Shared Victory

[Kloreep]

If you haven't read 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 PTWDG II? Or can there only be one?

[Jon Shafer]

[Rhothaerill]

As I stated in the C3CDG thread of the same type, "no" though that is just my opinion. In this case I can guess what most of my team would say though.

And nice pic Trip. Christopher Lambert at his acting finest (and I mean that literally ).

[Krill]

I'm the only member on CoD, so I suppose whatever I say stands as team opinion...but I think I have already made myself clear enough in the PTWDG forum. No way in hell would I accept a shared victory.

[Modo44]

Answer these questions for me, as I entered halfway through:

Was this possibility even considered when setting up the game?
Was this allowed in some rule set when starting the game?

If either answer is no, then there should be no way for a shared vicrtory to be introduced now. No way at all.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by Modo44
Answer these questions for me, as I entered halfway through:

Was this possibility even considered when setting up the game?
Was this allowed in some rule set when starting the game?

If either answer is no, then there should be no way for a shared vicrtory to be introduced now. No way at all.

Heh... that's what some people in the PTWDG thought. Unfortunately, it was never brought up and clarified and there are now some hard feelings over it. That's why I started this thread.

Myself, I agree shared victory shouldn't be possible.

[bongo]

Hey!! You can't outlaw this now

MaST has alrady made exclusive shared-victory pacts with 5 other teams

[Magno]

Originally posted by bongo
Hey!! You can't outlaw this now

MaST has alrady made exclusive shared-victory pacts with 5 other teams

no way !! LL will had not accepted that crazy idea of MAST of a shared victory with SS, CoD and Monkeys... and dont ask again!!

[Zero]

there can only be 1 ingame winner. That should solve it.

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Zero
there can only be 1 ingame winner. That should solve it.

I couldn't agree more.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by Zero
there can only be 1 ingame winner. That should solve it.

And if the final two teams choose not to fight it out, and stop playing ?

[BigFree]

Then you'd have to act as if you went to 2050 AD and the team with the highest score wins.

[BigFree]

You have to see that if two teams, unbeknownst to the other teams, have decided to "share" victory from the outset, then it would be very likely that the "team" of teams would win.

Now, if everyone was aware that "shared" victories were allowed then teams would just join with other teams till you had either 1v1 or 1v1v1 depending on the number of Civs in the game.

If everyone plays with the idea that only one team can be the winner it will change every teams philosophy versus allowing "shared" victories.

[Beta]

No shared victory!!!

For all the reasons stated here and elsewhere, with BF stating it most succintly above.

And to Trip who agreed to it in the other game. If this idea comes out in Civ4, you are dead meat Trip.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Beta
No shared victory!!!

For all the reasons stated here and elsewhere, with BF stating it most succintly above.

Oh look. Dead people talking.
/me ducks *

Originally posted by Beta
And to Trip who agreed to it in the other game. If this idea comes out in Civ4, you are dead meat Trip.

Then he is dead meat. They have already announced a very advanced co-op mode for MP games... Bye Trip.