Creating Criteria/guideline for voting to end a game.

Want a VGA Planets game with custom settings? Have an idea for a tournament? Post it here.

Moderators: BitMask, Havok

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4940
Contact:

Post#31 » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:28 pm

And we've just learned that the drama over the NF 65 vote was a complete waste of time and acrimony.
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

User avatar
casebolt
Posts: 1589

Post#32 » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:27 pm

Amuseing how you talk about wasted time, IMO you are a cunning Quitter.

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4940
Contact:

Post#33 » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:53 pm

Yeah - OK..... :roll:

Back to the real matter at hand. I think this little episode has illustrated that the vote system was not as broken as some tried to make it out to be.
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

User avatar
casebolt
Posts: 1589

Post#34 » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:56 am

Well tx for the short game, Status Game Ended.

How to roll a Klingon in Star Trek online, first you have to rank a Federation crewman up to 6 then you get the char build option for 1 of 6 Klingon races. For instance Gorns HW was taken by the Klingons and they are absorbed into the Klingon Empire So I picked Gorn Tactical, in ground combat they have a Bite option lol. Had a First time PVP in a Klingon vs Federation Fleet battle. IT was way cool (Klingons won) Cloaking is Big because you get the jump/location/angle/range and you can drop one side of your enemies shields before they can react or reinforce them.
My current ship is a Bird a prey, working to move into a D-7.
Disruptor seem to do better damage at range then torp tubes for when the shields go down.

User avatar
Akalabeth
Posts: 639

Post#35 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:01 am

Do the top three spots even matter? What do you get points for it? And if so, where are these points?

I won the SFB Daily Destruction game.
Did I get points for it?
Do I care?

There's more to a game than the "top three spots". People are playing VGAP to play VGAP. And generally they play VGAP to have fun.

I have fun by blowing crap up. I don't care if I'm first place or last place, as long as stuff is exploding it's a good time.

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 people are losing interest in a game, then drop the game. No one's stopping you. But I don't see why a group of people in a game should have to quit playing because one or more people think it's time.


See the thing is, people enter a game with pre-defined expectations of how long they'll be in that game, and what sort of enjoyment they expect to recieve. By arbitrarily voting at any moment in time, you're circumventing those expectations. Shardin for example, entered a game expecting X number of turns, then people vote to end before that limit is up.

By having a pre-defined number of turns before a vote, everyone who enters the game knows what to expect. If you don't want to play out those extra turns, then don't, just drop.

Voting to end as it is now, is just "justified dropping" by having other people join the bandwagon of opinion.

User avatar
Captain Blood
Posts: 294

Post#36 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:02 am

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.
I see your point and I also understand. Specially if two players are having a nice fight. Having fun and enjoying themself.

The problem is that even if those two players have fun, the leading player/players might have more than 150 ships each to manage and no more enemies to fight. Attacking players who supported him or surrendered is no real option.

Yes he could spend a lot of time, moving to kill those two players fighting each other, but that is no fun either, as they will lack ressources to challenge him. So when he get there he will ruin there war.

Only problem is that it might take him an month or two to bring sufficient forces across the universe if he is not Cyborg. That is a waste of time for all players except those who have fun fighting each other.

So the compromise would usually be to let players have 5-10 turns to have as much fun/war possiable and then end the game.

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.
Regards,

Captain Blood

User avatar
Akalabeth
Posts: 639

Post#37 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:52 am

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.
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.

User avatar
Captain Blood
Posts: 294

Post#38 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:52 am

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.
The most excact answer to your question is, that one will need to look at the development of the individual game.

Player alliances, nap´s, racial nemesis like (lizard/priv) etc. can all be part of controling the universe.

Most importent is that in vga there come a time, where attacking become very difficult due to starbases for most races. So even if the leading player(s) can not defeat all other players they can not be defeated either.
Regards,

Captain Blood

User avatar
Captain Blood
Posts: 294

Post#39 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:53 am

To illustrate the above Lizard 1 st, and Priv. 2nd is neighbouring each other and have outgrown all others. Priv. would really like to see lizard gone.

