FG: Galactic Overlord 5 - The Wrath of Doc

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Ljube-ljcvetko
Um, as the GM I declare Smiley winner of Galactic Overlord 6. Let's start Galactic Overlord 7. It's over and he won. Deal with it.

Yes, that's completely the same. I see how foolish I was. Well done.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Um, actually you are the only one whinging about it. It's over and we won. Deal with it.

LL wasn't the only one who disagreed with it. I felt cheated as well, for had people known sooner that this sort of victory was possible at the time then we might had more time to mount a decent response.

[DrSpike]

I do understand that Geo. We voted after the game on this and I am happy with the outcome that co-ops aren't allowed. If the re-vote says the same again I'm not bothered.

But it wasn't something that had generated any discussion before the game we won together. All we did is ask the GM what the situation was; he told us, and we acted accordingly. We did not cheat you, and regardless of your opinions on coops I doubt you'd side with Ljube's backdating of the later vote outcome to the GT/Spike alliance game, removing our win. That just isn't right. Players can only play by the current ruleset, not anticipate future changes.

[Kassiopeia]

I think it's the same as in Mafia when I was met with the unprecedented premise of both Mafia surviving to the end. It just hadn't been considered before, so it fell on the GM's shoulders to decide what to do.

[DrSpike]

Yes, and if it is decided later to do something else that doesn't invalidate the game where the GM made a call.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I feel that the GT/Skipe victory is a little tainted by a loophole in the ruleset; that being said, it is still a victory. I do feel as Geo does though in not knowing of this until the end.

[DrSpike]

Entirely reasonable.

Btw is it the coop victory you don't like or the not realising they were allowed?

[Spaced Cowboy]

Both

[Ljube]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I do understand that Geo. We voted after the game on this and I am happy with the outcome that co-ops aren't allowed. If the re-vote says the same again I'm not bothered.

But it wasn't something that had generated any discussion before the game we won together. All we did is ask the GM what the situation was; he told us, and we acted accordingly. We did not cheat you, and regardless of your opinions on coops I doubt you'd side with Ljube's backdating of the later vote outcome to the GT/Spike alliance game, removing our win. That just isn't right. Players can only play by the current ruleset, not anticipate future changes.

I'm not backdating. I just think the original rule didn't allow cooperative victories. That's how I understood the rule and that's how most of other players did.

If the others feel the rule wasn't clear on the issue, then your victory counts, except I still consider it unfair from your part that you have chosen to ask a question about this rule (the rule that defines the winning conditions) in a PM rather than posting it. That's all.

[Snowflake]

Well as a total outsider I can now see the merit of both side. In my opinion there was no fault in GT and Doc in asking clearification of the rules in the middle of the game, since circumstances had not risen before that time. Further, I believe skanky as the GM has the right to rule that co-op victory is allowed. However, I would be very very surprised that such an important ruling is not disclosed to the other players. Essentially it equates to two of the players have had unwarranted advances over the others. And I would certainly understand if others do not feel their victory is qualified if that was the case.

If Ljube secretly decided that before being defeated, everybody could build 100 more bases and 1000 more ships out of the blue, but only told smilie, and then smilie went ahead and destroyed everybody else in this game. I'm sure nobody would agree that the GM has the right of the final ruling.