 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999 time: 06:32
|
|
quote: The only consistant things are either having a total ban or having the option of joining the conquering faction, who capture their bases and so capture their population. Quota's were a compromise, but one that isn't particularly realistic. It can understand the argument that we aren't flush for players, but we have enough, IMHO. That is why I think either a total ban, as per defections, or joining the conqueror. |
I completely agree with Drogue's position. 
And I disagree with Voltaire's. IMHO it should not be allowed for one member to tell important gameplay information to another faction without general consent in the member's own faction that it is allowed. Though this would of course give a new and very interesting perspective to the political and diplomatic side of the game, the current format does not make this workable IMHO. Why? Because, since every member has access to the turn, everyone can see all information; and because all plans are openly discussed in the private forum (at least in the CyCon). Unlike in real-life political situations, it is almost impossible to hide any important information from possible infiltrators and spies. So this ACDG can only work decently if the members of a faction can trust each other and don't have to be on their guard all the time that one of them could tell something important to a rival faction.
I would actually like a game very much where you can have factions within factions, and can hide information from other members in your faction, as that would allow for some very fun political roleplaying. But unless we can somehow arrange that, individual members telling confidential info to other factions is a big 
quote: Allowing players to join other teams also allow them to setup a government-in-exile in a friendly state |
What would be the point of that? If a human faction is eliminated, it can never be revived anyway.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Main_Brain
|
|
Economic World Center
Jul 2002 time: 06:32
|
|
Arr Darn! Shanties? I'll never pass that one! arrgghh
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:32
|
|
Have it back? They would still be members of the new faction.
For example, say the CyCon defeat PEACE, and PEACE members all flock to the Hive (their pactmates who are open to new players). The Hive may be peaceful and have good intentions to us before that, but due to PEACE's grudge against us for the war, their position will be more anti-CyCon than it otherwise would be. If enough of them moved, we may find ourselves in a situtation where other factions attack us, not because their current members want to, but because of the grudge PEACE have against us.
Add to that the knowledge that they will gain. Use the above example, the Hive would have PEACEs old maps, they would be able to launch an attack far more accuratly because of that, while we would not have their map. The Hive would gain information and maps from PEACE that they would otherwise not have, which combined with them being against more due to the ex-PEACE members influence, is a nasty combination.
If the other factions dislike our actions towards PEACE and wish to take action, that is obviously their right, and was a risk with the war. However if PEACE members join, that will be a far far more extreme reaction, since PEACE (naturally) would hold a grudge against their victors.
In RL, most of them would not be able to escape to join any faction of their choosing, especially without maps of other factions.
Suppose this happens: The CyCon take all but the last PEACE base and leave them with it. Because of defections, they cannot join another faction, but will likely play little more part in the game. Game rules are that to defeat a faction, they have to destroy their last base. Suppose they were to do that, and we were to say that we did not intend to attack/capture it? They have no faction, but have not been defeated, since we were trying not to defeat them. Would they be allowed to join another faction? This ruling would give them an incentive to destroy their last base, even though we wanted not to attack it, since they then get to join a stronger faction. It also gives the attackers an incentive to leave them with one base, so that other factions are not skewed against them.
IMHO, changing faction skews the game, whether it's before or after a faction is defeated. I would like the same ruling to apply to both. Either defections are allowed, or post-mortem defections are banned. That's my personal opinion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003 time: 14:32
|
|
The problem with allowing defections is you may end up with the defector sabotaging his original faction. Whereas people choosing a new faction after they have lost theirs cannot sabotage their faction which is already destoried. The effect on a third faction, in the case of new team choosing, while likely has not the same magnitude of effect as a real defection has on its current team.
Consequently, defections should be viewed as a completely seperate issue to defeated faction members choosing a new team. The issues can not be grouped together.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
The Hive can conquer planet without being told to do so by a bunch of Xenorun-swilling potty mouths.
Hey I have an idea....
How about defeated people start stuffing up contributing to that ACPSG we have going?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jtsisyoda
|
 |
COO, Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Jul 2003 time: 00:32
|
|
I understand where Drogue is coming from, but... I think the people are what make the game fun, and are the most valuable resource (only resource, really). It would be a shame to lose anyone. Worries about one or two active refugees swaying an entire faction... that's really a sad comment on the inactivity of that faction. If a team has that little "will" to generally hold its course with new members, it was at serious risk of collapse anyway (which I'm pretty sure no one wants). In other words, refugees might save the game.
I agree with Kody's point that there is a big difference between refugees and defectors.
Regarding the timing of this thread... IMHO CyCon should've asked for the question to be settled before going to war-- their decision was based on incomplete information, which is something they'll have to live with. If war hurts them more than they expected... tough.
Also, an argument could be made that two warring factions are biased in this discussion and should recuse themselves? (Just a thought... don't take that part too seriously.)
Last edited by jtsisyoda on 06-01-2004 at 05:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:32
|
|
Exactly. But they have to obliterate their last base. If we don't want to take it, can they destroy it, as it's their last base, and join another faction? I say no, since they have destroyed it themselves. I think the conquering faction should have to ask for them to destroy it, or ask Googlie, and give him their plans, and then if Googlie thinks the base will go that turn, they have to destroy it. Else they could simply destroy it early and move faction, when it may not be taken, or they could claim it won't be taken and not destroy it, meaning we all lose a turn after them IIRC.
Last edited by Drogue on 06-01-2004 at 07:39
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drogue
Considering the CyCon is run almost entirely by 4 people (Myself, Maniac, Impaler and (to a lesser extent - he is not an official) Lauri) 2 people coming in would swing it greatly. I don't know how other factions are. |
The Hive has 'bout 8 active members
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|