[Vengeance]

Tapper, on 17 December 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 17 December 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

twelve, on 17 December 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Tapper, on 17 December 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

Next action:
Pulsar upgrade fighter: -1 shield becomes +2 computer.

Tapper.

FYI if you check your pms you will find my itinerary. I have a 12 hour layover on March 8th. Now I just need to figure out what the hell I want to do for the day.

Dude. It's Amsterdam. And you'll be climbing back on an airplane for another 5? hours.

It's not trafficking if you've smoked it all.

Meh, they're going to rip you off selling it to you, then rip you off when they notice you're high. It's the Amsterdam business model for tourism.

I will reply tomorrow when back at the desk - the gf is leaving for Poland tomorrow so tonight is date night.

I told him to go into a coffee shop not to get high. Plus if he meets up with you then he is going to get drunk on premium belgium beer. Why bother getting high also. It would just ruin the drunk buzz

[D'rek]

Khellendros, on 17 December 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

Gnaw, on 17 December 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

Dr. Grievence: Get your dread out of my warp portal. And prepare to make friends with Twelve.


Rules are rules and argue with Sampo Sikiö if you wish.

Anyone can leave an alliance and join another alliance. They cannot re-join the one they were in. If there were three players in the alliance, that alliance cannot add another person because all of the tokens are in use. However, if somebody bankrupts out of the game the token is freed up.

I propose, since I really hate playing for third, that I leave the alliance. As part of my bankruptcy plan, I will attack Dr. Grievence so as to take the traitor card.

Grievence replaces my ambassador with one from Twelve. After I bankrupt out, Twelve can join the Bullseyes.

I don't know about the rest but I was pretty certain that the bolded is not correct. The only 'normal' way to leave an alliance is to take the betrayer card - which then means you can't join another.

I also don't think it would be in the spirit of the game to purposefully bankrupt out. Think of it this way - you're an actual galactic civilisation. You want to do what's in the best interests of your people. Is it in your people's best interests to destroy yourselves?

As D'rek says, there's still a third of the game to go too.

The way it was explained to me is that the key restrictions are {a} there are only 3 alliance tokens per alliance, and {b} each player can only have 1 face-up alliance token.

If Gnaw leaves Vortex alliance, he flips the Vortex token face down (getting -3 VP for Betrayer), while Tatts and Grievance stay in the Vortex alliance, keeping their tokens face up. Then:

-Gnaw could join the Flare alliance (if he has diplomatic relations with one of them and they both agree) - he would take the 3rd Flare token and have it face-up on his board, but still also have the Vortex token face-down (and a net of -1 VP from the two tokens)

-there's now only 2 players in Vortex, but because the 3rd token was already used and is face-down on Gnaw's board twelve cannot join it. I guess according to the designer from Gnaw's link if Gnaw bankrupts all his components are "returned to the box" which makes the 3rd token available then

[Khellendros]

I see. That makes sense.

Still, purposefully bankrupting out for non-RL reasons is not something I'd like to see, personally.

[Galactic Council]

I can only get the two low resolution images to upload. The "map" and "no map"

[D'rek]

Khellendros, on 17 December 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

I see. That makes sense.

Still, purposefully bankrupting out for non-RL reasons is not something I'd like to see, personally.

Agreed. If players are not "playing to win" then what is the point of playing? And it means any attempt to actually strategize is completely pointless because any player can just decide to do unreasonably bankrupt themselves, do a bunch of stupid suicide moves against you and quit at any time.

That being said, it's not "technically" against the rules of the game. So I'm all for discouraging it, but not saying that it cannot be done. However, if someone does this I might decide to be irrational myself in the next game and do nothing but focus on obliterating them regardless of my own chances to win.

This post has been edited by D'rek: 17 December 2013 - 06:18 PM

[twelve]

Khellendros, on 17 December 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

I see. That makes sense.

Still, purposefully bankrupting out for non-RL reasons is not something I'd like to see, personally.

With a game of diplomacy and now two games of eclipse with Gnaw I can personally vouch for Gnaw's unpredictability. He is a true wildcard. I've given up trying to figure out what he will do next as I'm almost always wrong.

[Galactic Council]

VP as of this time:

 Screen Shot 2013-12-17 at 1.16.17 PM.png (135.28K)
Number of downloads: 10

[Gnaw]

I don't want to leave the game. But I'm a serious drag on my alliance. The fair thing to do for my alliance is leave it which I was talked out of last round.

Now, the only way I can see for Grievence and Tatts to have a shot is for me to leave and bankrupt out so that Twelve can join. Then the three of them can divvy up the hexes they have now and have a fighting chance to win.

The other option I see is I stay in the alliance, we manage to keep Twelve bottled up, and the nova explodes. Next round, using jump drive Grievence finishes Twelve off. Then, come round 8, Grievence bails on Tatts and myself having to protect only the hive and 204. Which is easily done. Builds a couple of monoliths and they win.

