I see your point and I also understand. Specially if two players are having a nice fight. Having fun and enjoying themself.Akalabeth wrote: To assume that everyone is going to lose interest in a game because the top three places are decided is absurd in my opinion.
If the top three players aren't allied then is the universe really under control?Captain Blood wrote: In vga we fight for controle of the universe and once that is setled there is no more to fight about. Naturally players might have there own goals as well during the game, but they also have a time limit.
The most excact answer to your question is, that one will need to look at the development of the individual game.Akalabeth wrote: If the top three players aren't allied then is the universe really under control?
Unless the top alliance can easily beat everyone else combined then I don't see how the game is finished.
Basically what it comes down to is Player A not wanting to continue the game. So Player A can either "Drop the game" or if the situation is right, "initiate a vote to end the game". But either way, they're still just quitting the game.Captain Blood wrote:An attack would prolong the game with another 20 or 30 turns. Still why not let the priv. end 2nd if he had fought well so far.
My question would be in case of an attack on priv., who should lizard attack once priv. was defeated?
I considder it most fair ending the game once it is setled, having lizard decide who end 2nd or 3rd is not in his or the other players interest. A lucky player in a far corner ending 2nd.
Predictable wars with no goal is waste of time as I see it, but that is a question of temperament.
Because the outcome is already in the bag. What possible purpose does it serve to drag it out another 20 turns? End it and let people join a new game.Akalabeth wrote: You'd say that if 70 turns are up, it's pointless to fight a war for 20 turns that may not change the overall standings whereas I'd say if I've played 70 turns why not fight the war?
Remind me never to forge a NAP with you!NAP? Big deal, NAPs are meant to be broken.
Well look at NF65. I don't know Paladin's motivations, but the situation in that game was that the Privs were in third place, but were in danger of losing that position because the Birds were being attacked, and the Feds were being attacked. In that case, does one wonder if the game was called because they didn't want to lose their position in the standings? Maybe that wasn't the case.Gilgamesh wrote:Because the outcome is already in the bag. What possible purpose does it serve to drag it out another 20 turns? End it and let people join a new game.Akalabeth wrote: You'd say that if 70 turns are up, it's pointless to fight a war for 20 turns that may not change the overall standings whereas I'd say if I've played 70 turns why not fight the war?
An NAP is a thing of convenience. A lot of people seem to only do it for X number of turns. It's good for breathing room but it's not an alliance. If the friendship is truely lasting the NAP will develop into something more relevant like an alliance or a mutual defense pact. If not, there's no reason the NAP can't come to an end. That being said, if I enter into an NAP it's usually to secure a border. So unless circumstances change on the other border then I don't see any reason to break one and potential start a two front war.Remind me never to forge a NAP with you!NAP? Big deal, NAPs are meant to be broken.
Well in a long term game, let's say the major powers have an NAP with Player A and Player A isn't doing too much. Then the minor powers, wanting to enlist the help of Player A court them to their side, and he joins the fight. Now I don't think that would necessarily be a "bad" thing. But, for the sake of fairness Player A should give some advanced warning. Ie "Our empire no longer finds the NAP beneficial, and will terminate it in 10 turns". I think that's fair. Outright backstabbing may even be fun, but won't win you any friends hahaha.Gilgamesh wrote:About the vote thing - again - one person or an alliance by themselves can't force an end unless enough people feel the same way that a majority want to end. We saw this in NF 65 - twice.
About NAPs: if there's a turn limit - say we agree on the NAP until turn 50 - fine. Whatever happens after that is fair play. Generally I use a NAP to secure a border the same as you, but having done that I want that NAP to continue to the end. It's all in what you agree to, but having made the agreement I would hope you would stick to it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests