#1 17.07.2014 14:34:26

Nimrod
Player
From: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 58

Victory Conditions

Quoting the general LT rules (from http://longturn.org/rules/)

A teamless game can be won by one player, or an alliance formed by a number of players no bigger than was agreed upon before the game started, by either:

    Military defeat of all other players.
    Winning the space race (if enabled).
    Surrender - all other live players have surrendered.
    Another condition, agreed upon before the game started.

The topic of declaring victors came up yesterday while I was hanging out with some of the play testers on the test server.

My concern was that the "alliance formed by a # of players no bigger than was agreed upon" doesn't appear to be explicitly stated anywhere in particular, hence this post.

I believe it was wieder that said that normally, the maximum number of victors in a given alliance is something along the lines of the following equation:

5 + 1 (for every 5 extra players)

As of now, we're at just over 40 players. So I'm guessing the largest winning alliance would be 5 + 1 ( (40-5) / 5 ) = 5 + 1 (7) = 12

Am I getting this right ? Are there any other victory conditions that we need to spell out before starting ?

Last edited by Nimrod (17.07.2014 14:35:56)


========================
"Shhh ! I'm hunting wabbitts ... "
                  NIMROD
========================

Offline

#2 17.07.2014 14:50:51

akfaew
Administrator
Posts: 619

Re: Victory Conditions

This should be explicitly stated. Everybody forgot, good that you caught it. I propose 6. This would mean, each of the 6 players would need to manage a 7 times as big a nation at the last turn (6*7=42). This might be a bit to much, but remember with this ruleset cities in the later stages of the game are destroyed completely, and not captured. 12 is too big, it would mean four big alliances - very hard to coordinate 12 players.

Offline

#3 17.07.2014 15:45:46

Corbeau
Player
Posts: 241

Re: Victory Conditions

How about no allied victory?

Offline

#4 17.07.2014 16:21:03

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: Victory Conditions

I strongly oppose making any rules that aren't programmed into the game. Only about 10 out of the 50 players in the game will even read this forum thread, so they won't know it's a rule unless there is a server programmed condition statement such as : "You have reached the maximum number of players for alliance."

Programming that simple if statement hardcoded into the server should block player from making alliance/shared vision if it's detected they have reached limit. Also, complicating this, is that usually there are one or two players that link together multiple alliances/shared vision, so you must include not only allies for player, but also recurse through the allies of the players you are allied to (that are indirectly, but not directly allied to you)...

Non-programmed rules are unfair to those that read this forum, because we feel compelled to follow non-enforced rules, while everyone else just plays normally. IE, Lt32, where Kryon's team followed the 8 player rule all game, while everyone else didn't know about it or ignored it (that was debated too about the semantics and ambiguity/interpretation)...

Last edited by mmm2 (17.07.2014 16:25:31)

Offline

#5 18.07.2014 06:33:02

kevin551
Player
Posts: 285

Re: Victory Conditions

mmm2 wrote:

Lt32, where Kryon's team followed the 8 player rule all game, while everyone else didn't know about it or ignored it

mmm2 you should take the time to correct your messages before submitting them. Presumably you mean LT31 here not LT32.

But because you have a history of writing spurious messages on this board that are deliberately deceptive then perhaps this comment is not a mistake.
If so I remind you that LT32 was a team game and that diplomacy between teams was off.  That simple statement was hardcoded into the server.

Offline

#6 18.07.2014 18:14:36

Kryon
Player
Posts: 329

Re: Victory Conditions

There are now 49 players who signed up for LT33 but 15 of those have not confirmed it yet. So I think a limit of 6 sounds good. But a better way is a flexible limit such as round(N/n) where N is the number of players who confirmed and n is the minimum number of teams. I suggest n=6.

Yes, mmm obviously meant LT31 which was an alliance game. In LT31, the number of winners were limited to 7 (not 8) but the alliance size was not limited (because we can not really control it). To enforce this rule, we stated an end turn. This is not the best way to limit alliance size as most people ignore the limit but the only better way is to change the source code to enforce it. (btw, everyone was aware of the alliance limit, so not knowing is not an issue. if they didn't read the forum, they learned it via the in-game chat.) Any better ideas?

Offline

#7 18.07.2014 21:35:56

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: Victory Conditions

I prefer to see a rule that will make idlers long delegation players.
Once player are piss off on a game and dont want to login anymore to this LT he should RIP himself rather then giving delegation for months to anyone. For me this is unfair if anyone plays a game controlling two or more nations for long time.

Idlers are not punished in LT, same as long delegators. Maybe we can start make "not being idle" promise something more then just one click.

Same like we can remove all idlers activity (cities and units) inside a game after n-turns.

Offline

#8 18.07.2014 21:45:05

Kryon
Player
Posts: 329

Re: Victory Conditions

I agree with Edrim. Both idlers and long delegations are annoying. We should have a rule to prevent these.

Offline

#9 19.07.2014 18:44:49

mmm2
Player
Posts: 565

Re: Victory Conditions

Hmm well many games here I've been idler or abandoned game. That's just part of game, sometimes you must throw in the towel, especially if things in life become busy and no time to play. That was why delegation was put into place. There is no reason to prevent these.

Offline

#10 19.07.2014 20:55:34

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: Victory Conditions

mmm2 wrote:

Hmm well many games here I've been idler or abandoned game. That's just part of game, sometimes you must throw in the towel, especially if things in life become busy and no time to play. That was why delegation was put into place. There is no reason to prevent these.


If you dont have time for playing make your nation RIP. Delegation is for vacation break (3-30 days), not for abandon players.

Offline

#11 21.07.2014 14:46:16

Nimrod
Player
From: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 58

Re: Victory Conditions

Back over at GT, we didn't have optional rules regarding idlers. We had hard rules.

Idle for too long from first turn and your out; idle for too long during game play and your out. Nation completely remove from game.

It was a bit more work, and sometimes the game was unavailable for a few minutes while a new sav game file was loaded with the player changes, but ultimately it makes for a more fair, more balanced game for all interested players.

Bottom line, I agree that the LT rules should be more strict in dealing with idlers. Just my opinion, of course.


========================
"Shhh ! I'm hunting wabbitts ... "
                  NIMROD
========================

Offline

#12 22.07.2014 14:22:55

edrim
Ganoes Paran
Posts: 478

Re: Victory Conditions

Nimrod wrote:

Bottom line, I agree that the LT rules should be more strict in dealing with idlers. Just my opinion, of course.

We dont have any arbitrary players here, admins play games every time. This is quite hard to make this because of haters who will say "you forgot to remove player for 3 turns because you want to capture his 2 cities more".

We have had remove/add players machine but we are not using it in regular games.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB