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

[Yogibear]

I remember playing the "Europe" map. It's a little different from Conquest, but pretty much the same considering alliances. We played with fog, we had alliances, we broke them, sometimes explicitly (warning in advance), sometimes by betrayals. And we had one winner in the end.

Now that was one of the most fun games i ever played. It made me (and others as well) play until 4 AM i think, despite the fact that i had to get up at 6:30 again. That game must have lasted 4+ hours, probably.

You should maybe realize, that there are different ways to play this game and that they all can be fun - for some.
As soon as we accept that, the only thing important is: What kind of game are we looking for? And that indeed should be talked about in the beginning, to prevent from unpleasant playing experiences. Slow_Thinker has mentioned it before and i think it is a valid point. Btw, a point that not only accounts for Conquest, but basically for any game, although many of the relevant parameters are set in advance and visible in the lobby, too.

[SlowThinker]

As soon as we accept that, the only thing important is: What kind of game are we looking for? And that indeed should be talked about in the beginning, to prevent from unpleasant playing experiences.

The starting window lacks a notice board where the host could write aditional rules and notes. The title is too short.

[Yogibear]

That's what the game lobby is for.

[SlowThinker]

Game lobby - do you mean the lobby with a list of all games or the lobby for the unique game with a list of playing slots (I called this "starting window")?

[Mabuse]

well overall, i dont mind alliances, but smart players would try to get into a strong position in that alliance and finally would be able to dominate the world.

[Yogibear]

Game lobby - do you mean the lobby with a list of all games or the lobby for the unique game with a list of playing slots (I called this "starting window")?

The latter which you call "starting window". It's the place to talk about game details like "no quitters", skill levels, expectations and such.

[SlowThinker]

I want a space that which editing would be accessible to the host only, something like the game title is, but with more lines. Any newcomer to the game lobby should be able to read this easily.

The chat is not suitable for an additional game info because it is messed with too much of other text, and also newcomers don't see any previous text.
Presently I use the chat area, but I wait until the game slots are filled, then I must input several lines of text with game settings. Then somebody dislikes the settings and quit, I must wait for new players and to input the settings again and hope nobody will quit again...

[Caulder]

I told myself I wouldn't bother with this anymore, but I just can't stop from coming back.

You are correct, this is the principle of the dispute:
They violated the rules, then they pressed me that I confirmed they didn't have violated them.
Now you are complaining hard that I didn't accept their demand.

I'm not complaining you didn't accept their demand, per say, but I'm complaining about the fact that you wasted, both their time, your own time, and the observers who were waiting for a new game to start's time. Whether or not they did break any rules is beside the point, as long as more and more people are playing Conquest games like this, the minority of players are "1 winner only" Maybe not now, but I really do forsee it. It'd be easier to state in the beggining "1 winner only" or "no diplomacy just a big free-for-all." I mean sure, I wouldn't mind playing that type of game once in a while.

A good example is a game of 3 players. Any two players that make an alliance will win. The game is reduced to 5 sec or 1 min of "diplomacy" at the start.
A game with 8 players is more complicated, because it is not so easy to determine how many players are needed to establish the dominating alliance, but still the game will be resolved by 10 min of diplomacy in turn 1.
The fact that your games can last 10 or more turns proves you are noobish players. Any smart player would try to become a member of a dominating alliance in turn 1.

Alright, but who in the right mind is playing a Conquest game with only 3 people? Could they not wait anothe couple of minutes for more people to enter? No? And if it's mid-late game and there's only 3 people left, then I really don't see anything wrong, there will ALWAYS be someone teaming up with another person to beat on another, usually it ends up as the two weak teaming up against the stronger player, never have I seen two strong players team up to beat the weak into a pulp. And the fact that our games can last MORE than 10 turns makes us noobish..? Do you mean less than 10 turns? Even that again is exaggerated, you stretch things WAY too much to even be funny, seriously. A 10 turn victory is possible oh yeah, but not only would the alliance have to help the one sole player to a victory, they have to prevent the other 3 from teaming up against them, either that, or 1-2 people quit. And I agree 8 people would be a fun game, it would really lower the advantage that P1 has over the rest of them, seeing as more of the neutral villages would be already taken by other players. What I'm just saying is that winning the game by turn 1 is impossible. Even if you make an alliance of three people, it's still hard to end the game, unless you're all really good friends in real life and already talked over your plan. I've said before I've been allies and enemies with my friends, it's not the same every game. Even people who aren't my friends from one game, I'll ally with them in another.

Is it a joke? 1 winner only games are pronounced very clearly in the scenario objectives.

But I said up there ^ That it seems more and more conquest games are being played as alliance win. I have yet to see someone who enjoys playing alliance win games, complain on the forums about "1 winner only" people giving them hard times. Does that say something? Yeah..

