To my fellow game operators,

Please forgive the naiveté of the question I am about to ask of you.

What, exactly, constitutes winning a game, in Trade Wars 2002?

In return for your answers to this question, I offer in exchange an explanation as to why I would ask what might seem like an unthinkably silly question.

Back in my ankelbyter days when I would call Gary and Mary Ann all the way in the US and ask them to tell me my registration code over the telephone 'cause I had lost it again... I used to play Trade Wars 2002. But. The game was "Over" when none of the users were really playing anymore.

Since those days things have really changed, I've noticed! I have only recently rejoined the Trade Wars 2002 world. I have been running a game for a week or two now, and there is talk of the game being "almost over" among the players. As mentioned above, my seemingly anachronistic view of what makes "game over" is incompatible with the idea that players are calling "game over", since game over for me has always been when the players have stopped playing.

So... I have a dilemma.. how do I get with the present? FOr starters, do I even need to? I mean, I banged this game without declaring at the outset what the criteria were for winning the game, so can I fairly impose one now? Then again, is there an expection that already exists that I don't know about (hence this post) as to what constitutes a game over?

I realise that ultimately, it's my server, I get to decide. And decide I will, though I would like some input from other gameops so as to offer me perspective on the matter. So, if any of you feel like sharing your thoughts, I would be most appreciative, whether I end up leaning toward your views or not.

Thanks!

student

P.S. you can be sure that I will clearly state my policy on this before the next bang

In general, if no winning conditions have been posted, a game is over when one player or corp has either eliminated everything the other players have or when the other players concede defeat to the winning corp.

Well, the best way people have found to "end" a game is fairly simple. Eliminated all competition, take all planets, than blockade fedspace, and sit in an IDC in the MSL, so nobody can leave fed. Than nobody can join, so game is over.

Since you mentioned it is not posted , there is no way to know the winner unless they are last man not dead with everyones stuff.
Players conceeding games would be nice , but players rarely email sysops.

I agree with Draconis and Harley on how to determing winner(s).

On my server I've posted what I think are factors in determing
game winners :

Own Alien planet(s)
Have most L2 or better planets
I give credits to Highist Blue and Highist Red.

But on occasions no one takes alien planet and game continues till I see no players.
Now I have to deside and change the players deletion time limit from
30 days to about 14 days perhaps.

I'de like to hear more if anyone has ideas , with and without aliens.
I personally dont like re-banging same game weekly , so I'de like to
keep them staggered and possibly a year game but will have to see.
==
that's my $0.02

my favorite and IMO the most common form of "winning" is eliminating all competition. in an unlim i joined recently, i #SD#'d all other players, invaded all planets, and got 100% grid. for me, that game is over. i say i won. if people want to join in a week and take my abandoned crap, so be it, i dont care, i know i won. a turn game i won recently i had only like a 20% grid when i quit, but i had 100% of cits and figs and had eliminated the opposing corp. they conceded so i no longer had to keep gridding etc...
so if no rules are posted, most likely world domination is the accepted winning condition.

Slim

When everybody who logs in does a cby because the game is beyond hope, it's about time to declare a winner - sometimes two or three corps are still fighting it out - in that case let 'em fight - but new players want a chance or they'll look elsewhere....

It's not much fun anymore when you own everything and there are no more enemies - time to rebang...

Thank you all for your feedback. As it stands, there is one powerhouse in the game left, who is hunting out the few remaining players that are putting up as best a fight as they can. So it might be over soon... or maybe not.

Domination of game by a single player or Corp is usually a determining factor, but a lot depends on game edits like whether or not Photons are enabled, number of turns per day, level of Ferrengi activity, etc. I mention Ferrengi because they can affect the ability of a player to dominate the game by damaging that player's fig grid. A player might try to blockade Fedspace, but if there are lots of Aliens and Ferrengi set "aggressive", they can and do tear holes in player blockades. And of course all MSL's are cleared at extern. Another way to declare a winner is by setting a cash goal, i.e., the first player or corp to accumulate 1 billion creds (or whatever amount) is the winner. This forces players to concentrate on earning and saving money, and gives Red players even more of an edge since they can earn faster than Blues in the early stages of the game. Games set up to have the winner determined by cash accumulated should have Ferrengal set "invulnerable", so that a player can't benefit by capturing it with a lot of cash on it (or disable Aliens/Ferrengi completely). Needless to say, a "cash" game has to have some limit set on turns per day, as it would be pretty pointless to make it unlimited - the game would be won by whoever has the free time to stay online 24/7. I know most TW2002 players prefer the blood-and-guts, no-holds-barred type of game with player combat being the "most fun", but I wanted to present this as an alternative.

the first to a billion credits? heh, thats just whoever has 2.03 vs 2.02.

Slim

Invincible ferrengal doesn't mean it can't be invaded, just that it can't be zdy'd.

quote:Originally posted by Harley Nuss (teamEIS)

Invincible ferrengal doesn't mean it can't be invaded, just that it can't be zdy'd.


Thanks! I didn't know that. I thought I had read in one of the game strategy manuals (Slices's maybe), that "Invincible" meant "non-capturable".