>Recently one of the players for the corp wars game was complaining of not be available for the >practice games because a sysop hasn't rebanged a game in which he feels his corp won. I noticed >Traitor saying the sysop who hosted a game in which he played didn't rebang for a while. In both >cases, the winning corp has had to stay in the game to prevent new entries from gaining a foothold >in the game. So my question is: Under what conditions would a sysop feel that the game is won? I >think the conditions for a won game should be clearly stated on the game info page. That way there >should be no arguement as to when it is time for rebang.
[Pause] - Delete messages? (Y/N) [N] Y

heh heh, that varies from sys op to sysop, the better ones pay attention to users when told and will check and decide, others ignore it, and let the game run, I perfer the ones that listen and pay attention to thier users or at least to the games themselves.

What I don't understand is why players don't know when to just walk away. If you know you won the game, you own every asset and everyone else is #SD#, and IF you played every day you know there is zero chance anyone could take over, then just declare victory and stop playing. If someone else wanders in and takes over the game a week after you're gone because you aren't around to protect your assets...SO WHAT?! You already won the game. That new player is just playing in a dead universe. It's not like the sysop is going to send anyone a prize check when he rebangs.

Yeah, it's better when a sysop is active enough to rebang in a timely fashion, but the dreaded real-life can rear its ugly head and pull a sysop away from the server for a week or two sometimes. That doesn't mean you have to stick to a dead game for an extra week or two. You already won. Leave well enough alone.

Xen
there been posts on this befor, and it came down to half the players
said walk away, and other half said game not over till rebang.
and also had the sysop chime in and say were on to of things <smirk>
Here is a Perfect Example of a win, and other comes in and claim WIN!
http://www.eisonline.com/twforum/topic. ... rms=razzle

heh not even gonna read the post Zilla, but ur right, leave a game alone That for all matters is done and over with and some comes in and claims they won it. Yes u have to babysit a game like that, or others are gonna brag about it. And in response to Xen, yes real life has a hold on time, but, he can at least deal with it with-in 24 to 48 hours, if not declare a winnner and leave it open as a test game.

That is one important element that has been missing from the game, how do you confirm who is actually in the lead and who the actual winner is? I am in the hopes that the project Xen is currently working on will finally achieve this function, to allow SysOps/GameOps the ability to accurately and quickly track each players/corporations total assets (according to their specifications as to what details will be used to actually rank the players and define the winner in each specific game), and then post certain information for public viewing; (certain information might not be ideal to post do to giving a way a players/corporations gaming strategy, i.e. publically posting that Corporation X has 25 Level-6 planets and 2-million shields, or that Player Z has upgraded 75-ports, Player Y has 8-billion credits, etc.) This type of information could be used by the program to determine what is needed as set by the SysOp/GamOp, although would not be available for public viewing.

Perhaps the program could be desinged to operate in an automated capacity as well, by automatically declaring the winner advising all players of the game states through registered e-mail and then rebanging the game and posting the new games start/date time on the appropriate messaging thread.

I think this missing feature is what causes so much anguish between disputing players, because there is nothing definitive in determing the actual end of the game. It would definitly step up the game once something like this is implemented... Hurry up Xen, dang it!

Also perhaps a program such as this could include the ability for SysOp/GameOps to consistently and quickly set-up customized games that include advanced features, such as: preset sector configurations and hidden treasures, (i.e. placing the StarDock in a specific sector, adding stocked planets, upgrading various ports, including special customized ships, etc.) Thererby removing some of the monotonous tasks by allowing the SysOp/GameOp to only have to go though this trouble one time rather then with each and every rebang, (unless they wish to fine tune the game or make alterations as necessary.)

quote:Originally posted by Zarkahn

or others are gonna brag about it.
Uh, so? You know the truth, everyone else knows the truth, let the moron brag about a fake win in a game that was already over but never officially called or banged. Just shows that they're more interested in winning than having fun. Unless you also can't have fun in a losing game, it shouldn't bother you.

quote:Originally posted by RexxCrow

That is one important element that has been missing from the game, how do you confirm who is actually in the lead and who the actual winner is? ....


Well, it is easy for me to show the other corp what I have for assets - turn SS to 0 and output my corp assets script which shows everthing except corpie cash and locations (base/player). This would only be good if the corps in the game agree to ouput their asset reports for viewing. Disputes would still probably exist -- my 5 level 5 planets are better than your 3 level 6 planets or you've got 2 bil in the cit for cash and I only had 1 bil.

As for who is in the lead at a given point, that would be tricky because you would still need a valuation system that could output a score of some type (couldn't output assets).

The aspect of "winning" a game isn't that important to me. Just kill everyone and be done with it and go on to the next game and then let someone else come in and take over. If I have left the game and then someone pods/SDs me that is good - they got some practice in on base invasions, and they had fun. Staying online in a game without action just to have a "win" is way too boring - might as well watch the grass grow...

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

quote:Originally posted by Promethius
The aspect of "winning" a game isn't that important to me. Just kill everyone and be done with it and go on to the next game and then let someone else come in and take over. If I have left the game and then someone pods/SDs me that is good - they got some practice in on base invasions, and they had fun. Staying online in a game without action just to have a "win" is way too boring - might as well watch the grass grow...


[^]

As to the rest, I don't think simply outputting net worth would be too out of line. Only the net worth of appraisable assets could reliably be included, of course. A planet isn't saleable, per se. But given a planet provides assets over time, it has an indirect effect on a player or corporation's net worth and so it is a reasonable drawback to such a scoring system.

Would knowing everyone's net assets change the game? Sure. Would it be worse? Not necessarily. Still, whether a sysop wants scores constantly computed and displayed, or only wants to display them at the end of a game, would be completely up to them. At least they'd be able to do it. Instantly, without slow tedit scripts or full voluntary disclosure from the players.

Well if the enemy corp still has planets, then the game isn't over. Unless the sysop set special end conditions, the game is not over until at a bare minimum, you control all citadels and at least 90% of the figs in game.

Promethius , thats a good way to look at it, but does that work for tournament type games though? Would it not be a good idea to have some type of verification for these official types of games? So that way there is limited possibility for any future disputes.

Xen, I agree that SysOp/GameOps should be 100% able decide how and what to do with the games information as related to their own server. I just wanted to throw that out there to clarify that, if certian types of information is not handled correctly it could jeopardize the integrity of the game. By giving out to much information, certain players will gain an unfair advantage over others, etc. That would then become an abuse of information by those players, but ultimately it should be left up to the individual SysOp/GameOp to make that decision on their own. As it would also be left to the SysOp/GameOp to determine what qualifies players to be in the lead and when to declare a final winner.

Another advantage to this would be for new players that are entering open game all ready in-progress, it would allow them to check if there is any point in trying to play by confirming if the game has already been shutout or not by the other players.

quote:Originally posted by RexxCrow

Promethius , thats a good way to look at it, but does that work for tournament type games though? Would it not be a good idea to have some type of verification for these official types of games? So that way there is limited possibility for any future disputes.
been shutout or not by the other players.


The winners of the major tournament type games seem to be pretty clear cut. The players are generally advanced enough to know who is winning during the game by the ships/figs in use and what the other corp is doing - reds cashing and designated killers handling their roles. The Corp Wars I've played in were pretty obvious since people are online all of the time and monitoring what the others are doing.

Games without clear cut winners happen all of the time, generally a long drawn out game with players firmly entrenched in their bases. In this type of game the resources each corp has could be a factor, but to me it is a draw if neither corp can stage an invasion. I was in a game agains two players and could not moth enough to drain their cannons - they could not moth enough to drain my cannons - basically stalemate.

               / Promethius / Enigma / Wolfen /

"A man who has no skills can be taught, a man who has no honor has nothing."

quote:Originally posted by Psion

Well if the enemy corp still has planets, then the game isn't over. Unless the sysop set special end conditions, the game is not over until at a bare minimum, you control all citadels and at least 90% of the figs in game.

Right. Unless there is some criteria on what consitutes a won game, there may be some disagreement. Like "Should the MSL be amtracked before win could be declaired or just when some corp/player caps all the planets? Or maybe win is when a majority of the planets is won. Without these questions answered there may be some players who don't feel they have yet won the game and still are playing when they should have walked.
Now as to the newer entrants taking over the universe after the orginal players have walked, I propose that we call the players of dead games zombies.

[Pause] - Delete messages? (Y/N) [N]

Yea' but all that back breaking hardwork and dedication, just for a crummy stalemate!! Thats gotta peeve you though, at least for the by standers; if you did that in boxing ya'll would get gaffled!! [B)][B)][B)] heh

quote:[Right. Unless there is some criteria on what consitutes a won game, there may be some disagreement. Like "Should the MSL be amtracked before win could be declaired or just when some corp/player caps all the planets? Or maybe win is when a majority of the planets is won. Without these questions answered there may be some players who don't feel they have yet won the game and still are playing when they should have walked.
Now as to the newer entrants taking over the universe after the orginal players have walked, I propose that we call the players of dead games zombies.

[Pause] - Delete messages? (Y/N) [N]

Oops, wrong term. I meant to say that the guys who play after the game has been won and the winners gone I propose that we should call them ghouls, eaters of the dead.

[Pause] - Delete messages? (Y/N) [N]