[Gnaw]

D, on 17 December 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

-there's now only 2 players in Vortex, but because the 3rd token was already used and is face-down on Gnaw's board twelve cannot join it. I guess according to the designer from Gnaw's link if Gnaw bankrupts all his components are "returned to the box" which makes the 3rd token available then

That.

[Gnaw]

D, on 17 December 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

However, if someone does this I might decide to be irrational myself in the next game and do nothing but focus on obliterating them regardless of my own chances to win.

If I just wanted to be a dick, I'd leave the alliance and stay in the game. Barring a concerted effort to eliminate me I could stick around using the warp portals and stay in the game. I'd have 7 or 8 points maximum.

[Galactic Council]

Gnaw, on 17 December 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

D, on 17 December 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

However, if someone does this I might decide to be irrational myself in the next game and do nothing but focus on obliterating them regardless of my own chances to win.

If I just wanted to be a dick, I'd leave the alliance and stay in the game. Barring a concerted effort to eliminate me I could stick around using the warp portals and stay in the game. I'd have 7 or 8 points maximum.

As the mod, I would be forced to do something like invent a round 7.5 just so that just such a concerted effort could be made.

[Khellendros]

If you feel the game's not going well for you at the moment, then there's still several rounds left in which to try and change up strategy. For one thing, you could stop throwing your ships at suicide missions (which reminds me of me last game)

You could leave the alliance and carry on playing - that's what EM did in Eclipse 2. But again, he did that out of RL reasons too, he felt he couldn't devote enough attention to the game and was being a drag on the alliance because of that (so not purely because he wasn't doing well).


Things change so quickly in this game - look how good I was looking in ChatClipse right up until the end of the last round. Or, to again use me as an example, as Lyra in Eclipse 2 I was miles ahead of everybody only to see it all come crashing down at the end.

This post has been edited by Khellendros: 17 December 2013 - 06:35 PM

[Galactic Council]

Look at this from the mod point of view: what is the greatest good for the greatest number?

I agree with those who said that intentionally bankrupting out in order to assume IH's spot was not a good precedent. Bad for the game. So we have two new players taking over for him.

As a player I simply cannot see that staying in the alliance is fair to Tatts and Grievence.

So, what's the fairest thing for the game?

[D'rek]

Gnaw, on 17 December 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

The fair thing to do for my alliance [...]

As soon as you break away from your alliance, you are on your own again. If you bankrupt out, it doesn't matter if your former alliance comes in first place, you will be in last place. If betraying your alliance is a good move *for you* then by all means go for it. But if it's only good for them and bad for you, there's no reason to do so.

Of course, you can justify almost anything - you could say that quitting the alliance will help you because the 3 alliances will keep focusing on each other and you'll be left alone to achieve a higher score. But bankrupting yourself on purpose is pretty much unjustifiable, IMO.

[Galactic Council]

I got the low res full board to upload. the full resolution refuses to do so.

[D'rek]

Galactic Council, on 17 December 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

Look at this from the mod point of view: what is the greatest good for the greatest number?

I agree with those who said that intentionally bankrupting out in order to assume IH's spot was not a good precedent. Bad for the game. So we have two new players taking over for him.

As a player I simply cannot see that staying in the alliance is fair to Tatts and Grievence.

So, what's the fairest thing for the game?

"Fair" only matters as a mod, not as a player. GC might care about how Grievance will enjoy the game, but as a player Gnaw has no need to accomodate or give a rats ass about what is nice for Tatts and Grievance.

This post has been edited by D'rek: 17 December 2013 - 06:42 PM

[Khellendros]

I think you may be exaggerating the weakness of your position a little, Gnaw. There are currently 3 other players with lower VP totals than you (one of them being your alliance partner Tatts), and by the end of this round I will have an equal or lower VP total than you also.

You can see from your own board how close it all is still.

Lot could still happen. There's no guarantee that CF will be allowed to build those monuments he craves to build up his VP points, for instance.

[Gnaw]

D, on 17 December 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

"Fair" only matters as a mod, not as a player. GC might care about how Grievance will enjoy the game, but as a player Gnaw has no need to accomodate or give a rats ass about what is nice for Tatts and Grievance.

And that is why I asked the question from the mod account.

Are you and Khell arguing this point because that's your opinion or because a stronger bullseye alliance is not in your favour?

I will stay in the game if that's what all y'all want me to because it's the 'right thing to do'.

In that case, Grievence needs to plop 3 stabases down in 304. Or 2 and a cruiser.

[Gnaw]

Or a cruiser and 2 interceptors and invade Twelve. But that's not the conservative thing to do.

[Khellendros]

I am solely, hand on heart, arguing this point from a non-game related perspective. I love that you have crazy schemes Gnaw, but this one's a little too outside the bounds of the spirit of the game for me - besides, the game would be less fun without you doing WTF things within it.


I'm sure if your alliance mates were online right now instead of me and D'rek they'd be saying the same thing.