other hosts i played with multiscore config, combined SuperInvasion, Tequila Wars and Mushroom or Expansion scenarios, but only Streu can change it here.

Voting for what?.. To end game or to find the winner?.. What about other places?..

Voting for whatever you want. Because we didn't fix it at the start of the game now we can't force anyone. You want any change you need all other players to agree. That's my point of view.

Well, I propose voting to end at turn 80 Or let us vote for end condition.

Ok, my vote here is no.

What if race with one advanced anticloak ship hide it, and say he'll never agree to end?.. Which players may vote?.. What weight will their votes have?.. What are the rules to make decision agter voting?..

Well, I said players who can still influence the game. At this point we have 5 such players (Gorn, Klingon, Orion, Tholian and Cylon) - they may vote. It's rather simple. If you don't feel you can win the game any longer just skip your vote. Each vote is equal.

I think we need some formal conditions, if players couldn't find the consensus. Just remind you first message in this topic

Sure, go ahead, propose something. So far you are the only one here having some issues.

If you'll not want to stop at turn 80, you may offer others to continue, turn 150 or so But if others will not agree, we should end, even you personally wish to continue. That's how i feel it.

Well, if in any point of time in this game I will feel I can't win any longer I will just not vote, I will let the players who are still fighting to decide. Buf if I'm in, fighting for the win or at least feeling like this why should I agree to end? Anyone who joined this game should be aware (seeing the open end setting ) it can take a while to determine the winner.

Hi all.

For me vgap was always a game of combat and the one that conquers the others is the winner. For me the financial aspect of the game is only to support the combat aspect of the game.

I've played with the borg once, and it was easy for me to be one the first 3 positions and there wasn't much of a fight.

But for a last man standing type of game, we might be in it for a long time because of distances and the strength of the players.

And i think, after a while the game starts to loose some of the interest because it takes a lot of time to get near your enemy.

I sugest a faster pace game and a smaller map focusing then on the combat aspect of the game.

If not possible, then the guy with the most score wins. There are methods of scoring aren't there.

Nevertheless, it's complicated. A person that doesn't have enemies nearby and concentrates on conquering planets and expanding will win if the other players are fighting because fighting involves loosing ships, planets, resources and therefore points.

That is why i prefer last man/woman standing

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

Voting for what?.. To end game or to find the winner?.. What about other places?..

Voting for whatever you want. Because we didn't fix it at the start of the game now we can't force anyone. You want any change you need all other players to agree. That's my point of view.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

Well, I propose voting to end at turn 80 Or let us vote for end condition.

Ok, my vote here is no.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

What if race with one advanced anticloak ship hide it, and say he'll never agree to end?.. Which players may vote?.. What weight will their votes have?.. What are the rules to make decision agter voting?..

Well, I said players who can still influence the game. At this point we have 5 such players (Gorn, Klingon, Orion, Tholian and Cylon) - they may vote. It's rather simple. If you don't feel you can win the game any longer just skip your vote. Each vote is equal.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

I think we need some formal conditions, if players couldn't find the consensus. Just remind you first message in this topic

Sure, go ahead, propose something. So far you are the only one here having some issues.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

If you'll not want to stop at turn 80, you may offer others to continue, turn 150 or so But if others will not agree, we should end, even you personally wish to continue. That's how i feel it.

Well, if in any point of time in this game I will feel I can't win any longer I will just not vote, I will let the players who are still fighting to decide. Buf if I'm in, fighting for the win or at least feeling like this why should I agree to end? Anyone who joined this game should be aware (seeing the open end setting ) it can take a while to determine the winner.

When the setup for the North Star games was made it was my suggestion to make it a game without turn limit. This is just a result due to the fact that without allies, each race has to play in a different way than usual. The major carrier races are vulnerable to quick attacks from the cloaking races, they need to setup a good defense before expanding. And it takes time, lots of time before they can dominate the cluster.

