"1-winner only" games (Conquest etc.)

[SlowThinker]

Scenario objectives of FFA games often contain this:
"There can be only one winner" and "Temporary alliance (truces) are allowed, but remember that who you ally with one minute may turn into an enemy the next" (citation from Conquest)

Way I understand this measure:
If more winners would be allowed (i.e. an alliance could be a winner), the effort of the players would be degraded in "join the alliance that will be able to conquer all the world". The game would be decided right after such an alliance would arise: no its member would want to break the alliance.

The "1-winner only" rule makes any alliance unstable. For example if there are 3 players in the game and player 1 and 2 ally against player 3, they are strong enough to kill him, but they know they will have to fight one another after player 3 is dead. It is very likely the alliance will end before player 3 is dead.

[SlowThinker]

It is clear there are players that disagree with my words above:

I had a Conquest game with Bciac and Shenanigann. They were allied, both very strong, 2 others sides (me and StandYourGround) were weak. Bciac and Shenanigann decided not to continue the game and they claimed they both won. They asked that I accepted they won and I lost. I answered the game objectives were clear: there might be one winner only, and I claimed the game would have no winner and would be a tie if not played until 1 player remaining.

[Mabuse]

if you are in a losing position you can simply quit the game
then the noobs are forced to fight each other or simply leave also

in any case if noobs ruin a game by playing a "total alliance" just minimize the fun for them by simply quittng as soon you think you are in a hopeless position.
you really must quit as early as you can to minimize the fun they get from their noobishness


then you can start a new game then and kick the noobs if the join again


i really hate this and would play conquest only with serious players who think about their advantages and "trade out" fair alliances. nooby can be too easily pursuaded into foul alliances that only bring benefit for one player


with p3 as noob player:

player1: "p3, leave spain now, and i give you italy in three rounds"
player2: "no dont do that, then p1 will be too mighty for both of us righty away"
player3: "ok, sounds great, will leave spain - alliance forever ?"


with p3 as pro player:

player1: "p3, leave spain now, and i give you italy in three rounds"
player2: "..."
player3: "bawhahaha, do you think im dumb ? come and take it if you can"


so you see the difference ? the noob will simply ruin the game by boosting p1 into a monster that nobody wil be able to stop (and refuses to fiht against him at the same time - so its only "slaughter player2 game"), while with the pro players it promises to be a good game


if yi would be p2 i would TRY to fight a bit (if i would have a continent also right away), but if it seems hopeless simply quit and search for better players

so in the example as soon p3 leaves spain for no reason (other than making p1 clear winner at start) i would say "gg" and quit. shall the honks continue their noob game alone

[Mabuse]

with p3 as pro player:

player1: "p3, leave spain now, and i give you italy in three rounds"
player2: "..."
player3: "bawhahaha, do you think im dumb ? come and take it if you can"

ahaha, btw, i forgot to mention if p3 is a real pro then the conversation would look like this:

player1: "p3, leave spain now, and i give you italy in three rounds"
player2: "..."
player3: "..."

5 minutes later

player1: "p3, leave spain ?"
player3: "shut up, noob"

[SlowThinker]

In that game there were 3 other players and at least 2 observers and all were in opposition to me ("don't obstruct and accept there are two winners and you lost"). So these "reworked rules" seem to be getting popular.
It may be because the Conquest rules have one small flaw: they say "Defeat: the death with all your your non-leader units". It indicates like there might be this result of the game: those who were wiped off (they lost) and those who survived (they didn't win, but also didn't lost).
It should be clear that the game has no result if it doesn't end by 1 winner. There should be something like "Defeat: you aren't the only winner".

(But still with the current rules, in principle the game ended when Bciac and Shenanigann broke game rules ("accept you lost and we two are the winners" ). IMHO.)

if you are in a losing position you can simply quit the game
then the noobs are forced to fight each other or simply leave also

I really hate those who quit because they are weak (and ruin the game this way), so I quitted when I was really sure they don't want to continue after I am wiped off.
I start my games with this sentence:
"it is expected you don't quit even you are very weak: alliances are supposed in this FFA game, and it is usually easy to find out an ally for a weak player"
Maybe something similar should be added in the scenario objectives?

if yi would be p2 i would TRY to fight a bit (if i would have a continent also right away), but if it seems hopeless simply quit and search for better players

I think such a noob is ok, it is your job to persuade him that he will be wipped out by the dominating player. And that there is no difference to be wiped out 1st or last.
If you don't persuade him, then it is hard luck, but it is a fair game

[Caulder]

Let me ask you this: If an alliance of two players does rule Europe or atleast most of it, and they decide "We agree to a tie for winner." You're 3rd player and getting your arse kicked, are you going to argue with it? Is the game going to say "No you can't do that." "That sounds dumb." "Does not compute." Etc etc, you can't do ANYTHING about it. I remember this game, I was one of those observers you stated earlier. But I told you then, and I'll tell you now it's like playing a game of chess, your oppenent has nearly every single piece he has, and all you have left is your king, maybe even a couple of pawns. SURE, you could win, the chances are so slim to none, but you COULD win, but wouldn't you just rather be the better man, extend your hand and tell him "Goodgame." Or would you rather be as stubborn as a mule, bicker with your opponent, have hurtful names be thrown around etc etc. I just don't see the point to that really, can you tell me the point? I mean if I was on the losing end I'd cut my loses and say "Sure lets start another game, I'd be up for it." But you didn't, you refused, and you prolonged a game that should have finished perhaps 1-3 hours, almost another 2 hours, that's if you didn't quit. Which you did. The minute you quit, standyourground UNDERSTOOD he was going to lose and was like "Fine, lets start a new game then." But you ran off, whining might I add, that the rules stated there is only one winner. Can you guess how that game ended? It ended with a tie, yeah that's right a tie. But I thought the rules stated there was only one winner? Well it seems the stronger alliance didn't have a need to argue about having a tie, they were both fine with winning.

Now about kicking people out who Mabuse calls "Noobs" who in fact make up quite a large population in the conquest games, just seems insane. To be honest I wouldn't mind playing a game where I alone dominate Europe but the time it takes and the ammount of betrayels to do that is just absurd. Think about it, everytime one single person gets strong, according to all you people who say "only 1 winner", expect their alliance member to betray them, so what's the point of having an alliance right? Then even having you betray your alliance, everyone else just hates you, so there's nearly no point to betrayel. So instead having a team mate that's trustworthy and winning as a tie seems to be the much more logical, less time consuming, and all around more civilized end of a game worth actually getting to, right?

All I had to say was sure the rules say there's "only 1 winner" But if the winning alliance doesn't feel like arguing over who's stronger, who's got the biggest internet [censored] etc etc, that simple rule means nearly nothing.

[Coaxke]

In an (somewhat) unrelated note, an unfair alliance allowed this purple player to not only win the game, but also spend an entire 45 minutes doing absolutely nothing worth posting on the forum, but I'm going to do it anyway:

[Aethaeryn]

Every hex can be filled, since it doesn't declare victory until you end turn when you clear the field.

[SlowThinker]

About our specific game

I remember this game, I was one of those observers you stated earlier. But I told you then, and I'll tell you now...

Bciac and Shenanigann pronounced their opinion: we are 2 winners
I pronounced my opinion: the game has no result.
Then both sides argued their stance. But why do you say "you were stubborn as a mule" and Bciac and Shenanigann weren't?
Both sides argued, and you call just my arguing by "whining". Why you are so biased, is there anything personal behind?

You are complaining I continued to play and then I quit:
I continued to play as long as I hoped to persuade them that each player must try to be the only winner.
Once it was clear there was no chance to finish the game (= to finish with 1 winner), I quit. I considered that they violated the game rules (I remember you tried to persuade me that since all other players agree with the "alliance can win" rules, so I must accept them too. No, rules are not a subject of voting. Changes of rules could be debated at start of the game, but not in the middle).

Could you cite the hurtful names I should say? Thank you. (The game is attached, just start the continuous replay, wait until it finishes, then all the chat is available.)

[SlowThinker]

About rules of FFA games / Conquest

Now about kicking people out who Mabuse calls "Noobs" who in fact make up quite a large population in the conquest games, just seems insane.

(remember "insane" may be hurtful )

A large population in the conquest games plays with changed rules (one problem is they forget to point out the change of the rules in the beginning). These changed rules degrade effort of the players to "join the dominating alliance". Once the alliance is created the game is over (and this may be done in turn 1). It seems quite noobish to me.
Also I noticed sometimes the dominating alliance doesn't want to end the game after establishing itself (like Bciac and Shenanigann did in our game), but enjoys to wipe off the weak players. Maybe this is why Mabuse used the word "noobish"

The betrayal is a very interesting aspect of the game, because it has its pros and cons and you must decide. It usually pays off a lot, but you lose credit and it will be harder to get allies in future.
But if you want to keep your credit you don't have to set indefinite alliances/peace, you can set an alliance/peace for X turns, or you can agree it may be ended but it must be reported X turns in advance.

I agree the "an alliance can win" rules are "less time consuming". Maybe you should play head-tail if you want fast games.

All I had to say was sure the rules say there's "only 1 winner" But if the winning alliance doesn't feel like arguing over who's stronger, who's got the biggest internet [censored] etc etc, that simple rule means nearly nothing.

You still don't understand the rules:
The term "winning alliance" is a nonsense if there may be one winner only.
The rules don't say the player with most villages wins or the player with a biggest [censored] wins, so there is nothing to argue about.
If players feel the game would never end or nobody wants to risk to change the status quo and to try some action, then the game ends by no result.

