Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bernout
    started a poll TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    11
    Yes
    36.36%
    4
    No
    63.64%
    7

    The poll is expired.

    Start Vote: Wed, Apr 22
    End Vote: Wed, Apr 29

    All remaining players in the TTT game are asked to vote.

    It might be early but I thought as we hit our 8 month anniversary that I would be the first to get a vote started to see where we're at. All I know is from my position things are not looking good as I watch enemy Infantry overrun my neighbor.

    Note that even if the majority voted to end the game, I'd be willing to keep the server up for those who wanted to keep playing. It would simply be a license for the rest of us to turn our nations over to the AI and make a hasty retreat..errr...exit. ;)

    Bernout

  • Bernout
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Just to finish up this vote cleanly, here's the final tally. Note that I made 2 decisions which seem reasonable and which didn't affect the outcome of the voting. However, I mention them to set the precedent for future votes:

    1. Anyone eliminated before the end of the 1 week voting period will not have their vote counted. This affected da_Vinci and SilentSunshine.

    2. If a person voted but did not explicitly cast a vote for their teammate then I assumed the 2 votes would be the same.

    So here's the final tally with the results being 8 - 6 in favor of "No" which means the game continues. No further vote request is possible until after May 29.

    Bernout - Y
    Snarlin - Y

    Chris - N
    Ronnie - N

    CH - N
    Methos - N

    Morgan - Y

    Elkad - N
    Munro - N

    Hop - Y
    Twins - Y

    IanDC - Y

    Oyzar - N
    Niklas - N


    Bernout

    Leave a comment:


  • classical_hero
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by da_Vinci View Post
    Because it's Oyzar ... ??? :D

    dV
    Exactly, since oyzar is one of the best players I have ever played against. You learn alot from playing against him.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisFromLux
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Hoplosternum View Post
    *I could see if everyone coordinated against the leaders that they may be stopped but why should I (or anyone not in second place) care if Oyzar/Nik wins rather than another pair?
    Because one day, you may be able to tell your children or grand-children: "Never give up! There was a team once, they were far ahead and well advanced, but we still managed to bring them down, and I was part of it!" :D

    Leave a comment:


  • Niklas
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Hoplosternum View Post
    *I could see if everyone coordinated against the leaders that they may be stopped but why should I (or anyone not in second place) care if Oyzar/Nik wins rather than another pair?
    Because when titans clash, you might have a chance to build up in peace under the radar to actually catch up? ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • da_Vinci
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Hoplosternum View Post
    *I could see if everyone coordinated against the leaders that they may be stopped but why should I (or anyone not in second place) care if Oyzar/Nik wins rather than another pair?
    Because it's Oyzar ... ??? :D

    dV

    Leave a comment:


  • Hoplosternum
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Well I have no problem carrying on.

    And just to clear one thing up I don't want the game to stop because I am losing. Although I am :p I am not a good player and don't really care much about winning. This game appears to me to be over as a contest and so I thought this would be a good time to end it.*

    But if others really think they have a decent chance to beat them then we can carry on. The vote is going to be to continue anyway which I am fine with.

    *I could see if everyone coordinated against the leaders that they may be stopped but why should I (or anyone not in second place) care if Oyzar/Nik wins rather than another pair?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernout
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Niklas View Post
    It certainly doesn't accomplish the same thing - at least not with a majority vote. Such a vote (or at least its outcome) would be inherently biased towards those that want to quit, seeing how the "quitters" don't care whether anyone else plays on, whereas the "stayers" want everyone, including the quitters, to stay.
    I stand corrected. The kicker is in the "majority" vote of course.

    Despite our contrary view points, it really doesn't seem like a compromise would be that hard. I've already stated I'm ok with leaving the server up beyond the vote. The key is really giving anyone a reasonable "out" who wants to stop playing.