Thus it makes no sense to limit a no-alliance-game to 80 turns, or to holding 150 planets. No player will battle all races at the same time, due to ressource shortages, travelling distances and strategy. Its more likely that you focus on one or two opponents before you strike against the next one. In this scenario, it is very possible that you will have two or three strong races in the end, facing each other. It would be against the idea of the game to just turn one of them into the winner because turn 80 was reached, or declare the quickest one to hold 150 planets the victor.

From my point of view the winner should be decided through battle or vote - as long as there are races still capable to fight with a chance of winning it shouldnt end.

It seems you wish to see only one winner in the game. And your point is he should prove his superiority as long as there's some players who tried to beat him.

But I think it's not fair.

First, there's second, third and other places, except first. And, it's often better for scoring to secure current place, instead of fighting top races and lose all. For example, in this game Empire playes, IMHO, was stronger than Borg or Rebel. And Bird was surely stronger, but both of them losing in scores.

Second, in such situation, the game turns to "ashes of old empire", where all of 10 (or less) races trying to beat the leader.

Third, we are not playing of 11 Feds. Races are different, some of them can win easier in the early game, while others are not. Nobody can stop fat & heavy Borg - if he'll not beaten early, he usually wins. But races like Rebel, Empire, or Klingon wins rarely. So, the end condition makes a line between short and unlimited games.

So, I'm still sure we need the end condition.

The major carrier races are vulnerable to quick attacks from the cloaking races, they need to setup a good defense before expanding. And it takes time, lots of time before they can dominate the cluster.

So, why we should give this advantage for carrier races?..

Sure, go ahead, propose something.

I've proposed turn 80 already If you're not agree, it's your turn to propose. It doesn't matter much for me, but it'd be concrete rules, not based on "feelings"

Well, I said players who can still influence the game. At this point we have 5 such players (Gorn, Klingon, Orion, Tholian and Cylon) - they may vote.

And who deciding, who can influence, and who can not?.. What is the rule?.. All, who has 400k+ PTScore?.. All, who wants Ygg, the Judge?..

What we'd do with voting results?.. What if two races wish to continue, and three wish to end?.. What if one race wish to continue, and four wish to end?.. What if these four races thinks the one can't influence the game, but that one feels he can win still?..

We need the rules. I don't want playing for years too

Because we didn't fix it at the start of the game now we can't force anyone.

That's why we discuss it now, instead of near turn 80. We still have time to decide something.

You want any change you need all other players to agree.

I'm not want CHANGING now, because of there's nothing to change. We have no rules of ending at all.

Look Siba we don't need any judge or rules. It's common sense. We have turn 45 and I guess we all can agree 6 races are already out. Do we need a judge or some rules to confirm this? What twisted world are you living in if all you can think about are some crazy malignant players who will still claim they can influence the game with one cloaked ship left or some other nonsense. Come on. None of us wants to play this game for ages but at the moment the outcome is still not clear so let's just play.

To keep 150 planets for 10 turns is ok winning condition for me. I really don't care about 2nd or 3rd place or some points. From my experience with board games if players don't play for the win that's what usually turns games into disaster. But we've already played 45 turns without such winning condition, so we need to give players at least the same numbers of turns to adjust.

Maybe Siba just wants to quickly end it cause he is in first place? He preyed on the weaker players and he knows that he will lose big time as soon as he faces one of the stronger ones With that really fast growth and mass production of ships he probably has tons of weak Hisssers which will not stand a real fight, and he knows it.

The game got started with "open end" instead of the regular 80 turns, so why now propose the 80 turns again? Please dont enter an open end game anymore if you dont like it.

Siba, it's been decided: I will come for you now! Prepare!

Maybe Siba just wants to quickly end it cause he is in first place?

If you have played with me earlier, you should know, that place means nothing for me, and I can easily drop any game even if I have first place there.

It's not the important thing.

But I need rules just to know what I'm playing for, and when the game will end.

I also want to remind, that, in difference of Phoenix or Pleiades (I've already decide not to play this kind of games anymore) North Star is the first step to normal wolf-style game. With anonymous players in the future, I hope.

That's why I don't think we'd discuss current game at all. No discussion, no diplomacy, no personal votings. Or it turns to new Pleiades, when you'll make alliances not in the game itself, but at the forum. Or will choose, what race should be beaten by all of the Galaxy.

Ygg proposed keeping 150 planets for 10 turns. Do you have your own proposals to the game end?..

Please dont enter an open end game anymore if you dont like it.

I didn't enter an open end game, I entered no-diplomacy game. And, of course, I can exit it, as easy as I entered...

I thought we started open end to see how it works, and make a decision then.

That's why I don't think we'd discuss current game at all. No discussion, no diplomacy, no personal votings. Or it turns to new Pleiades, when you'll make alliances not in the game itself, but at the forum. Or will choose, what race should be beaten by all of the Galaxy.

Yup, I do agree here. That's why I started this topic long time ago. But there was no will to discuss. Of course any discussion now is awkward.

I'm open to any winning condition in which a player needs to do something (like keep 4-5 homeworlds for several consecutive turns, or build 150 bases, or sank specific number of tones or whatever - we can discuss) - just not forced ending at ceratin turn and win decided by ptscore. Plus we need give players time to adjust, so this winning condition can't be incorporate next turn.

Ygg proposed keeping 150 planets for 10 turns. Do you have your own proposals to the game end?..

Yep, as I mentioned above, battle it out or agree on a winner when there is noone left who wants to oppose the leading player. I am pretty sure there is noone in this game who won't be able to judge about the outcome as soon as it becomes obvious who might win. It wont be dragged out forever.

I'm still convinced that 80 turns isnt enough for a non-alliance-game to give the carrier races a fair chance.

Well snouka, there are some problems here.

You can't force people to have a deciding war when the two strongest races have 200 planets and ships each. Making proper turns in such situation will take too long and there is even no clarity that any advantage could be achieved in long period of time.

And there is a race like Tholian with main tool or feature to stop/slow any offensive. Forcing other players to attack Tholian directly (to battle it out) is like adding value to webs. Do you see it? Same as making any economic winning condition will add value to economic features and so on.

No deciding war between the last two large races? So which decision would be better then? I cannot think of any other option where one of the two players will agree that he lost, without a nice battle in the end. Except maybe when there is a preset rule, which we dont have. I guess we will never find a satisfying answer to this problem, and perhaps it should be reconsidered for future North Star games.

And the Crystal is by far not invincible. Any race can beat him with the right strategy, even the Privateer

Well snouka, there are some problems here.

You can't force people to have a deciding war when the two strongest races have 200 planets and ships each. Making proper turns in such situation will take too long and there is even no clarity that any advantage could be achieved in long period of time.

And there is a race like Tholian with main tool or feature to stop/slow any offensive. Forcing other players to attack Tholian directly (to battle it out) is like adding value to webs. Do you see it? Same as making any economic winning condition will add value to economic features and so on.

I propose the following voting conditions:

1) any player who controls at least one planet has the right to participate in the voting;

2) any player who satisfies item 1 may initiate a vote beginning at the 80th turn;

3) Voting is considered successful if players who control more than 300 planets voted for it;

4) in the case of a positive vote, the winner is the race that controls the largest number of planets.

Game over.

Except maybe when there is a preset rule, which we dont have.

Yup, exactly such rule we want to incorporate here. The main idea of the topic was to have such rule to avoid game lasting for years.

And the Crystal is by far not invincible. Any race can beat him with the right strategy, even the Privateer

That's not the point. The issue with your "battle it out" solution is that it benefits your race the most and can simply take too long (way too much time and effort than a regular player would like to invest in the game).

Not bad, it's good idea.

But we'd discuss the exact number (300 planets)

And, we'd leave opportunity to end game earlier. For example, player may initiate the vote after turn 60, but all players who has at least 45 planets (500/11) will have "veto" right for stopping until turn 80 or so.

And, we need the rule, how to count players that will not voting at all (it is reality, some of players often just not participate in and no answer...) Think, they are "agree" by default, if they didn't answer for a week.

About 300 planets - it's too much for one (even overkill) player, and 200 planets is too much for second place, I think.

So, one player (leader) will not be able to stop the game without support of others, but, also, the second (even fat) player, that wants to beat the leader, will not be able to continue, without some of support too, or he need to seize 200 planets first.

Is this good enough?.. What you and others think about it?..

I propose the following voting conditions:

1) any player who controls at least one planet has the right to participate in the voting;

2) any player who satisfies item 1 may initiate a vote beginning at the 80th turn;

3) Voting is considered successful if players who control more than 300 planets voted for it;

4) in the case of a positive vote, the winner is the race that controls the largest number of planets.

Game over.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

Ygg proposed keeping 150 planets for 10 turns. Do you have your own proposals to the game end?..

Yep, as I mentioned above, battle it out or agree on a winner when there is noone left who wants to oppose the leading player. I am pretty sure there is noone in this game who won't be able to judge about the outcome as soon as it becomes obvious who might win. It wont be dragged out forever.

I'm still convinced that 80 turns isnt enough for a non-alliance-game to give the carrier races a fair chance.

You just not thinking about the leader itself. Many times I was in top of the game, and I pretty know, that having 40-50 ships and planets gives much more fun to play, than 150-200 and more. I can unserstand the second player, who wants to beat me as a leader, and will try to do it as long as they can, but i'm not interested to make such huge turns without even deadline ahead.

In such situation I (as leader) prefer to formally surrender than playing unlimited game with huge number of planets and ships. But, of course, I will try to get the winning condition, if it exist.

ok. we can change item 3:
3)Voting is considered successful if players who control more than X planets voted for it (where X = 300-(current turn - 80));

turn 80: X=300
turn 150: X=230

Well, I don't like the idea that some bored players or some with no chance to win anymore will decide that the game is over. So I say no here.

Keeping 150 planets for 10 consecutive turns is way better winning/ending condition. You know exactly what you need to do in order to win and others know exactly what they need to do to stop you. Just put this condition in turn 90 so the fastest win could be achieved turn 100 and everything is fine (at least for me).

Keeping 150 planets for 10 consecutive turns is way better winning/ending condition. You know exactly what you need to do in order to win and others know exactly what they need to do to stop you.

So, winning or ending?.. If you mean player that keeps 150 planets should be the winner, who will possess 2nd, 3rd and other places?.. Are you offering to play for just number of planets, without PTScore?..

I prefer if player does his best for his race, even he will not be the first in the game. And if somebody see he can't be the first, he should try to be the second, instead of surrender.

Just put this condition in turn 90 so the fastest win could be achieved turn 100 and everything is fine (at least for me).

I think not more than 5-10% of my games was so long to reach turn 100. As for me it is extremely long game. 60-70 turns should be enough for the short game, 70 and 80 as normal...

So, winning or ending?.. If you mean player that keeps 150 planets should be the winner, who will possess 2nd, 3rd and other places?.. Are you offering to play for just number of planets, without PTScore?..

Winning. Player who kept 150 planets for 10 consecutive turns is the winner (and the game ends of course). His PTScore does not matter. But PTscore will matter for all other players because they will be given points based on their PTScore (that's how this server works) so further places (if anyone needs them for whatever reason) will be determined by PTScore. The only thing for Stefan to do here is to create a formula for winnner's points.

I think not more than 5-10% of my games was so long to reach turn 100. As for me it is extremely long game. 60-70 turns should be enough for the short game, 70 and 80 as normal...

