Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Sc on team rule

Expand Messages
  • sc_lucky
    No way thru ;) This is a war game or what? When the draw is not allowed, you can not even ask for it. (how do you think of it? they let you run thru and you
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 1, 2008
      No way thru ;)
      This is a war game or what? When the draw is not allowed, you can not
      even ask for it. (how do you think of it? they let you run thru and you
      position your cloaks??)
      In Falcon there are games with visible dips. Means you have all empires
      on your dip screen from the very beginning. No need for meetings.

      --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "xeviathian" <xeviathian@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Sc on team rule: if there was a 5 member team, then that team should
      of
      > let the other team meet up first.... just be fair?
      >
    • manetherensc
      SC is a game of strategy, but it also has an element of chance. As in real life (huh?), different space faring civilisations have to explore vast reaches of
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 1, 2008
        SC is a game of strategy, but it also has an element of chance. As
        in real life (huh?), different space faring civilisations have to
        explore vast reaches of space to even encounter one another, and
        there's no guarantee that they'll like each other on the first date.
        So the teams will not necessarily be split down the middle when
        alliances are determined, i.e., very early on in the game, when no
        one really has a clear idea of how the map is set up, and the empires
        distributed. But contrary to real life (egad?) you have
        the "Broadcast" function which you can use to say "Meet me at xx,yy
        in 3 updates so we can ally", or "Abc's HW is at xx,yy".

        That being said, I was involved in what was probably the perfect team
        game. There were lots of broadcasts in the beginning, which allowed
        us to approximate who was where, and to divvy up the teams
        equally: "we" on one side, and "they" on the other.

        I was holding the bottleneck. There was absolutely no other way for
        the teams to meet, except through my space, and it was bottlenecked.
        We did open the lone link which turned the bottleneck in a 2-lane
        highway. Other than that, it was a tight fit, and a long wait for my
        allies to finally have systems on the far side.

        http://sc.lugdunum.net:9130/support/history/Clan_War.19.html


        It was a very interesting and entertaining game. thanks to all
        involved!

        -KB






        --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, sc_lucky <no_reply@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > No way thru ;)
        > This is a war game or what? When the draw is not allowed, you can
        not
        > even ask for it. (how do you think of it? they let you run thru and
        you
        > position your cloaks??)
        > In Falcon there are games with visible dips. Means you have all
        empires
        > on your dip screen from the very beginning. No need for meetings.
        >
        > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "xeviathian"
        <xeviathian@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > Sc on team rule: if there was a 5 member team, then that team
        should
        > of
        > > let the other team meet up first.... just be fair?
        > >
        >
      • Ryan
        I ve been on both sides now in that 10 player game. Truth is, if you create a 5 player team, you re most likely to form your alliance from the middle out. In
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 1, 2008
          I've been on both sides now in that 10 player game. Truth is, if you
          create a 5 player team, you're most likely to form your alliance from
          the middle out. In this current game, I had a prime spot with all of
          my systems to me and I leaked out towards Bicen and Lafrog. In a usual
          2-3 man team I would be a nice asset. However in this game I didn't
          meet anyone until update 7 or 8 and I knew I had little chance of
          finding a friend. I think I am going to avoid the game moving forward,
          because I don't like not having allies and I didn't like hte feeling
          of denying one to a corner player the first time this happended.

          That's why we have team games on Homeserve to create a fair balanced
          map and knowledge that if you in a bad spot someone on the other team
          is also in that same bad spot. I will try sticking to these games.

          GW

          --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "xeviathian"
          <xeviathian@...> wrote:
          >
          > Sc on team rule: if there was a 5 member team, then that team should
          of
          > let the other team meet up first.... just be fair?
          >
        • Loren
          I did set it up to be a non Shared HQ game. The players on the edge have somewhat of a fighting chance if they are only facing one member of the center
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 1, 2008
            I did set it up to be a non Shared HQ game. The players on the edge
            have somewhat of a fighting chance if they are only facing one member
            of the center alliance. The players in the center Alliance may also
            have to fight on multiple fronts. I wonder if it is possible to add
            alliance limits as an option in the PHP code. If that can be done, I
            would set only one ally and Shared HQ.


            --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" <crashnacho@...> wrote:
            >
            > I've been on both sides now in that 10 player game. Truth is, if you
            > create a 5 player team, you're most likely to form your alliance from
            > the middle out. In this current game, I had a prime spot with all of
            > my systems to me and I leaked out towards Bicen and Lafrog. In a usual
            > 2-3 man team I would be a nice asset. However in this game I didn't
            > meet anyone until update 7 or 8 and I knew I had little chance of
            > finding a friend. I think I am going to avoid the game moving forward,
            > because I don't like not having allies and I didn't like hte feeling
            > of denying one to a corner player the first time this happended.
            >
            > That's why we have team games on Homeserve to create a fair balanced
            > map and knowledge that if you in a bad spot someone on the other team
            > is also in that same bad spot. I will try sticking to these games.
            >
            > GW
            >
            > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "xeviathian"
            > <xeviathian@> wrote:
            > >
            > > Sc on team rule: if there was a 5 member team, then that team should
            > of
            > > let the other team meet up first.... just be fair?
            > >
            >
          • Ryan
            thats really the only thing missing on Homeserve. It would be a lot of fun to have a 16 player game where you can only upgrade with 1 player. not just shared
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 2, 2008
              thats really the only thing missing on Homeserve. It would be a lot
              of fun to have a 16 player game where you can only upgrade with 1
              player. not just shared hq and then trade with 3 others. 1 allowance
              of diplomacy upgrade. That would keep us honest.

              --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Loren"
              <Bicentennialman2@...> wrote:
              >
              > I did set it up to be a non Shared HQ game. The players on the edge
              > have somewhat of a fighting chance if they are only facing one
              member
              > of the center alliance. The players in the center Alliance may also
              > have to fight on multiple fronts. I wonder if it is possible to add
              > alliance limits as an option in the PHP code. If that can be done,
              I
              > would set only one ally and Shared HQ.
              >
              >
              > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" <crashnacho@>
              wrote:
              > >
              > > I've been on both sides now in that 10 player game. Truth is, if
              you
              > > create a 5 player team, you're most likely to form your alliance
              from
              > > the middle out. In this current game, I had a prime spot with
              all of
              > > my systems to me and I leaked out towards Bicen and Lafrog. In a
              usual
              > > 2-3 man team I would be a nice asset. However in this game I
              didn't
              > > meet anyone until update 7 or 8 and I knew I had little chance
              of
              > > finding a friend. I think I am going to avoid the game moving
              forward,
              > > because I don't like not having allies and I didn't like hte
              feeling
              > > of denying one to a corner player the first time this happended.
              > >
              > > That's why we have team games on Homeserve to create a fair
              balanced
              > > map and knowledge that if you in a bad spot someone on the other
              team
              > > is also in that same bad spot. I will try sticking to these
              games.
              > >
              > > GW
              > >
              > > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "xeviathian"
              > > <xeviathian@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Sc on team rule: if there was a 5 member team, then that team
              should
              > > of
              > > > let the other team meet up first.... just be fair?
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • sc_lucky
              you would still find players sitting in the corner and crying ;) Indeed the game, which mentioned GW when starting this thread, was not a 5 on 5 but a 6 on 4,
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 4, 2008
                you would still find players sitting in the corner and crying ;)

                Indeed the game, which mentioned GW when starting this thread, was not
                a 5 on 5 but a 6 on 4, with 2 of the 6 isolated (and in between
                nuked). I substituted Lafrog for a week in that game ...
                So why should the 4 give help to the 6? Indeed I think many players
                give up too early especially when others are still fighting or even
                when the game is far away from being decided.


                --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" <crashnacho@...> wrote:
                >
                > thats really the only thing missing on Homeserve. It would be a lot
                > of fun to have a 16 player game where you can only upgrade with 1
                > player. not just shared hq and then trade with 3 others. 1 allowance
                > of diplomacy upgrade. That would keep us honest.
                >
                > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Loren"
                > <Bicentennialman2@> wrote:
                > >
                > > I did set it up to be a non Shared HQ game. The players on the edge
                > > have somewhat of a fighting chance if they are only facing one
                > member
                > > of the center alliance. The players in the center Alliance may also
                > > have to fight on multiple fronts. I wonder if it is possible to add
                > > alliance limits as an option in the PHP code. If that can be done,
                > I
                > > would set only one ally and Shared HQ.
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" <crashnacho@>
                > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > I've been on both sides now in that 10 player game. Truth is, if
                > you
                > > > create a 5 player team, you're most likely to form your alliance
                > from
                > > > the middle out. In this current game, I had a prime spot with
                > all of
                > > > my systems to me and I leaked out towards Bicen and Lafrog. In a
                > usual
                > > > 2-3 man team I would be a nice asset. However in this game I
                > didn't
                > > > meet anyone until update 7 or 8 and I knew I had little chance
                > of
                > > > finding a friend. I think I am going to avoid the game moving
                > forward,
                > > > because I don't like not having allies and I didn't like hte
                > feeling
                > > > of denying one to a corner player the first time this happended.
                > > >
                > > > That's why we have team games on Homeserve to create a fair
                > balanced
                > > > map and knowledge that if you in a bad spot someone on the other
                > team
                > > > is also in that same bad spot. I will try sticking to these
                > games.
                > > >
                > > > GW
                > > >
                > > > --- In stellarcrisisclub@yahoogroups.com, "xeviathian"
                > > > <xeviathian@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Sc on team rule: if there was a 5 member team, then that team
                > should
                > > > of
                > > > > let the other team meet up first.... just be fair?
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.