    I may be arguing a moot point here anyway. With two days left on the vote, if things were left as they stand, and with team members voting for their missing partners and non-voting teams counted as 'Yes' (only IanDC has abstained), there's still a majority 9-7 to keep playing. If IanDC's vote to abstain were respected, it would be 9-5. Then we have another month until another vote can be called, and during that time the number of people eligible to vote will probably drop a bit... ;)
    True on all counts. Although the discussion itself is not moot since it can influence future games. It could even potentially affect this game although I would resist doing anything too drastic since it would venture too far from what people understood (hopefully) when they signed up.

    Bernout

    Leave a comment:


  • Niklas
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Indeed, the one thing we were worried about was to have our galleons attacked before the initial strike - or even just spotted! Morgan/dV got to frigates I think two turns before we struck, so we were quite lucky both in our timing and in their focus.

    Leave a comment:


  • da_Vinci
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by classical_hero View Post
    This is the first time I have ever seen a second placed team get so badly beaten up. Yikes.
    Would not have been nearly so bad if we had paid more attention to defending the sea lanes.

    But before the attack, we had focused on building land units, where we were severly outclassed it turned out, rather then on naval units, where we had tech parity until just recently.

    dV

    Leave a comment:


  • classical_hero
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    This is the first time I have ever seen a second placed team get so badly beaten up. Yikes.

    Leave a comment:


  • da_Vinci
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Bernout View Post
    Correct on all counts. I have yet to play in any game that reached an in game victory condition and they still lasted about 9 months each. Usually the writing is on the wall long before then and by consensus everybody is ready to move on. The vote mechanism was merely a more formal means to figure out when that consensus had been reached.
    Well, we need to clarify if unanimity, consensus, or majority is the point of decision.

    If the game ends at consensus, that suggests to me that all are in agreement ... which would require some kind of compromise that all agree to ... which is more than a simple majority, but maybe less than unanimity on the initial ballot.

    There are two separate questions for players to respond to ...

    1. Do you believe you have winning chances?

    2. Do you want to keep playing?

    Does the game end when some proportion does not want to continue, or when only one player (team) believes it has winning chances? The answer to this determines the manner in which the vote question should be phrased.

    For me, a game should continue until the outcome is not in doubt, in general.

    One interesting exception was oobs 4th, in which late game (MA, stealth) military techs were equal among survivors, and the leader could be contained by an alliance of everyone else, until a new leader emerged and the alliances shifted, etc. We mutually decided to just drop that one without a decision, rather than play out that very involved mega unit endgame that had stalemate written all over it (well, until a time victory I suppose) ...

    dV

    Leave a comment:


  • Niklas
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Btw, if someone really wants out, I hear da Vinci is open for subbing... :p ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Niklas
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Bernout View Post
    Well, there is a bias in a vote like that which assumes everyone is playing to win. As daV mentioned, some people will make their own goals and yet other people might just enjoy playing regardless of what happens. Asking people whether or not they want to continue playing I think is more open ended and accomplishes the same thing.
    It certainly doesn't accomplish the same thing - at least not with a majority vote. Such a vote (or at least its outcome) would be inherently biased towards those that want to quit, seeing how the "quitters" don't care whether anyone else plays on, whereas the "stayers" want everyone, including the quitters, to stay.

    My whole point is that you sign up to play a game together with the other players, as a social activity. The obligation you sign up for is not necessarily to play on to the utmost bitter end (i.e. ingame victory achieved), but to play on for as long as there are people that still want to play for the win, for their sake. In other words, I would be fine with just asking people if they want to continue playing, assuming it's not a simple majority vote. If two or more players/teams want to continue, that should be enough. (Though I have a hard time seeing how more than one team would truly want to play on if there clearly was only one team with a chance to win.)

    In TGS it was quite obvious that I would be unstoppable after conquering Persia (and half of Spain too while the vote was up). There was no one who wanted to play on to challenge me for the win, and I myself saw no other possible outcome either. I had no problem seeing that game ended, even though it was still far from an actual ingame victory.

    In TTT it's very different. The race is by no means won as things stand now, but the most important point here is that if those nations that aren't in the top tier at this point were to turn AI, that makes it much harder for those in second or third to catch up. So even though the race isn't won now, it may well be if those nations went AI.