Please read that linked post to the end.
Also remember any alliance with a possibility of a betrayal is very unstable, and so is also the alliance that tries to weaken the strongest player.

... Did you even read the end of the post? He's talking about a 4 player game near impossible to actually end. And a 3 player game ends up as players teaming up against someone. But I'm not talking about what happens during the alliance, I'm talking about what happens afterwards. If it's a 4 player game, and it happens to come out as 2v2 and it's a dead end, well then there can always be betrayel sure, but it's it 2v1 and if the team of 2 are left after the war, but they're equal it's nearly exactly like the 2v2, except now it's 1v1 it'll be hard to finish. Do you get what I'm talking about now? If those are actual ties, then okay, they're ties. But if a game has an overwhelming advantage to an alliance that doesn't seem will break up anytime soon, they too can have a tie. What's so wrong about that?! I'm just saying it'll be easier to just call a game a tie and get it over with, than duke it out to the end which could take a long time. Sometimes I don't exactly always have the time to do that, sometimes I'd prefer an alliance win that takes 1-3 hours, rather than a "1 winner only" that takes 3-5 hours. Oh and about you saying alliances are unstable, I agree, in a "1 winner only" game the alliances will always be unstable, and there's nearly no point to having an alliance unless you're trying to get yourself stronger, by trying to weaken another player. In an "alliance win" game, alliances may still have a chance to be unstable, as there still IS betrayel within the game, but there's a lot less paranoia while in said alliance, because you two don't want to go to war with each other, you don't mind both winning.

[Caulder]

Now that was one of the most fun games i ever played. It made me (and others as well) play until 4 AM i think, despite the fact that i had to get up at 6:30 again. That game must have lasted 4+ hours, probably.

You should maybe realize, that there are different ways to play this game and that they all can be fun - for some.
As soon as we accept that, the only thing important is: What kind of game are we looking for? And that indeed should be talked about in the beginning, to prevent from unpleasant playing experiences. Slow_Thinker has mentioned it before and i think it is a valid point. Btw, a point that not only accounts for Conquest, but basically for any game, although many of the relevant parameters are set in advance and visible in the lobby, too.

The first conquest game I ever played, and my first serious multiplayer game as well lasted 5+ hours I believe, I know we didn't end until about 5:30, but the thing was that game ended in an alliance victory. The game started with a "1 winner only" mentality but soon ended up in a stalemate as any one who actually attacked someone/gained any sort of land was soon teamed up against by the other players because they became "dominate" So it was pretty much just a big "Cold War". We were all just waiting for each other to make a move, eventually someone had to leave, and when someone made a move for the land we allied together, in the end when there was three of us left we just decided that the game has gone on long enough and we called it a tie. What I'm trying to get at is that even though it is against the rules it doesn't make it that the entire game didn't happen. And it doesn't make it that games like this are happening half the time a conquest game is being played.

I'm not saying "1 winner only" games aren't fun, and can't be played, oh no. I'm saying "Alliance win" games usually end up finishing fairly quicker. I've played games where we stated in the beggining "alright no diplomacy" or something along the lines of that, and they worked out fine, but it seems the norm, or atleast nearly every conquest game I've played, is that "alliance wins" are viable. I say nearly because due to time constraints I have had to quit before seeing the ending of a game, but most of the time I know atleast one person in them and they usually tell me the game ended in a tie with the dominate alliance.

[SlowThinker]

About our specific game

I'm not complaining you didn't accept their demand, per say, but I'm complaining about the fact that you wasted, both their time...

I have nothing to add, I would just repeat something that I said at least twice before.


About rules of Conquest
"an alliance can win" rules:
Let us say there are 8 wise players in the game. It is natural 5 players or 4 players with strong positions will establish an unbeatable alliance in turn 1. Such an alliance is totally stable and the game is over.


"1 winner only" rules:

He's talking about a 4 player game near impossible to actually end.

Of course a 4 player game cannot end, first 3 players must be wiped off . I said in one moment the diplomatic talks will start about "whom we will wipe off".

except now it's 1v1 it'll be hard to finish

if 1vs1 is not easy to finish how all the 1vs1 MP maps can work? And they are balanced, while the starting 1vs1 position in conquest needn't be.

[Caulder]

Let us say there are 8 wise players in the game. It is natural 5 players or 4 players with strong positions will establish an unbeatable alliance in turn 1. Such an alliance is totally stable and the game is over.