Well, a game ending turn 80 is a joke for me. Most of the games I've been playing went over turn 100. What can you do in 80 turns? Maybe win one war and that's it. Look what we did so far in this game. Even the players who were beaten (for whatever reason) or stoped playing are not completly eliminated. The real fun and challenge (to fight a decent player with developed race) is about to begin.

But make note that if this winning condition exists from the start you could win this game in 11 turns. Unfortunately now if we want to include it we need to give players time to adapt. Maybe adding it turn 80 is ok. I don't know. Other players need to give their opinions here.

Well, since the game already started either the first position is way ahead of the others and we can decide he's the winner or voting or last man standing which i prefer.

150 planets for 10 turns now that there's a great advantage doesn't seem fair.

I think in vgap there should be lots of fighting because it's a game of combat and economics is to support combat. Otherwise the borg or the lizards having a great mcs income would be better than the others, but that is for another discussion.

just me 2 cents

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

So, winning or ending?.. If you mean player that keeps 150 planets should be the winner, who will possess 2nd, 3rd and other places?.. Are you offering to play for just number of planets, without PTScore?..

Winning. Player who kept 150 planets for 10 consecutive turns is the winner (and the game ends of course). His PTScore does not matter. But PTscore will matter for all other players because they will be given points based on their PTScore (that's how this server works) so further places (if anyone needs them for whatever reason) will be determined by PTScore. The only thing for Stefan to do here is to create a formula for winnner's points.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

I think not more than 5-10% of my games was so long to reach turn 100. As for me it is extremely long game. 60-70 turns should be enough for the short game, 70 and 80 as normal...

Well, a game ending turn 80 is a joke for me. Most of the games I've been playing went over turn 100. What can you do in 80 turns? Maybe win one war and that's it. Look what we did so far in this game. Even the players who were beaten (for whatever reason) or stoped playing are not completly eliminated. The real fun and challenge (to fight a decent player with developed race) is about to begin.

But make note that if this winning condition exists from the start you could win this game in 11 turns. Unfortunately now if we want to include it we need to give players time to adapt. Maybe adding it turn 80 is ok. I don't know. Other players need to give their opinions here.

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

So, winning or ending?.. If you mean player that keeps 150 planets should be the winner, who will possess 2nd, 3rd and other places?..

Winning. Player who kept 150 planets for 10 consecutive turns is the winner (and the game ends of course). His PTScore does not matter. But PTscore will matter for all other players

Look, we have different points of view at VGAP game. It seems, you think it's kind of genocide for 10 races except the winner. But I think it's kind of competition for all of 11 races!

It means, all of 11 races should play the same, and try to do their best for their races. If we play for PTScore, then all of 11 should play for PTScore, if we play for seize maximum number of planets, then all of 11 should try to seize most of planets.

It's not a good idea to switch between.

Well, a game ending turn 80 is a joke for me. Most of the games I've been playing went over turn 100. What can you do in 80 turns? Maybe win one war and that's it. Look what we did so far in this game. Even the players who were beaten (for whatever reason) or stoped playing are not completly eliminated. The real fun and challenge (to fight a decent player with developed race) is about to begin.

Think "last man standing" is good for a duel, but not for normal game.

First, it's extremely long.

Second, it means 10 outsiders. It's not good if 10 players are spending time and play, but only one will get the result.

Third, it's breaking the balance. If you look at this like a kind of rock-paper-scissors game, where some races have advantages and disadvantages against some others, what will we get if Scissors wins over the Paper?.. We'll get the Rock wins the whole game, because there's no Paper to cover the Rock!

So, there's no motivation for Scissors to attack Paper first.

Personally I prefer kind of Invasion/SuperInvasion scenarios, where the race can get some scores even it'll be beaten further.

But make note that if this winning condition exists from the start you could win this game in 11 turns. Unfortunately now if we want to include it we need to give players time to adapt. Maybe adding it turn 80 is ok. I don't know. Other players need to give their opinions here.

there's lack of opinions still..