    This seems like a reasonable compromise regardless of which end game scenario is specified for a game. Although as Oyzar mentioned, getting a sub to replace you in what you consider a "no fun" situation might be difficult.
    Sure, but then you play on. I think it will work out anyway, since I doubt anyone will deny you to turn your nation to AI just out of spite. If you really couldn't affect the outcome in any way, even with your complete selfless support of one team or other, then go ahead.


    I may be arguing a moot point here anyway. With two days left on the vote, if things were left as they stand, and with team members voting for their missing partners and non-voting teams counted as 'Yes' (only IanDC has abstained), there's still a majority 9-7 to keep playing. If IanDC's vote to abstain were respected, it would be 9-5. Then we have another month until another vote can be called, and during that time the number of people eligible to vote will probably drop a bit... ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • Bernout
    replied
    Re: TTT Apr 22 Vote: End the game?

    Originally posted by Niklas
    If you are saying that any game should be fine to call "done deal" when we reach that point then I strongly disagree with you. That means no game will ever reach a real ingame conclusion if a majority of its players have no chance at winning. Show me a single game where a majority of the player have a chance at winning right up to the end.
    Correct on all counts. I have yet to play in any game that reached an in game victory condition and they still lasted about 9 months each. Usually the writing is on the wall long before then and by consensus everybody is ready to move on. The vote mechanism was merely a more formal means to figure out when that consensus had been reached.

    Originally posted by Niklas
    I've certainly learnt something from this discussion, and that is not to sign up for any game where it's not clear that all players are ready to make that commitment, to play on even after they have no hope of winning. It might be fun to play for a while, but will end in a disappointment sooner or later.
    There is already an expectation for anybody playing in a TG game to play until the "end". The real heart of the discussion here is what constitutes the end of the game.

    My own belief is that if you started a Pitboss game with the explicit expectation that everybody had to stay until an in game victory condition had been reached that you would have a pretty small audience. Of course if that proves to be true then at least a smaller number of players means a smaller world and faster game. ;) I'd be happy to host such a game although I wouldn't play in it.

    Originally posted by Niklas
    1) Change the vote to instead see how many players/teams think they still have a chance at winning the game and want to play for that. If only one team/player answers yes, award the victory accordingly. If two or more answer yes, the game goes on, for all players/teams.
    Well, there is a bias in a vote like that which assumes everyone is playing to win. As daV mentioned, some people will make their own goals and yet other people might just enjoy playing regardless of what happens. Asking people whether or not they want to continue playing I think is more open ended and accomplishes the same thing.

    Originally posted by Niklas
    2) If any one player/team wants to resign because they feel they can't make a difference at all, if all other players/teams are OK with that then let them turn the nation over to AI. If any other team feels it would be unfair or unfun to play on with an AI in that position, the resigning player should find a sub willing to play on before leaving, just like any other time a player needs to leave.
    This seems like a reasonable compromise regardless of which end game scenario is specified for a game. Although as Oyzar mentioned, getting a sub to replace you in what you consider a "no fun" situation might be difficult.

    Originally posted by Munro
    A question for those that voted to end the game... would it change anything if we were to start a new game in parallel, rather than /instead/ of TT - i.e. would you be willing to play both? Is it definitely required to end TT in order to start something new?

    Not sure if this would make a difference to anyone or not, but it sounds like Bernout is already willing / able to keep up TT in the background while also starting something new. (And I probably have spare bandwidth on my pitboss server for a new game too).
    On my end of things I have 2 servers on which to host a game. A PC I have at home (which FoW is running on) and the TG server (which TTT is running on). It's my current intention to only ever have 2 games running which I am hosting. So when I said I'd be willing to keep TTT running it implied that no new game would be started until it finished.

    Anybody else who wants to host a game is of course welcome to do so. You're welcome to create a topic here for it and I can give you whatever other forum support you need.

    Bernout

    Leave a comment:

Connect

Collapse

TeamSpeak 3 Server

Collapse

Twitter Feed

Collapse

Working...
X