Re: New Idea for my next few proposals

by The Founder at 2006-07-13 01:18:47

My thought is that the only way to win right now is by doing just what you don't want: winning within a short period of time. You either have to bankrupt all other players, or destroy all other player's units & buildings. The only way I can realistically see either one being achieved is by exploiting a loophole, and that would have to be done is less than 5 days to beat out a counter-proposal to stop you.

By adding the Scientist win condition to the mix, we'd have a way for someone to win not by exploiting a loophole, but by actually over-powering other players. The current method of doing that (being the only player to own units/buildings) is quite frankly, the least likely of the two win conditions at this point. I find that pretty pathetic, since the other win condition requires an enormous amount of luck on the winner's part (or bad playing on the part of other players to make themselves all bankrupt or expose themselves to bankruptcy, all at the same time).

The way I see it is, no player is very likely at all to win the game unless some new way to win is introduced. I think we've both proven that we can see potential loopholes in proposals, and you've shown that you're not afraid to point them out (or retract them) if you see (or think) that someone else has also noticed the loophole. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad thing (in fact, I'd much rather play against people who are all good at reading rules, then somebody who can't and proposes non-sensical trash and worse yet, actually means it).

Partly because I know that so many (if not all) of the players are intelligent, and careful players, I don't see why it would be such a bad thing to make a new win condition. Sure, it provides someone a chance (albiet, I think a small one) to win from out of nowhere. But that's the reality of what we're facing now. I think it would be nice if for once, one of these games didn't end because one player exploited a loophole (although that won't stop me from doing it), but rather they won because they simply outplayed the others in another way.

All that being said (and while it might seem I'm offended or something by what you said, I'm not), I can understand your point that it could become too easy to win via this method. I don't really agree that this would be the case: I find it hard to believe that one player starting to make Scientists wouldn't trigger at least another, and likely more, to do the same. I understand that you don't want the game to devolve into an arms race, but that leads me to the question: just how do you want the game to end? You've said that you don't want it to be a login race (eliminating winning by exploit), and you don't want a win via an arms race. At that point, I can't think of any other way to win then by sheer dumb luck. And I definitely don't want someone winning that way, nor do I think many people would. If I wanted to win a game that way, I'd go play War with somebody: the games would be faster, and the net result would be exactly the same.