And what's stopping the other 4 players from making their own stable alliance? Nothing. Even if it's 5 players making an alliance on turn 1, which I've said it's near impossible and you exaggerate everything you say, nothing is stopping the other 3 from making their own alliance, and convincing a member from the other alliance to betray their own. I have never said in any way that an "alliance win" game, that every single alliance you make is always stable. That would be a total lie, and if you said I did say that you'd be twisting my words. Alliances will be broken in either type of game, but in an "alliance win" game there's a chance that an alliance wont be broken. Sorry I'd prefer to play a game where there's a chance I wont be attack from my backside, seeing as a person is more motivated to win WITH his alliance instead of by himself and wait for a good opportunity to betray his ally.

if 1vs1 is not easy to finish how all the 1vs1 MP maps can work? And they are balanced, while the starting 1vs1 position in conquest needn't be.

The difference there is faction differences, and units leveling up. There's plenty of other factors you have to consider before comparing the two. If there is two players left in Conquest and they both have the exact same gold production per turn, then the ONLY and I mean ONLY factors that would determine a win is Player Experience, Any form of defense you can make, and Luck. While in a 1vs1 game as I said before you also have to incorporate Faction differences such as Lawful/Chaotic, or they're seperate units speciality, and the fact they can level up. Ofcourse you could say well they could be the same faction, so they had the same exact units, but they can still level up, so that can give you an upper hand, there's also a ton of different strategies you can work with. While in Conquest there's only really a few, if you can really say few.

[SlowThinker]

And what's stopping the other 4 players from making their own stable alliance? Nothing. Even if it's 5 players making an alliance on turn 1, which I've said it's near impossible and you exaggerate everything you say, nothing is stopping the other 3 from making their own alliance, and convincing a member from the other alliance to betray their own.

Two alliances 4 vs 4 is an unstable situation, 1 player will convert immediately, then it will be 5 vs 3 and the game will be over.
Once there are two alliances 5 vs 3 then the alliance of 5 is totally stable. No member of the dominating alliance has a reason to betray. He won, and if he betrays he may lose.
Why do you say an alliance of 5 in turn 1 is impossible? In fact it is very very likely. The only goal of the game is to join the dominating alliance, and every player will do his best to reach this goal as soon as possible.

[Caulder]

Two alliances 4 vs 4 is an unstable situation, 1 player will convert immediately, then it will be 5 vs 3 and the game will be over.
Once there are two alliances 5 vs 3 then the alliance of 5 is totally stable. No member of the dominating alliance has a reason to betray. He won, and if he betrays he may lose.
Why do you say an alliance of 5 in turn 1 is impossible? In fact it is very very likely. The only goal of the game is to join the dominating alliance, and every player will do his best to reach this goal as soon as possible.

You're saying this like everyone is a big bully and just wants to pick on the little guys to win. While in reality, and if you actually payed attention, what happens in real games is the opposite, whenever it's 4vs4 or 3vs3, or 2vs2 rarely does one player just convert right away to the other alliance. And in fact it is very very unlikely, don't even say that it is likely anymore. Especially on turn 1, I mean you can barely even make an alliance, because you haven't even taken any territories yet. It's like saying "Oh we're allied, so we don't attack each other in our little jumble of villages all over the map." Even if they do manage to take a territory by turn 2 which I've stated earlier is pretty hard to do considering unless they're strategically placed within the territory/no other people are there/probably have more than 1 village in it anyways.

Back to your dominating alliance, from most of the games I've played when a game finishes in an "alliance win" it is usually only 2 players, I say this because I have seen a 3 way tie for alliance win, it's rare but I'd be lying if I said it didn't happen, anyways.. This means that from the near beggining, those two who were at equal odds with everyone else BECAME dominant, through skill, and cooperation. It's not because they all teamed up to get a 5 way tie with 3 other people. Even that wouldn't happen, there would always be other people to say "Uh.. No?" Even I'll admit I wouldn't stand for that, and you know how much I'm for Alliance wins. That's just stupid and you're trying to point out a flaw in "alliance win" by saying something that would never happen. It's like saying "Oh I don't ever want to go outside, because my local grocery store will blow up and land on me." It's so near impossible it's not even funny.

[SlowThinker]

You're saying this like everyone is a big bully and just wants to pick on the little guys to win. While in reality, and if you actually payed attention, what happens in real games is the opposite, whenever it's 4vs4 or 3vs3, or 2vs2 rarely does one player just convert right away to the other alliance.

I know in reality alliances 5 vs 3 in turn 1 don't happen. I said it was because you play it noobish: the only goal of the game is to join the dominating alliance, and you don't care about it.
In a 4vs4 alliance your chances to win are let us say 50%, if you convert it is 100%. You are not a very wise player if you don't convert immediately.

[Yogibear]

Errm - guys:

You two obviously have different opinions about what happens in Conquest and how to judge it. And obviously you either don't understand or follow-up on each other's arguments.

Here are a couple of suggestions:

1. You leave it alone and start playing Conquest again (my preferred one)

2. You continue to argue via PM

3. You start to back up your statements instead of just telling "I am the truth!". <hint>replays</hint>

In any case consider this soft-locked, until someone comes over with something new.