Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

End Game Scenario

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • End Game Scenario

    In past games I've hosted we've usually had a pretty easy time coming to a consensus on when to end the game. However, TGS has shown that it doesn't have to end even when one or two players appear to be dominant. It's really a balancing act between the desire to continue playing and wanting to start over with a fresh game.

    Each persons take on the above can be different. Some people don't like the late game as much. A person in a less dominant position might not feel like putting as much time in the game. A person in a more dominant position might feel like any resistance is futile. Some people have that never say die mentality. :)

    What I'd like to do is come up with a system that is fair and consistent across all the games so let's discuss some ideas.

    My proposal would be to allow any player to call for a vote once per month. This would be a yes or no vote (no abstains or don't cares) with a majority yes vote meaning the game ends.

    Thoughts?

    Bernout

    |TG-MD6|


  • #2
    Re: End Game Scenario

    Yes I agree :)

    I am firmly in the I don't like the end game camp. My turns take almost 20 mins each now - although a lot of that is my second rate PC :p The wars really bog down with drafting and culture revolts make captured cities take almost 10 turns to become productive.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: End Game Scenario

      Personally I think modern era games are fun to play. More units, more technology, more strategic options. I have no hardware issues with increased lag in end games either so I can't say that's an issue for me. About TG's current power structure: It's true there are 2 superior nations when it comes to score but to say things can't change, well that's a bit premature imo... I think Munro posted a similar opinion in the tg thread. :P

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: End Game Scenario

        I think cutting out the end game deters from the game. The end game is a phase of its own, with some very fun strategic options like Shaq says. I also don't think things are set in stone, so I agree that to call it off because no one else has a chance is premature.

        That said - RL time is certainly an issue. Personally I prefer to play smaller games is size and scope, since they play rather fast even in the end. I see there's a tradition here for playing big maps and slow speed, which is fine, but it certainly makes the endgame turns take a long time. I'd like to suggest that the next game pits 18 players on no larger than a large map, on standard speed. ;) (Yeah yeah, I know, rush fest, so maybe not).

        But on the issue at hand, I think your proposed structure makes sense in a way. But really - if most players want the game to end, how hard would it be really to set someone up with a UN (or AP) win?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: End Game Scenario

          The game will begin to end when nukes emerge, no worries :p

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: End Game Scenario

            Please keep in mind I'm not talking about the specific situation in any ongoing TG game, especially TGS. The bottom line is that at any point in time some people are going to want to continue playing and some are not. And since I've asked for the commitment from players to stay until the end I'd rather not have the game go on for so long that people are tempted to quit.

            A vote of any kind could be considered a UN based victory if you want to correlate it to an in game victory condition. ;)

            The nice part about having a vote is it really caters to the players in the game. If you have a player base who wants to see the game actually end on an in game victory condition then they can make it happen. If you have a majority who feel the game has hit a dead end prior to that then it can be ended early.

            I thought a maximum of once per month for a vote stops it from happening so often it becomes annoying.

            Bernout

            |TG-MD6|

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: End Game Scenario

              Good point I guess. The players could form their own "UN" and vote someone to win prematurely. And just so no one gets cheated out of a win, it's only the current score leader that could be voted to win. Makes sense to me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: End Game Scenario

                Well, I joined very late so me for this is still the beginnning. ;)

                However, I also enjoy the modern era game - and to my mind, working out how to actually close a win against competitive (and co-operating ;)) human opponents is one of the uniquely interesting challenges of pitboss. So I have no real desire to see the game end early... (Though that may be decided for me in other ways of course. :p)

                If people do start to lose interest, monthly vote may not be a bad idea - but maybe use as a cue to restart the discussion, rather than automatic termination of the game. After all, a 6v5 'no' vote may feel rather unfair to the 5 players that have invested months into the game if it abruptly ends just as it gets interesting,,,,

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: End Game Scenario

                  Originally posted by Shaq Zora View Post
                  Personally I think modern era games are fun to play. More units, more technology, more strategic options. I have no hardware issues with increased lag in end games either so I can't say that's an issue for me. About TG's current power structure: It's true there are 2 superior nations when it comes to score but to say things can't change, well that's a bit premature imo... I think Munro posted a similar opinion in the tg thread. :P
                  No one is saying that things can't change. If we carry on they almost certainly will, especially once nukes arrive.

                  But in a very large game like this anything other than a time victory is highly unlikely. Nukes will arrive before a Culture or Dominion victory are likely to be achieved and should make either impossible. And should ensure that even a space victory is impossible too. With tech trading on and the number of nations in the game it should not be possible to stay ahead in techs.

                  So at what point do you declare a winner before Time Victory, or don't you? Otherwise are not most very large games going to end in a nuke fest?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: End Game Scenario

                    Well judging from the one modern-era game I'm in, nukes cease to be much of an issue once people get SDI and shelters up. Needing 4 to even get a hit in the open, and even more to do anything useful to a city, at 500hammers each, makes them pretty overrated.

                    Conquest will happen long before Time. Even space is a possibility if you have enough land to trade for time (and pre-build an emergency palace or 2 so you can put them up in 1t if needed)
                    Elkad

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: End Game Scenario

                      Originally posted by Niklas View Post
                      Good point I guess. The players could form their own "UN" and vote someone to win prematurely. And just so no one gets cheated out of a win, it's only the current score leader that could be voted to win. Makes sense to me.
                      My thinking was it would be the points leader unless they concede to someone else.

                      Bernout

                      |TG-MD6|

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: End Game Scenario

                        If this applies to both games, (so my opinion would matter) I would say that late game can be very interesting ... in the infamous other game that Scrooge was referring to, with relative tech parity, an alliance of nations against the 800 lb gorrila has been effective.

                        Strategic and tactical opportunities included keeping a player with one city left alive to complete a critical tech; a Russia-like strategic withdrawal from several cities by a different player to consolidate defense, while an overseas ally built the airports to reinforce (after a vassal agreement); and a very interesting combined amphibious operation by two players in the alliance. Just a taste of the possibilities ...

                        After SDI and shelters, a nuke hit only took out 1 or 2 pop out of 17, and killed off ironworks but not much else in infrastructure. So after a brief initial reign (or rain) of terror, nukes are almost a non-factor now ...

                        dV

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: End Game Scenario

                          Originally posted by da_Vinci View Post
                          If this applies to both games, (so my opinion would matter) I would say that late game can be very interesting ... in the infamous other game that Scrooge was referring to, with relative tech parity, an alliance of nations against the 800 lb gorrila has been effective.
                          Comments from everyone are welcome even if they aren't in either game. :)

                          Since an online vote would probably go on for a week or so I'm guessing there should be enough time for players to discuss the in game situation. Now it is possible that most games may indeed end on a natural in game victory condition but I still like the idea of having a more formal way to end it earlier if that is what the players in the game want.

                          Bernout

                          |TG-MD6|

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: End Game Scenario

                            About the game dv refered to, if i had spent an hour on my turns instead of just 10-30 min's for the last 50 or so turns things would have been rather different by now... But all the more interesting for the game sake(even if it isn't good for me :p). That said late game can indeed be tendious if you don't have a couple hours to devote to each turn every day... A longer timer can go a long way to help people find more time to play(though obviously the game will go slower then). Finding 10-20 min to play per game is a lot easier than 1-2 hours(especially when you only got 12 hours to do so due to war).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: End Game Scenario

                              Thanks to everyone for their replies.

                              I'm going to go and amend each of the two games with the new end game procedure.

                              Bernout

                              |TG-MD6|

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X