I am still voting to continue, it wont change. I fought against the Bird so far, but didnt expand quickly cause I have my own strategy for this game, which started as a battle royale with no turn limit.

I will not accept Sibas requests to end it quickly, now that he has the advantage, while his first suggestion in this thread, when the game was still young, was: "last man standing". Siba, come and fight me if you think you deserve victory. This also goes out to all other players.

Ouch, a war with developed Tholian with no chance to shorten or avoid it. I wonder how long it will take. I guess that's the strategy, make other players give up cause effort required to beat Snouka will be too time-consuming. Actually it might work.

Snouka, we are not discussing about QUICK ending THIS game.

First we discussing end condition itself, for all of current/future North Star games

Second, after we get common vision, we will decide how we'll end this game, NS1.

The only thing I heard from you is "give Crystals time enough to win it all" And you offered "battle or voting", means of nobody wants to battle you, and you're not going to vote.

I agree with Yggdrasil, think nobody interested to fight fat crystal without even turn limit of it. All players will drop the game, and you will be the tecnical winner, if you wish so.

Let you propose understandable end condition for the game, no matter which race you are playing. For example, what you think about kite's proposition?

I am still voting to continue, it wont change. I fought against the Bird so far, but didnt expand quickly cause I have my own strategy for this game, which started as a battle royale with no turn limit.

I will not accept Sibas requests to end it quickly, now that he has the advantage, while his first suggestion in this thread, when the game was still young, was: "last man standing". Siba, come and fight me if you think you deserve victory. This also goes out to all other players.

We need something here. Game can't last for years.

Seems most of players are not interested in...

The longest VGAP game I ever played lastet more than 6 years

Yggdrasill in Winning Condition:

We need something here. Game can't last for years.

Seems most of players are not interested in...

Woooow! How many players played till the end?

The longest VGAP game I ever played lastet more than 6 years

Siba in Re: Winning Condition:

Yggdrasill in Winning Condition:

We need something here. Game can't last for years.

Seems most of players are not interested in...

The longest VGAP game I ever played lastet more than 6 years

Well, the problem is that this game was not created with last man standing winning condition. It's only your personal interpretation Snouka. Open end means the players have to decide how the game will end.

I don't mind playing a vga game for 6 years but certainly not on this server. Although the settings are improving they are still far from being good. All these free info about ships, planets, bases, PTscore - I don't get the sense in it (does everyone have spies everywhere?) Also games here are "broken" in a way that all the leaving players and the ones who can't even develope a race properly are making it unbalanced and unfair in many aspects.

So I'm not in for a long run here (like few years). At the moment to win the game I need to beat Tholian, Klingon and Gorn. No way I'm gonna play this game so long (even if somehow it would be possible). The game is very interesting for me at the moment but without a specified aim I will drop it when I get bored - could be turn 100, maybe 150. Just keep it in mind.

It was a game hosted with friends, in the late 90ies. Rich of ressources (one big meteor each turn), lots of crazy addons (bank...). I played the Lizards, against the 3 remaining players (Borg / Empire / Rebel). I owned around 2/3 of the planets and ships, but in the end we decided to call it a draw. There was basically no chance for either of us to make a winning move. But still it was fun.

Woooow! How many players played till the end?

Can I kill your race before you quit?

snouka in Re: Winning Condition:

The longest VGAP game I ever played lastet more than 6 years

Well, the problem is that this game was not created with last man standing winning condition. It's only your personal interpretation Snouka. Open end means the players have to decide how the game will end.

I don't mind playing a vga game for 6 years but certainly not on this server. Although the settings are improving they are still far from being good. All these free info about ships, planets, bases, PTscore - I don't get the sense in it (does everyone have spies everywhere?) Also games here are "broken" in a way that all the leaving players and the ones who can't even develope a race properly are making it unbalanced and unfair in many aspects.

So I'm not in for a long run here (like few years). At the moment to win the game I need to beat Tholian, Klingon and Gorn. No way I'm gonna play this game so long (even if somehow it would be possible). The game is very interesting for me at the moment but without a specified aim I will drop it when I get bored - could be turn 100, maybe 150. Just keep it in mind.

Can I kill your race before you quit?

Sure, you can try.

I just wanted to say that I feel like I'm out of the race and I can't play for the win anymore so don't count me in for any voting or decision-making, I will accept whatever you decide.

Also I set the timer on turn 100. If till that turn we won't have any specified winning condition and there still won't be any ending on the horizon I will stop to play.

Who else is fighting with the lizard for the first place except me?
If no one then I propose to open a vote for the end of the game and determine the winner.

Who else is fighting with the lizard for the first place except me?
If no one then I propose to open a vote for the end of the game and determine the winner.

Are you fighting for the first place?.. I'm surprised

It seems (IMHO) that Tholian now tries to beat Orion for his 3rd place. I don't really expect any changes more...

From my point of view the winner should be decided through battle or vote

Let's decide about exact condition. I want to know EXACTLY what it needs to win this game.

If we are talking about voting, so

- when the voting may be started? (propose - turn 66)

- who may participate the voting? (propose - all players that has at least 5% of total PTScore)

- How we can get the votes?.. (propose - post at the forum, mail all players, and wait for a week for the votes. Players should post their votes at the forum or mailing to all)

- what is end game condition after voting?.. (propose - game ends if players that have at least 66% of PTScore of all VOTED players votes to end)

for example:

in North Star 1 we have 5962769 total PTScore at this turn.

we may start voting now (turn 66 reached)

it need to have 5962769 * 0.05 = 300000 PTScore to participate. Five races has it, (5745212 PTScore total)

If all of this five (including Orion) will participate, it needs 3791840 PTScore to end

So, even Gorn + Klingon votes (3684784 / 5745212 = 64%) is not enough to end, if Tholian, Cylon and Orion together (2060428) votes to continue.

But, if Orion will not participate in the voting, it will be enough.

And, if Klingon will not participate in the voting, but somebody replace Orion(or Ygg comes back), and Orion + Tholian votes to continue, the game will continue (Gorn and Cylon votes is not enough to end)

But, if Klingon don't say anything, and nobody replace Orion, and only Tholian and Cylon votes to continue against Gorn (if Gorn votes to end), the game will end. So, you need to wait for Orion's replacement, or find Klingon and convince him voting to continue, to override Gorn's vote.

Keep in mind that i'm not trying to end this game immediately. I just want to know the rules.

For example, if nothing will change, i can beat Cylon a little to kick him out from the voting (below of 5% PTScore), and improve my share of total PTScore (Gorn + Tholian + Klingon) from 55% to 66% to win unconditionally.

If in some of game just two players left, first of them needs 66% (twice of the second's PTScore) to win unconditionally.

If three players left, first of them need 66%, or convince one of others to end, if third hasn't more than 34% to block the voting.

etc.

What you think about such rules?.. Or you have something to add?..

That looks like something I could have written myself some time ago. Thus I absolutely refuse.

For two reasons. First I'm also involved because I've either to invest my time for a stupid game or suffer penalties for credibility. So how can you justify to disband me from voting. Every active player should be able to vote.

Second. Man may we find a solution without hireing someone with 2 doctors and a prof in applied mathematics to calculate just who's gonna win the election? Please.

Holy... Now I know why I will NEVER come to an agreement with Siba too focused on winning, at all cost.

Every active player should be able to vote.

No problem, but there should be a difference between weights of votes. And, the less of players involved, the easier to make a result.

Second. Man may we find a solution without hireing someone with 2 doctors and a prof in applied mathematics to calculate just who's gonna win the election? Please.

[tired] which solution you're talking about?.. I just want to know the exact rules of game ending. I see nobody here trying to do this.