[ancestral]

Although I like Blueblaze and admire his work here there are still parts of Conquest which need balancing and player 1 has a significant advantage.

And Finland should be part of Scandinavia.

However, the largest factor is probably alliances, favoritism and ganging up on certain players. Having fog of war off, being able to see everything turns these types of games into political affairs.

[SlowThinker]

The advantage of the 1st player may be balanced by a different base gold revenue.
_______________________________________
I see another problem with the fog of war off:

for a player the game has two goals:
1) not to allow any other player to become dominant
2) to try to become dominant

Without fog 2) seems almost impossible, because it is easy to identify a side that is getting too strong and to ally against it until it is weakened. So it seems games should never end.
But still i don't think games should end by a dead end: although the chance to win a game with 4 players remaining seems to be almost impossible, the chance to win with 3 players remaining seems to be a bit better. So it would be logical that the diplomacy would be about "whom will we wipe out?". (Of course the act of "wiping off" induces animus and jealousy and the course of the game may change fast)

[silent]

Although I like Blueblaze and admire his work here there are still parts of Conquest which need balancing and player 1 has a significant advantage.

And Finland should be part of Scandinavia.

However, the largest factor is probably alliances, favoritism and ganging up on certain players. Having fog of war off, being able to see everything turns these types of games into political affairs.

I'd probably add players leaving to this as well, as this gives a nearby player a huge advantage as the AI doesn't recruit and hacks itself to bits

[silent]

The advantage of the 1st player may be balanced by a different base gold revenue.
_______________________________________
I see another problem with the fog of war off:

for a player the game has two goals:
1) not to allow any other player to become dominant
2) to try to become dominant

Without fog 2) seems almost impossible, because it is easy to identify a side that is getting too strong and to ally against it until it is weakened. So it seems games should never end.
But still i don't think games should end by a dead end: although the chance to win a game with 4 players remaining seems to be almost impossible, the chance to win with 3 players remaining seems to be a bit better. So it would be logical that the diplomacy would be about "whom will we wipe out?". (Of course the act of "wiping off" induces animus and jealousy and the course of the game may change fast)

well with a few exceptions, and only a few games on conquest, I feel that the players are like warring orc tribes. They'll put up with each other when facing a mutual enemy, but turn on each other once the threat is averted

[Caulder]

About our specific game

I remember this game, I was one of those observers you stated earlier. But I told you then, and I'll tell you now...

Bciac and Shenanigann pronounced their opinion: we are 2 winners
I pronounced my opinion: the game has no result.
Then both sides argued their stance. But why do you say "you were stubborn as a mule" and Bciac and Shenanigann weren't?
Both sides argued, and you call just my arguing by "whining". Why you are so biased, is there anything personal behind?

You are complaining I continued to play and then I quit:
I continued to play as long as I hoped to persuade them that each player must try to be the only winner.
Once it was clear there was no chance to finish the game (= to finish with 1 winner), I quit. I considered that they violated the game rules (I remember you tried to persuade me that since all other players agree with the "alliance can win" rules, so I must accept them too. No, rules are not a subject of voting. Changes of rules could be debated at start of the game, but not in the middle).

Could you cite the hurtful names I should say? Thank you. (The game is attached, just start the continuous replay, wait until it finishes, then all the chat is available.)

I'd like to cut out what to quote or not, but really this is all flawed. You said the game had no result, while in reality you knew, you HAD to know that they had pretty much won. You said so yourself you quit BECAUSE you had no hope of winning, aren't you just saying there that the game was over? I called you stubborn because they were allowing the game to end, at that moment in time. But you being stubborn caused to prolong the end of the game a lot longer than it had to be. Think about it, they were giving you a choice to end the game there, and they'd restart a new one, but you didn't take it. That in itself is stubborness. No I'm not biased, I'm stating the whole time Bciac and Sheninigan wanted to start a new game. They wanted to say it was finished, they had won. Who cares right? Appearently you did, you continued to play just for the sake of only "1 winner" and did it happen? That's why I say you whined, but unlike most little kids you didn't get what you wanted.

And I come back to what are you going to do if they want to pronounce a tie? If those two themselves are the strongest in a game, huh? It's not like the game wont let them do it, oh no, but you can quit, sure. The problem with that is that you'll be quiting a bunch of conquest games in your future because there is a large population of people who don't mind winning a conquest game in a tie.

Alright I watched the replay, and so there was no mud slinging in that game, but trust me on this when I say there is in a lot of other games that happens. IB on the other thread talking about Conquest 1.1 maybe a pretty funny picture of his troops making a smiley face. With the quote: "Not all games of conquest end in bickering, name calling and blood vendettas." Being pretty ironic to what really happens. And now on to your other post..