The Sanborn Oasis

[Duke]

I would laugh if it wasnt for the fact that it may be true. Depends on how close to you I start. If I am close enough and you dont attack me then all around assume we are working together and gets scared of.

Am I wrong? No You work as that huge scary dog that watches the fence. I am the guy on the porch sipping some fine Fay-Go.

[korexus]

Or, I could just post the idea here, and get feedback. The only feedback I got that was perhaps against the rules was the 6-city one, and I told y'all the players could vote on it.

But by that setup I can give out VPs for my one city rule game. As long as I can find 10 players who are willing to sign up it'll be fine.

I am honestly worried about a community backlash against this, if players are not playing, then why would they want the six-city rule when they can vote the eight-city rule in and make it more difficult to win the game?

Which is why I've said two or three times that the post should be made before the game opens. The number of people who know in advance that they won't play in the game and care enough to try making the game go on forever so no one else can get VPs from it has to be very small indeed.

I personally would rather not see this game run on for like 30 turns and I feel like an eight city rule would make that happen, unless somebody can figure out how to hold onto the vortex that is.

Well, I guess that's a difference between us. I personally would like to see games lasting a bit longer, but I can see why you as GM might want it to finish at some point. If we're getting back to the specific case of your game then my main problem is that two players can own 6 cities later in the game without being the strongest pair. (It's possible with the 8 city rule, is far more possible here.) That would lead to a less satisfactory finish and I wouldn't discount the possibility of a cheap early victory either. I could be out-numbered in this opinion in which case I'm perfectly willing to accept the verdict of the masses, but the people who sign up for the game are likely to be biased in favour of the rules as they stand and so might not be a good representation of the community.


korexus.

[BigJOzzy]

Korexus you are still missing the point. No one has come and said anything against it but you and TK, and you are both in the game. Anyone can say something but no one has so why are you still making a big deal out of it.

Massielita

[korexus]

No one has come and said anything against it but you and TK, and you are both in the game. Anyone can say something but no one has so why are you still making a big deal out of it.

Massielita

Because I'm talking about Generally, not just for Nick's game. Oh and Nick's attitude that people can't come and say something without signing up of course.

[BigJOzzy]

I still think the point is mute since we all do come say something. So unless someone opens a new X-game and 10 people sign up immediately then there will always be time for discussion, and besides the GM council can always look at things afterwards and make a ruling if that is the case.

Massielita

And yes Nick is always that way, but he makes the best X-games in the business.......

[Dameon]

Look, if the entire WOK community spoke out against this 6-city rule, as they would against your 1-city rule, of course I would change it. But to me, it seems like the opinions are pretty evenly divided here, right? So, I'll take a vote. Believe it or not, Chris, if everybody said "Nick this is an awful idea", I WOULD change it, whether they were players or not. But in cases like this, when opinion seems to be evenly divided, I am just going to let the players of the actual game do the deciding. My goal is to make it as challenging to win this game as it is to win any other WOK 5 game, not more or less so. Because cities are bigger and more heavily defended in this game, to me it makes them more difficult to take, and thus the city victory condition should be modified. Anyway, we have six players signed up now, let's get four more so we can get this show on the road!

[Underdog]

Huh? What? Am I missing something? All of you that feels a 6 city win here is easy needs to have you head checked. Have you even looked at the file for this game? I'm signing up here just in spite since I predict that no one will win this until there are only like 3-4 players left and not necessarily due to the city rule.

Put me down representing VO here Nick. I need a clanmate, Bjorn? hmmm no he gets ripped before turn 3 normally. Tbert? Nope, probably in Iraq or something. Strider? Must be guiding some halflings with a ring somewhere cos I havent seen him around in ages.......I guess it has to be Aussie G once again then *sigh*

Well I am too lazy to edit his post.

The point I would like to make is this: If there are only 3 or 4 players left. Then by definition SOMEONE will have to have taken their cities. so we have 10 cities divided by 3 or 4 players and 6 cities is a VERY viable option for 2 of the players to attain.

Now just for giggles how about this:

6 cities for 1 player but to share the 2 players must control 8 cities.

I think this would make it more difficult for the situation someone described earlier in this thread from happening. 1 player with 4 cities losing to 2 players with 3 cities each.

[Duke]

People do surrender you know.

[Duke]

Oh, I just now read your post all the way through UD and you actually made some sense there. Forget my previous disrespectful post that actually didnt make any sense. Still, take a look at the file and you'll see that those cities are no picnick. Anyone with 6 cities is a true winner in this group if you ask me.

[korexus]

My original post (if anyone can remember that far back) was that shared win under 6 cities sounded a bit easy. One player with 6 cities is dominant, two players sharing them may not be. Quite a few people have posted to agree with this now, as Nick is edging towards agreeing that people not in the game might still have a valid input we might have a friendly solution to this yet!

