#1 19.05.2013 05:42:41

kevin551
Player
Posts: 285

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

I vote no - see the other poll on techloss for the reason.

Offline

#2 19.05.2013 14:03:09

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

These polls are absurd and border on trolling. This is a team game, it's been known for weeks. Teammates share science. Teams won't have diplomacy with each other. Stealing techs is an important part of the game, and whatever exploits are possible - so be it, such is the nature of this feature. Now start thinking before making a thousand more polls like this.

Offline

#3 19.05.2013 15:01:14

kevin551
Player
Posts: 285

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

akfaew wrote:

Stealing techs is an important part of the game.

I disagree because not all games are the same. This is a team game not an alliance game.

One difference between an alliance game and a team game is that in an alliance one person does the science and then chooses when and with whom to share it. An alliance can choose to withhold an important tech from the frontline states to prevent the theft. A team game has pooled science that is automatically given to all on the team. The chances of preventing theft are greatly reduced. Hence I see a reason for disabling stealing in team games. (I include tech transfer by conquering cities as theft - it is something that should be disabled)

Secondly an alliance game is by design a free-for-all. You can make or break alliances. Backstab your friends. Steal technology. All tricks are allowed!
But a team game is NOT a free-for-all. The teams are fixed. We can choose to prevent alliances of teams. One part of this is by preventing the sharing of tech.

Offline

#4 26.05.2013 13:26:29

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

I maked this poll as invalid.

Offline

#5 14.05.2014 22:02:30

Joris
Player
Posts: 21

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

kevin551 wrote:

But a team game is NOT a free-for-all. The teams are fixed. We can choose to prevent alliances of teams.

In the end alliances did form though. I remember an island city cleared by Wieder units, and taken by Meton (who was on another team) units 1 minute later.

I did enjoy the fight at first, but coalitions aren't much fun if there is noone else but you and people in the coalition against you.

Maybe next team-game we can try to prevent alliances, or make more teams, say 12 instead of 6. Else what is the point of having fixed alliances?

Offline

#6 15.05.2014 16:58:31

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

Your team has complained about everyone else attacking you.

Clearly you could have avoided that. Now you simply first attacked everyone else and then started complaining how everyone else is attacking you and not each other. From our point of view it wouldn't have made sense to seek for more active fronts when we already had one with you.

That island was a special case and while there were many reasons for the attack done like you described, we actually had reasons for that. I wanted to clear your team from that area, preventing you from landing on Meton's area and that way attacking my team in case he would have fallen.

Why didn't I conquer that island? The reason is quite simple. I didn't really want it. I just wanted your team out of that area. If I had conquered it, there would have almost zero production because of the distance to my capital. It would have also added one more city to my city cound and I would have needed several good units to protect the island. For me it would have been just waste of resources to take it.

For Meton conquering it actually made sense and he apparently got some good production from there.  It actually helped us if Meton's team became more powerful because of that. It helped them to fight you and since you had already attacked them and us, that makes perfect sense.

Maybe you shouldn't have backstabbed Edrim when you were already fighting on 3 fronts.

I really don't understand why you wanted to create the fourth front and then started to complain about how everyone was fighting against you. It was your choice to do that. Next time don't attack everyone at the same time.

Yeah, there were other reasons in addition to those but that should be enough for you.

Offline

#7 16.05.2014 09:05:45

mrsynical
Player
Posts: 171

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

wieder wrote:

I really don't understand why you wanted to create the fourth front and then started to complain about how everyone was fighting against you. It was your choice to do that. Next time don't attack everyone at the same time.

I gather that "team" was a big fragmented, and everybody just attacked what ever they wanted and what they were next to. Probably that is why it ended up the way it did. :-)

Offline

#8 20.05.2014 12:56:45

Joris
Player
Posts: 21

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

wieder wrote:

Your team has
...
enough for you.

I get everything you say, and it is fully understandable. As it turns out, I didn't read the rules before starting, and no alliances doesn't mean not working together. My bad.
In the end, all but one of the teams that worked together had the same fate as us. Which is why working together didn't seem to make sense to me.

Offline

#9 20.05.2014 18:17:16

wieder
Administrator
Posts: 813

Re: Poll: trading_tech_disabled

Of course only one can win in the end, but then again it would be extremely difficult for any team to survive without working (in some way) with other teams. It's better to risk losing to someone you are working with if the alternative is a certain defeat and that's why working together against your team was a reasonable choice for almost every team.

Oh yeah, btw your team actually offered some deals to our team but they were so bizarre that we simply had to turn them down.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB