Shared Victory

[Kloreep]

If you haven't seen the latest firestorm over at the PTWDG, my advice to you is don't. However, I believe the manner of its ending should be considered.

Two teams declared joint victory upon wiping out the last big contender in the game. (A third team remains alive but would be too weak to survive if it came to war.) While it was clear from the 2-vs-1 war they were allied, the other teams had not realized they had actually agreed to share victory after the fact.

Should the signing of such shared victory pacts be allowed in the C3CDG? Or can there only be one?

[Octavian X]

I'm tempted to say 'no' and disallow such a victory. It kills the end-game action. For example, I think it would be most enjoyable to watch GoW and ND (those two teams declaring victory) fight it out 'till the end.

[Kloreep]

I don't know about killing the end-game action. The issue with the PTWDG is that ND and GoW were the only ones thinking it was even possible. If we all know this ahead of time, I'm sure everyone will be rushing to sign these pacts in the late game. Unless we all become one big happy victor family at that point, I think it would change the action from individual wars to World War, not actually kill it.

I lean toward "no" as well, however.

[Rhothaerill]

I'd say no, but that's just me. My whole team hasn't weighed in yet.

[planet]

Personely "No"

[ormuzd]

I think we have already discussed this problem. Just look at the threads (probably 2-3 weeks ago)

[Daddy-O]

What's to stop it?

Let's say Team Skrobism signs such a pact with Team Kloreep; and we are the last two standing.

Even if you force us to play it out I could agree to give my cities to Team Kloreep to effectively form one nation. Team Kloreep could then allow members of Team Skrobism to become Team Kloreep members and we have a joint win.

Not that any right minded follower of Skrobism would ever want to be known as a Kloreepian.

[Kloreep]

It's true you could get around it if it was outlawed. But I think we could trust everyone to obey the spirit of the rule if one was made.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by ormuzd
I think we have already discussed this problem. Just look at the threads (probably 2-3 weeks ago)

It has? Didn't realize that, but I can't find it. Can you point me to a thread?

[snoopy369]

Rhoth, I agree. NO!!

[ormuzd]

Originally posted by Kloreep
It has? Didn't realize that, but I can't find it. Can you point me to a thread?

I can't find it either. It seems I was wrong - there was a similar discussion for the ISDG game. I'm really sorry for that stupid notice

[Aqualung71]

Never!

[Ljube]

No!

[Beta]

NO!

Originally posted by Kloreep
But I think we could trust everyone to obey the spirit of the rule if one was made.

THIS is exactly the point. Even the PBEM guidelines insist that each player plays to win - as a an individual. Granted, that rule was put in to prevent players from bringing past grudges into new games - as in Rhoth declaring that his main purpose in every game from here on out is Beta's destruction ( ), but it was also intended to insist that each player play to win as an individual, unless the game was specifically set up as a team game.

I have not jumped into the debate yet in PTWDG, but I can tell you, I was very disappointed with the announcement. Look where this could lead to. Three teams declaring victory. Don't get me going. It still pi$$es me off.

[Rhothaerill]

Originally posted by Beta
as in Rhoth declaring that his main purpose in every game from here on out is Beta's destruction ( )

That's a fully valid main purpose. After all, you admittedly used the opposite rationale in attacking me in the Random Random PBEM when J2K/Grandpa Troll was the far more immediate threat in that particular game.

Plus, trading trash-talk with you is just plain fun.