What do you say to a compromise, Nick? - Solo win under 6 city rule. Joint win under 8 city. Kinda like in GM_Wippo's game, but with 2 less cities...


korexus.

[Dameon]

That's not really a compromise, as most WOK 5 games that are won by the eight city rule are won jointly. Not all, granted, but the vast majority. My premise remains that it will be as difficult for two players to get six cities in this game as it would for them to get eight cities in a regular WOK 5 game. So far, Chris, I've heard two players (you and TK) want the 8 city rule, two (Duke and Massie) agree with me on the 6 city rule, and two (UT and Nesty) who haven't said either way, plus four more empty slots of course. My compromise is that I will allow the players to vote on which they want, majority rules.

[korexus]

It is a compromise as it's somewhere between what you want and what I want. That's what compromise means. Looking back over this thread, five players (Me, Lord Fredo, TK, Donut and Underdog) have expressed concerns about the 6 city rule. As you did seem to be coming towards common sense for a moment when you said that if the community thought you were making a mistake you would listen I thought I would try making a constructive comment. If you're going back to the "only players in the game can have a say" stance them I'm afraid I'm going to continue pointing out that you're being silly. - Even Massie, who disagrees with me on whether the 6 city rule is ok agrees that the entire community should be given input...


korexus.

[Dameon]

Chris, all I have to say is I am glad you weren't around when I was in my GMing heyday and had at least 1-2 X-games going at all times, because I have a feeling you would have bogged down the boards with nitpicky little details about rule specifics in all of them. As it was, there has never, ever been a case where a player in my X-game complained about another winning too easily (and very few complaints overall), and that's over quite a few games. Can't you just accept that I have a lot of experience at this and know what I am doing? I guess not, huh?

And ya know what? If one player with four cities loses to two with three, so what? I know that in 8-city victories there have been times when the players with 8 cities are not the clear winners by pure military strength, but they won using STRATEGY anyway. I do think that if you and a partner manage to capture twelve different provinces (of three different terrain types) with a combined DEF of over 40, you have used good strategy and deserve to win. Believe it or not, five people isn't even close to the whole WOK community, not when there's three of us on the other side already. To me, there's no clear mandate there. I'll take a vote among the players to be fair, but we clearly have different philosophies on this and I'm not sure arguing the point any further is going to do any good really.

[korexus]

Chris, all I have to say is I am glad you weren't around when I was in my GMing heyday and had at least 1-2 X-games going at all times, because I have a feeling you would have bogged down the boards with nitpicky little details about rule specifics in all of them. As it was, there has never, ever been a case where a player in my X-game complained about another winning too easily (and very few complaints overall), and that's over quite a few games. Can't you just accept that I have a lot of experience at this and know what I am doing? I guess not, huh?

For the record, I was arround for a few of your previous X-Games. (From the castle one onwards) I just never played in any as, with the exception of Tenaria, I was still on WoK IV while you were running them. Since Tenaria's been mentioned, wasn't it won by a player building 8 cities using city and bridge magic then claiming the win? And didn't Al mention before you started the game that adding so many rules might make loopholes for an easy win? And didn't you say "I don't think it'll be imbalanced, as all new rules apply to all players"? (Hint, the answer is yes. I went and looked it up.)

I am not saying that you don't have experience in running games. I am not saying that you don't have great ideas for games. I am saying that occasionally your ideas might not be balanced. I happen to have spent a fair amount of time working through X-Game ideas myself (Heck, it's all Xarfei ever talks about! ) and I wouldn't be surprised if I understood the mechanics of WoK at least as well as you but feedback from other people is always going to be useful in working out a set of rules regardless of whether or not they want to join the game...

And ya know what? If one player with four cities loses to two with three, so what? I know that in 8-city victories there have been times when the players with 8 cities are not the clear winners by pure military strength, but they won using STRATEGY anyway.

And this is why I said that I would prefer no form of city-rule to begin with. However, I accept that that is not the view of most of the community and carry on with my life...

Believe it or not, five people isn't even close to the whole WOK community, not when there's three of us on the other side already. To me, there's no clear mandate there. I'll take a vote among the players to be fair, but we clearly have different philosophies on this and I'm not sure arguing the point any further is going to do any good really.

"You've been around longer, therefore you know better. End of argument." Very convincing reasoning there. However if time since you started playing WoK is the only factor in how right you are, doesn't TK's opinion beat yours?


I think I will bring up a motion with the WSC. It's annoying and makes me feel as nit-picky as Nick makes me out to be. But if a GM refuses to even consider he might be wrong without the entire community posting about it then we might need some sort of official rule. Hey, at least it'll make sorting out WoK Online easier...

