24-02-2005 05:07									#331
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I side with DrSpike and Ljcvetko on this issue. Large alliances (more than three) would spoil the fun. For most of the last Go game people played as individuals or in alliances of short duration and hence the game was full of surprises.

I think any alliances I've been in have been initiated in game and as a reaction to ongoing events (no pun intended).

Perhaps players should only be permitted to co-ordinate attacks in alliances once every 2/3 turns starting from turn 4 say.

A player could choose not to be of an alliance until turn 5 but would need to find some one or two other people with the same option (a player who was part of an alliance in turn 4 would be ineligible). This would give rise to some interesting and complicated practical politics.


Small scale and short duration alliances are good fun. Larger alliances (4 upwards) are not fun.

	24-02-2005 05:17									#332
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

There is no need for such complications Hercules. Having a rule that the winner can be only one is enough to reduce the power and the duration of all alliances.

	24-02-2005 05:43									#333
	Suffering from ads?

We need to decide what limits, if any, we place on alliances and add them to the official rules. This way the whiners can be happy, we can get on with the game, and our victory (if we do manage to achieve it again - there is every chance that non-allied members can win) will not be cheapened by claims of "cheating" against "unwritten rules".

	24-02-2005 05:43									#334
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Comrade Tass, it would be pointless to reply to so many perversions of truth in your very long post which honestly made me laugh.

I'll just say this: Your victory is worthless in the eyes of the majority of players in this forum no matter how hard you try to make it different. And the games you GMed as God-GM collapsed because such games suck.

I'll just go back to playing games with rules which don't change in the middle of it. Chess comes in mind.

	24-02-2005 05:45									#335
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Happy Twinkle Fairy is right

	24-02-2005 05:51									#336
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko I'll just go back to playing games with rules which don't change in the middle of it. Chess comes in mind.

That's nice to know, but how does that help in the current arguement? Unless you can point out a rule that happened to be changed this game.

	24-02-2005 05:55									#337
	Suffering from ads?

Sheesh, miss a day and you miss everything ...

quote: Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko Co-op victories are not in the spirit of NW. Furthermore, the rest of the players played the game with the idea only one can win. Rules of a game, particularly the rule determining the winner, cannot be changed after the game has already started, because it puts most of the players in an unequal situation. If the vanquished players had known that co-op victories were allowed, they would have played differently from the beginning. They would have formed strong alliances and possibly won. No, you must play it out until only one of you remains.

Bold is mine. This is the part of this whole discussion that determines my stance on the matter - well, that and the spirit of NW.

Admittedly only having personally played one game, I don't necessarily feel right in saying that I understand the spirit of NW; but I certainly could tell watching the previous round and reading another that the spirit is not about cooperation, except in small and quickly changing doses. Admittedly it'd be impossible to prevent alliances of some nature in this game, but allowing coop victory requires alliances, and makes this game a faction game, not a forum game.

I entered NW XXII with the idea that I was supposed to go it alone, occasionally cooperating with other folk. I thought about making deals proactively, but decided I would forgo making any myself as I was too new to the game to know all of you and your ... quirks.

Nonetheless, had I understood cooperation to be allowed, I certainly would have immediately found a few friends to cooperate with, knowing that otherwise i'd be so much ground beef.

That said, a rule should certainly be in place for XXIII (hopefully starting up soon!!!) to this effect.

Edit: I want to make clear that I have no specific care about the results of XXIII, but about future games. I lost to LordNuke, who was not to my knowledge part of any vast alliance, but simply saw someone who he could wipe out. I don't want to see allied victories as options in future games, for reasons stated above; and regardless of the rule or not rule in the previous game, I don't think any of that matters any more. Unless you keep track of who wins each game, in which case it's up to you to determine the winner.

	24-02-2005 06:00									#338
	Put an end to popups!

The rule changed is the rule about victory conditions. Since NW 1 the rule has been only one can win the game.

Now, if that rule was changed in the meantime, this change would need to be posted. We don't want to see NW deteriorating into some disease, now do we?


Only one point in Tass’s post deserves a reply and that is the issue of the rules of Chess. They are determined by the authority for the rules and printed for everybody’s knowledge. When a game starts the rules that were valid at the beginning of the game are also valid at its end. The rule about a maximum of one queen has never been valid, neither in the printed official ruleset nor in tradition.