Seems it needs to ask Stephan for help...

Holy... Now I know why I will NEVER come to an agreement with Siba too focused on winning, at all cost.

Sorry for my bad english, if you think so.

But, i remind you, i just want to know the rules of the game i'm playing. It needs to make strategy, tactics, and goals, etc.

The way "All should play and give fun for snouka, while snouka wish to play" is unacceptable.

Is it clear?..

[tired] which solution you're talking about?.. I just want to know the exact rules of game ending. I see nobody here trying to do this.

Seems it needs to ask Stephan for help...

Dunno if that would help. If snouka doesn't care about score I'ld say we could simply end the game. I've got much more a chance to get out with a better score in 3 turns than anyone of you in the top tiers.

as I said, there will be no final agreement as it seems. Fact is:

the game was set up as a "no turn limit" game with no allliances or cooperation.

- Siba wants to end the game because he wants to be the winner. He wants to end it now before going into a fight with the Crystal (and Klingon?) as long as he is on top position. - I want to continue to test my strength against him and others I didnt fight yet

Thats why I repeat my suggestion: Lets stop, find a replacement for Lizard and Priv and then continue. Siba will be able to feel as the top scorer until right now and can look for other games, and I will be able to see where the game is going from here.

as I said, there will be no final agreement as it seems. Fact is:

the game was set up as a "no turn limit" game with no allliances or cooperation.

- Siba wants to end the game because he wants to be the winner. He wants to end it now before going into a fight with the Crystal (and Klingon?) as long as he is on top position. - I want to continue to test my strength against him and others I didnt fight yet

Thats why I repeat my suggestion: Lets stop, find a replacement for Lizard and Priv and then continue. Siba will be able to feel as the top scorer until right now and can look for other games, and I will be able to see where the game is going from here.

Yeah. There is no turn limit. However just as Siba said playing till you are satisfied while everybody else wants to end is not an option. Maybe we shall simply pause it for the moment and end it if we don't find a replacement for the privateer in 20 weeks. Or something like that.

- Siba wants to end the game because he wants to be the winner.

Are you able to read messages here?..

It is not true.

I am writing it once again - I want just end condition.

before you start insulting, read your own stuff

snouka in Re: Winning Condition:

From my point of view the winner should be decided through battle or vote

Let's decide about exact condition. I want to know EXACTLY what it needs to win this game.

Maybe we shall simply pause it for the moment and end it if we don't find a replacement for the privateer in 20 weeks. Or something like that.

Do you propose to wait 20 weeks for replacement, or to play 20 weeks more?..

before you start insulting, read your own stuff

ok, guys, please keep the fights in the game, not in the forum.

My impression as an outsider:

• first things first: although announced without an initial victory condition, this game was not intended to run forever. This discussion, as unpleasant as it might seem to some, was sort-of planned.
• unless anyone of you has a big heap of ships and starbases in the queue, it's unlikely that within the next 100 turns will overtake Siba's Lizard on first place in this no-alliance scenario (in an alliance scenario, the underdogs could still team up).
• given 30 turns, someone might overtake the Klingons.
• given 5 turns, Tholians might overtake Privies, which wouldn't be a daring feat given that Privies have given up.
• those on the lower ranks probably can change places. For example, given 5 turns, someone could decimate Borgs enough to go down a few places.
• maybe the Bots still pull some trick, but I don't see how that would get visible on score ranking within fewer than about 30 turns.

This I wouldn't expect anything that significantly changes the outcome within the next 20 or so turns.

Thus, using the standard "roll a die, starting at turn 80 (or 70?)" would sound like a reasonable idea to me. Otherwise, Siba's voting idea also sounds sound. Somehow: every fifth turn (or every Sunday, i.e. every other turn?), place votes. If the sum of the voters exceeds, like, 2/3 of total PTscore, game ends (one or two turns after).

--Stefan