Who'll second a vote saying that GMs must post X-Game ideas for a week and address any issues raised before opening them?


Chris.

[bitchiness]Why is it we all get by perfectly well on common sense until Nick does something, then we need to make a rule for it?[/bitchiness]

[Dameon]

Look, let's face something here shall we? This issue is really not about 6-cities, it's about using cities as a victory condition at all. I mean, I can't think of one player who opposes the 6-city rule here who doesn't also oppose the general city-victory conditions to some extent. A lot of y'all have said it here, even. Really, I did NOT create Sanborn as a referenedum on the city-victory conditions, but that is what this is turning into wouldn't you say? There's no argument that capturing cities in Sanborn is more difficult than normal, and there's no argument that capturing six cities in Sanborn is as difficult (if not moreso, IMO) than eight cities in a normal WOK 5 game. So, because I introduced a slight variation, Sanborn turns into a magnet for all those of the anti-city-victory camp to come out and complain. With that being said, I think we need to forget about the specific rule causing this argument and focus more on the underlying issues here.

Bottom line, I am simply not putting up my X-games for general community approval, because it IS NOT NECESSARY. I am more than willing to listen to players concerns, but I am against creating needless layers of beauracracy here. I am of the opinion that the players in a game will adequately represent any concerns the community would have as a whole.

So, Chris. How about a compromise? We could have a rule stating that PLAYERS in a X-Game are allowed to express concerns over certain rules and petition the GM to change them. (Although why we'd need a specific rules, when it is as you say "common sense", is beyond me) Oh no, that's right, you think that WOK players are drooling idiots who will automatically approve any change that makes winning "easier" for them. EVEN though you and TK have proved that not to be the case, you apparentely believe the rest of the players to be morons. Gah! Why can you not SEE that signed up or not, WOKkers will have the same concerns? I just don't get it. You must really think very lowly of the general community if you don't believe they will hold the same convictions as you and TK here. After all, if a rule makes it easier for ONE player to win, it makes it easier for everybody else in the game too as well? It's that double-edged sword that you are so fond of discounting.

We want the same thing Chris, we really do. We want the community to approve any X-Games that are run. We just differ on how to approach that. I trust the players that sign up for a specific game to act as an accurate representation of the community as a whole, you do not. That's really the bottom line here, and if you want to address any issue, address that one please. I really would like to hear from others outside of Chris and I on that particular issue, too.

[bitchiness] Why is it that I've never had somebody try to regulate X-game rules before Chris came along? I guess he's just smarter than us all, huh?[/bitchiness]

[gm_al]

Is anyone else still reading this ?

Btw Im still waiting on those Tribe change suggestions from your "Task force", guys... in the light of some bugfixing I need to do on WOK5 now might be the right time to send me a few of your thoughts.

[TK]

there's no argument that capturing six cities in Sanborn is as difficult (if not moreso, IMO) than eight cities in a normal WOK 5 game.

I would argue that. Killing 4 players is easier than killing 6.

[TK]

So, Chris. How about a compromise? We could have a rule stating that PLAYERS in a X-Game are allowed to express concerns over certain rules and petition the GM to change them.

That is not a compromise. That is restating your original position. This is twice you have failed to understand the meaning of compromise. Somebody get this man a dictionary.

It seems to me that Massi is the only person not to argue the 6-city rule, and thats because he thinks the vortex will be the source of cheap VPs instead.



Nick, after Underdog won Tenaria by BUILDING 8 cities, and not fighting anyone, I think you should be grateful to anyone who is willing to help you make a better set of rules. Your ideas are great but your understanding of game mechanics is terrible.

[BigJOzzy]

I am also planning ahead TK. I am a merc and by definition have no clanmate to help me out. However, that leaves me free to be on anyones side, but in a game of clanmates I do need something. I think in this game, two clanmates (or even two strong players playing together) can win by holding the vortex. I also know, if two players are trying to hold the vortex for 4 rounds will have thier defense depleated at some cities.

Now if I am alone or with another player and we don't have the strongest army then taking cities might be easier then rushing a defensive possition of the Vortex. I still think the cities will be the hardest to take, and I also think that you will have 8 players still in the game after turn 10 because the cities are so well defended. I just want an option open, like taking 6 cities instead of only having the option of taking the vortex.

Think on this another way if we had the 8 city rule then the game would have to be down to at least 4 players and the two players would have to only have one city each and still be able to hold the vertex. I don't that would be the case. If two players can hold the vortex they will have to have at least one or two cities each and that goes back to 6 city rule.

Frankly I don't know how it will play out, but I am planning and we will have to wait and see who is right in the end.

Massielita

[gm_al]

Ok let me help you out there... make it first to hold 7 cities and everyone will be happy.