	24-02-2005 06:03									#339
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Admittedly only having personally played one game, I don't necessarily feel right in saying that I understand the spirit of NW; but I certainly could tell watching the previous round and reading another that the spirit is not about cooperation, except in small and quickly changing doses. Admittedly it'd be impossible to prevent alliances of some nature in this game, but allowing coop victory requires alliances, and makes this game a faction game, not a forum game.

Not true. Since our alliance will probably be #1 on everyone's hit list next turn, I doubt one of us will win. And once the alliances are visible, an intelligent player would be trying like hell to break it up. I still don't believe that only one event died and another lost a few cities.

	24-02-2005 06:13									#340
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I look forward to tracking everyone's future law careers. Nice work finding legal loopholes...omission versus comission...etc etc etc

I've taken the liberty of fowarding the rules to my lawyer asking him to help me win next time. What fun.

	24-02-2005 06:19									#341
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

First there is a rule that allied victories are not permitted. Then this rule mysteriously disappears but everybody keeps playing like it still exists. Does this make allied victories allowed? I don't think so.

I don't like games where I don't have set rules before they start. That's just my preference. But what is even worse is a game that presumably has set rules before it starts and turns out to be a game without set rules.

Regarding Chess, of course you can have variations, but you would have to agree upon the rules before the game starts and you couldn't change the rules during the game - that's my point. Also, anything different from the official ruleset and the allowed variations is not called chess anymore.

	24-02-2005 06:22									#342
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

And I resisted the urge to say that it is called The Disease.

	24-02-2005 06:36									#343
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Comrade,

I'm not whining, I don't care that much.

I congratulated the alliance immediately after the declaration of victory was made.

I stated that discussions of cooperation, etc on other forums was okay.

The legalistic debating isn't going to solve this difference of opinion. Does it really matter what anyone thought before the game started? Let's just repair the unclear wording in the rules and start another game.

Oh my.

	24-02-2005 06:40									#344
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar A) Accept that the rules for this game allow such action or B) Point out where in the opening post it prohibits such action.

A) They do not because it is not explicitly stated that they do, and
B) Because the previously explicitly stated rule was that allied victories were not allowed.

I don't know which GM and when screwed up and didn't copy and paste this particular rule, but even you must agree it's pointless to play a game without winning conditions. The generally accepted victory conditions by the majority of players are that allied victories are not allowed. If you want to change that put it to vote, don't change it arbitrarily.

I will never accept your victory, not in a million years. I believe most of other players won’t either. So what did you accomplish playing this way? What kind of hollow victory is that? Instead of a recognised victory you have a disputed one. Instead of triumph you have bitter argument.

I’m not going to debate about this any more. However I would like to see the rule about victory conditions back.

	24-02-2005 06:53									#345
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

This whole topic is FUBAR, plain and simple:

1. This game is over...the event alliance wins. Wheeeee!
2. Alliances cannot be policed and will be allowed in any type of manner in future games.
3. The rules need to be refreshed to clearly state "one" winner.

Jag found a loophole in the rules and broke the game somewhat especially for some of us; what is left to do now is to redefine the ruleset to prevent such allied victories.

Can't we just get back to dogpiling Tass on turn 1 like in the old days?

	24-02-2005 06:54									#346
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spaced

	24-02-2005 06:56									#347
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy Can't we just get back to dogpiling Tass on turn 1 like in the old days?

Yes we can. He deserves it.

	24-02-2005 06:57									#348
	Inflate your Upload Space

Dogpiling Tass

	24-02-2005 06:58									#349
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

L-L, now that you have brought up the original NW rules I will concede that you are right and our allied victory should not have been allowed. But there was no way for me to know that, as this was my first NW game.

	24-02-2005 07:01									#350
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It's all right Jag. However there was a way for Mr. Tass to know it since he was there too. He is going to pay for this injury.

	24-02-2005 07:30									#351
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Now this is more fun!!!!

	25-02-2005 06:16									#352
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Let's just make a new game now!

	25-02-2005 06:22									#353
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lord Nuclear Let's just make a new game now!

Jonny, you going to GM XXIII? Please start a new one if so

	25-02-2005 06:22									#354
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Lord Nuclear Let's just make a new game now!

Indeed:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=130000

This thread can be closed and quickly forgotten now.