The Worlds of Kaomaris

This is actually a situation that we have going on in Southern Reaches, and I thought I would put the people to the test:

If a player is RIPed on the same turn that he/she goes M-3, which rule takes precidence? Does the player going M-3 weigh more than the RIP, or vice versa? Let the arguments begin!

depends on the OOP if the RIP is prior to the M3 there is no M3/quit.

Can't possibly depend on the OOP. You don't go M-3 in the attacking phase!

Personally, I've always run it as people go M-3 at the end of a turn, thus giving players every opportunity to gain the RIP. This was very much a GM decision, but it may have been formalised in the ratings discussions, should anyone want to look it up...


korexus.

I agree with korexus.

Also, when you see someone is M-2 you can assume he's going to drop out, but you can't be sure.

I felt that the any player being RIPPED on the same turn that they go M-3 should be considered as RIPed as opposed to QUIT. I was fairly certain that Donut was going to quit once I took all of his corn away from him two turns ago. If he had other reasons, than I apologize for make a false assumption, but I did cripple his economy in Southern Reaches. Otherwise, he and I were actually about on even turns. I just happened to be ready before he was ready to pounce. I did not want this game to end with him going M-3. We already had two empty slots at the beginning of this game, and had to settle for being down with 2 players as having QUIT. One more, and this game can only have one weinner.....I mean winner.

Thanks fellows, you all are on the same views as I am, and to the others that read the post but didn't put in their 2 cents, thanks for NOTHING!

Haha...but only my opinion counts in this game! What a power trip!

Though since i agree with you guys the power trip doesn't seem to satisfy as much as it usually does, hmm...

Remind me again what difference it makes?

If it's a regular RIP then it doesn't count as a QUIT. 5 QUITs mean that a shared victory is no longer possible (no to mention the VPs )

Ah yeah I remember. It's been that long since I came close to winning that I forgot about that rule

I also agree that the RIP takes precedence.

I am almost 100% sure that that was the agreed way of treating things for the ratings side of things also.

There usually is plenty of time to rip someone and in my opinion it is a perfectly valid option to go M-3 to possibly deny someone some VP's.

Hence me going M-3 in Southern Reachs .

Gaz

AG Dont you think that is unsportsman like. If your opponents have earned the victory they should get the points. Someone choosing to go M3 to avoid this is, in my opinion, being unreasonable at best.

I haven't survived long enough for this to be a problem but I know it would hack me off immensely if it were done to me. Shouldn't the 2 be made the same equivalent. M3 = RIP in terms of VP allocation.

This would stop players going M3 simply as a spoiler. It is after all only a game and deliberatly going m3 is on a par with throwing the monopoly board on the floor cos u r loosing.

Well 5(!) people have to go QUIT before it has any effect. Actually i think it only happend 3-4 times in all the hundreds of games that have been played so it's not really an issue.

We had a poll on this a while back...

Vortan, your analogy is good, but not quite there. Going M-3 is like walking away because you can't win, counting M-3s as RIPs would be more like giving the strongest player all your money and property first.

The reasoning behind the rule is that a 5 player game is considerably easier to win than a 10 player game, so if several players simply give up the VP allowance is dropped. This all makes sense but introduces the twist that people can go M-3 to deprive other players of VPs. This isn't actually a common occurance and you do get 3 turns to finish them off, so personally I don't think it's too bad.


korexus.

I guess I will have to consider adding a new clause to my NAP arrangements. "in the event that you go M-2, the NAP will be null and void"

I do not agree with the prospect of going M-3 as a tactic. There are times when real life will cause a player to go M-3, and I can understand the need to take care of real life business first, but I do not agree with a player dropping out because his butt got kicked. I quite handily got whipped in the Austria game that is running, and effectively have been out of the running for anything other than a speed bump for the last several turns, but I still keep sending in orders. Even though they are just zero orders. I got beat fair and square, but I am not about to just drop out because of it.

If you are going to drop out and go M-3 as a tactic when you get beat, I would rather you not join the game to begin with. At least then, someone else who may want to fight to the end will have the opportunity to join in your place. (dangnabbit, naow I am starting to sound like Dameon)

It's a question though, of which is worse. To allow the tactic of going M-3 occasionally or to give out easy VPs occasionally. Remember that 5 people have to go M-3 to reduce the VPs, so it's not going to be a very good strategy very often. If we're going to kep M-3 for players who can't make turns, then we will get this option occasionally. It would just be too hard to judge when a player is deliberately missing turns to sabotage the game...

korexus.

Calidus wrote:and to the others that read the post but didn't put in their 2 cents, thanks for NOTHING!

I serve where needed.

-Bryk

The rules we have now are good in my opinion. Some players will try to abuse it to secure their place in the VP rat-race (I don't blame them if that's what they're here for), but all in all most of us see how such behaviour can spoil the fun for other players.

Trying each time to judge when a player did it to deny someone VPs would not only be difficult, but also a nightmare in terms of community atmosphere, so let's leave things the way they are.

Han's proposition of introducing conventions (as opposed to rules) comes to mind...