Lizard have promised likely targets for the priv. that if the are attacked by priv. he will support them in a war = priv. will die. He have also let priv know of this offering him 2nd place.

Priv know that he can not defeat lizard alone, he also know he can not outgrow lizard as Lizard would support possiable victims.

He can see that it might be possiable to form an alliance towards lizard, but realize that even if the alliance would be able to deafeat lizard he will unfortunently be cripled in that battle as well.

So he will accept 2nd and having no more to fight for in that game, he will like it to end as well and might support lizard in ending the game.

From lizard´s point of view having priv. 2nd is really comforting, as he is no millitary treat. Still if lizard decide to try to kill the priv. or any other race he might likely succed, but there is a small chance that others will join priv. in that situation.

So he let other players know, that if they are attacked by priv. he will support them and inform the priv. about it offering him 2nd.

Game over..... if it is turn 70 or 100 is not really importent.

No, no other players would outgrow lizard or priv. if the game was allowed to continue. Reason is that very few races become stronger by fighting. Also neither the priv. or lizard would accept a race growing to challenge them.

Depending on the temperament of the lizard an attack on priv. could be made instead of diplomatic ending the game. If lizard was not immediate attacked by others the result of his war with priv. would be predictable. It is not likely that a race would intervene on behalf of the priv. as most races like to see priv. gone. Also another player will advance to 2nd in that situation.

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.
Regards,

Captain Blood

User avatar
B A N E
Posts: 3777

Post#40 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:33 pm

It seems to me that the solution is simple:

Have some games that allow votes and
some games that don't allow votes.

Ask Havok at new game setup time to provide games with the options
desired (ie: length & vote). Game attendance will determine which
type is most acceptable.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Your side,
their side,
and the truth.

User avatar
Akalabeth
Posts: 639

Post#41 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:24 pm

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.
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.

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? Alliances can change, and new ones can be formed. Unless you're in a bonafide "alliance" there's little reason that war can't break out. NAP? Big deal, NAPs are meant to be broken. Don't want to look like a poor sport, give them some advanced warning. With 11 players the games can be incredibly dynamic.

And really you defeat your own example. You say that most races don't get stronger by fighting. Well then what's the point of fighting? Of course some race in 2nd or 1st won't want to fight because they don't want to weaken themselves, fighting goes both ways. It's easier to just sit back and say "oh you guys can't touch me. Let's end it".

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4940
Contact:

Post#42 » Mon Feb 22, 2010 3:15 pm

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?
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.
NAP? Big deal, NAPs are meant to be broken.
Remind me never to forge a NAP with you! :shock:
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

User avatar
Akalabeth
Posts: 639

Post#43 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:40 am

Gilgamesh wrote:
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?
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.
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.

But if a Player A is in a good position, and the current situation says better to end it now than play it out, then isn't calling a vote essentially dropping from the game? Especially if say Player B has potential to overtake Player A in the standings.

Like in my current game, NF63, I'm in second place. And the Colonial player is flying in with meteor-towed Virgos and all sorts of other monstronsities. And he's probably going to rape and pillage my whole empire, so it would be in my best interests to end the game now and preserve my spot in the standings. But I won't, I'd rather fight and lose then not fight at all. Besides given the fact that fighting, or sinking tonnage reflects positively on the score I'm not sure it's a given that a race who fights won't get stronger. Maybe they won't get stronger in the game, but they certainly can get stronger in the standings.
NAP? Big deal, NAPs are meant to be broken.
Remind me never to forge a NAP with you! :shock:
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.

All I really mean to say is that the NAP is one of the lowest forms of alliance, just above "trading ships for no reason". It's basically a "let's not screw eachother" agreement or "please don't kill me while I attack this guy" agreement, but it's not a "let's be friends forever" agreement.

User avatar
Gilgamesh
Posts: 4940
Contact:

Post#44 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:53 am

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.
QI'DaS tuQ SoSlI'

User avatar
Akalabeth
Posts: 639

Post#45 » Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:14 am

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.
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.

Return to “Game Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron