Ladies' Tea party (signup thread)

[Setroc]

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky
So... are Gaians available? Can I pick them? Can I? Can I?

Yang told me that God doesn't exist, but the devil does. He takes the form of tree-hugging hippies. This is why I couldn't stick with the Gaians, and thought you might like to know before choosing them.

Do you have any preferences for the map layout Trotsky? I would have thought something which restricts momentum play would be appropriate, but perhaps not continents, as being able to have a friendly chit-chat early on would be nice.

[Flubber]

I hadn't noticed the co-operative setting-- I don't want to play if co-op is on

My thinking is this-- Its tough enough to sweat out a lead against good players-- If two players see they are being surpassed they can team up and render all that work moot . In many games with fairly equal players, it is the leader or anyone that dares think they will win solo that ends up losing . the winners end up winning because they make a decision based on their inability to win solo.

With co-op off, a second and third place faction may team up to catch a leader, but the diplomacy is more intricate and fun since they need to watch for the backstabs.

Ever since I played a 4 player game where 2 players met and permapacted in the 2120s, I have not wanted to play co-op victory on games. The reality is that if two good players meet early and permapact, the game can be over before it starts. (Imagine a university faction giving ind auto very early to the Drones or Hive)OUCH

Sorry if this puts a crimp in things but I don't enjoy co-op ON games the same.

[Flubber]

Ohh to be clear-- I don't mind people winning "co-op" with the AI but there should only be one human winner IMHO

[Setroc]

Well I was waiting for Trotsky to post his opinions first, since it's his thread, but it's been a while.

I would be fine with no co-op victory as I understand your objections. in our "The Problem With Planet" pbem, Drones being given IA by the AI in the early 20s resulted in Uni and me (Hive) pacting, and when that happened, the game was basically decided there and then, resulting in a pretty uninteresting pbem.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Setroc


I would be fine with no co-op victory as I understand your objections. in our "The Problem With Planet" pbem, Drones being given IA by the AI in the early 20s resulted in Uni and me (Hive) pacting, and when that happened, the game was basically decided there and then, resulting in a pretty uninteresting pbem.

THats exactly my objection-- These games take far too long as it is so my hope is that we do as much as possible to make them interesting.

[Leon Trotsky]

Originally posted by Setroc
Well I was waiting for Trotsky to post his opinions first, since it's his thread, but it's been a while.

Threads have no ownership as far as I know, comrade. You don't have to wait for me.

Originally posted by Setroc I would be fine with no co-op victory as I understand your objections. in our "The Problem With Planet" pbem, Drones being given IA by the AI in the early 20s resulted in Uni and me (Hive) pacting, and when that happened, the game was basically decided there and then, resulting in a pretty uninteresting pbem.

Wouldn't that be more of an anti AI argument?

[Setroc]

Well kind of. I still blame myself for using clever Yang rhetoric to coerce uni into a pact

But it's like Flubber said - I thought I was being surpassed, and called an early permapact to overcome it.

Anyway, it seems that Flubber wants no co-op, and Trotsky wants co-op. The way I see it, there are 3 possibilities to proceed:

1. Get more players and have a co-op victory game (this will take time. Also, are you disinterested in co-op even with more players Flubber?)
2. Replace Flubber (nooo!)
3. Have a no co-op. (This may not be an option for Trotsky anyway)

Personally, I like 1 best. I know that Trotsky and I have good turn rates, and my covert ops surveillance of other threads suggests Flubber does too, so I don't think a larger game would be too slow.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Setroc
Well kind of. I still blame myself for using clever Yang rhetoric to coerce uni into a pact

But it's like Flubber said - I thought I was being surpassed, and called an early permapact to overcome it.

Anyway, it seems that Flubber wants no co-op, and Trotsky wants co-op. The way I see it, there are 3 possibilities to proceed:

1. Get more players and have a co-op victory game (this will take time. Also, are you disinterested in co-op even with more players Flubber?)
2. Replace Flubber (nooo!)
3. Have a no co-op. (This may not be an option for Trotsky anyway)

Personally, I like 1 best. I know that Trotsky and I have good turn rates, and my covert ops surveillance of other threads suggests Flubber does too, so I don't think a larger game would be too slow.

I don't want to cause any problems-- I just know that I personally enjoy non-co-op games more. The diplomacy gets intense. Say you are the leader and 2 players are obviously preparing to attack you. They can team up but each will want to be prepared for the aftermath. Even lesser empires can be more of a factor.

More players does not change my views.

Its probably best just to find someone else. My most boring games (victories and defeats alike) came in games when people permapacted. I don't need to find out whether I can beat 2 good players acting together . .. I accept that I can't. But what is interesting to me is trying to beat good players in an enviroment of uneasy and shifting alliances where diplomacy is vibrant and interesting and people are always seeking the best individual advantages.



OH and my turn rate is very good. There is about a 10 hour block when I don't play(I'm at work) but I try to play both before and after work so I almost never have a turn more than 24 hours

[Lazerus]

Well kind of. I still blame myself for using clever Yang rhetoric to coerce uni into a pact

I'm a sucker for anybody who can speak Hiverian to me

[Leon Trotsky]

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you, comrade Flubber.

I wanted to play with cooperative victory on because I wanted to win a game, and thanks to my lousy gameplay, the only way I could ever achieve that is by teaming up with another player - being someone's parasite. But what kind of "victory" would that be? Sure, I would get the nice score table with my name there on top. But not only would that be fake - more importantly, why are we bothering to join PBEMS anyway? Boosting our egos? If enabling cooperative victory deprives me of sharing a good game with you, I say "to hell with that".

I will just have to get used to losing. It's not that bad, you people are the top players in Planet.

Besides, I have to mature sooner or later.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Leon Trotsky
more importantly, why are we bothering to join PBEMS anyway?

I join because with the Ai there is little challenge and diplomacy is absent.

I like the challenge of good competition but I don't need to win to have fun. Some of my most fun games were where I tried a different playstyle and shaken things up a little

[dmm1285]

I would like to play if you haven't started yet

[dmm1285]

I always play with the unity surey oin, so I'd prefer that, but that's not a huge deal

[Setroc]

I'm going to have to drop out of this game also I've come to the conclusion that 2 games at once is as much as I'll be able to handle. And it's not going to take long before the time required to play each Hive Quad turn greatly increases. Especially with the size of ICS I am going to have

Anyway, I'm really sorry about this Trotsky, I really should have thought all of this through before signing up. I feel quite bad about it, but since I've been in your last 3 games you are probably sick to death with me anyway

[SebP]

i'd like to join another one, but can't think about settings, faction and stuff right now (no time) i'll let you hear in a week... if someone else turns up until then, oh well, take him instead

just to let you know