PDA

View Full Version : Aack!



rasqual
09-25-2005, 01:25 AM
A limit on the number of allies? I guess I should have inferred that from others' stuff, in hindsight. I must protest! Personally, I think alliances should be limitless. This is an arbitrary constraint whose value hasn't been proven. I'd argue that in beta, limits shouldn't be in place unless they're very obviously necessary -- and I don't think we've seen any experience at all with how the game works with larger alliances, to warrant any claims for such necessity.

birq
09-25-2005, 01:44 AM
I was kinda surprised you didn't jump in when I brought that up initially. Not that I'm implying that you bitch a lot or anything...

:)

Lukepuuk
09-25-2005, 01:49 AM
Doesn't make any difference it seems.
Mickey thought this way you couldn't have all top players teaming together.
But you can make different cells as the New Alliance and the European Union did.

rasqual
09-25-2005, 04:01 AM
Mickey's concern is legitimate, but personally I'd think more powerful players would have less reason to ally than to rumble. Powerful players want to rule among smaller players, not vie for top dog status among wary peers.

Besides, in rescuing the world from big dogs allying, this also limits little guys from banding together.

Think about it. By statistical definition, the big dogs are outliers. So how many can there be? Not many. Good grief, 8 big dogs would be deadly as it is. So what good does the limit do if that's the concern? None. But the limit DOES prevent a huge number of little guys from banding together against the handful of big dogs who, in theory, might do likewise.

No, the limit is ill-conceived. Mickey, you need sleep, dude. ;-)

rasqual
09-25-2005, 04:09 AM
I was kinda surprised you didn't jump in when I brought that up initially. Not that I'm implying that you bitch a lot or anything...

:)

;-)

I've been missing a lot of board traffic. To tell the truth, whenever a quick scan of a thread shows a lot of good buzz, frequently I'll stay out unless someone seems stoned in what they're sayin' -- ("Hey, how about limiting the number of cities a new player with fewer than five armies can send them to if more than three of his cotton fields were purchased at least two weeks before the last oil field he bought within seven days of the last time an ally deposited twice as many geos in his bank account as were spent on nuclear shields by the last person he attacked within four hours of his last jewel acquisition?")

birq
09-25-2005, 04:29 AM
"Hey, how about limiting the number of cities a new player with fewer than five armies can send them to if more than three of his cotton fields were purchased at least two weeks before the last oil field he bought within seven days of the last time an ally deposited twice as many geos in his bank account as were spent on nuclear shields by the last person he attacked within four hours of his last jewel acquisition?"

Go ahead and work up the pseudocode for that and post it. I'd like to see that... :)

Brendo
09-25-2005, 04:41 AM
"Hey, how about limiting the number of cities a new player with fewer than five armies can send them to if more than three of his cotton fields were purchased at least two weeks before the last oil field he bought within seven days of the last time an ally deposited twice as many geos in his bank account as were spent on nuclear shields by the last person he attacked within four hours of his last jewel acquisition?"

I can see a lot of thought went into that.:spin:

blitzkrieg
09-25-2005, 03:42 PM
;-)

I've been missing a lot of board traffic. To tell the truth, whenever a quick scan of a thread shows a lot of good buzz, frequently I'll stay out unless someone seems stoned in what they're sayin' -- ("Hey, how about limiting the number of cities a new player with fewer than five armies can send them to if more than three of his cotton fields were purchased at least two weeks before the last oil field he bought within seven days of the last time an ally deposited twice as many geos in his bank account as were spent on nuclear shields by the last person he attacked within four hours of his last jewel acquisition?")


Is that what my "revised alliance" page sounds like?

Lukepuuk
09-25-2005, 03:45 PM
Hey I think what Rasqual says makes perfect sense.
The little players could team up with 30 of them and take on the big ones.
Now they are more victim of this maximum then the bigger players.

rasqual
09-25-2005, 08:08 PM
Hey I think what Rasqual says makes perfect sense.
The little players could team up with 30 of them and take on the big ones.
Now they are more victim of this maximum then the bigger players.
Well, yeah. What I can't figure out is why this isn't obvious to Mickey.

Hey, wait . . . oh, I get it now. It *is* obvious to Mickey!

;-)

Mickey
09-27-2005, 01:15 AM
You make good points. This will be changed soon.

rasqual
09-27-2005, 06:01 AM
You make good points.Quick -- all married guys! When was the last time you heard that from your wife?

;-)

rasqual
10-11-2005, 05:04 AM
Mickey's concern is legitimate, but personally I'd think more powerful players would have less reason to ally than to rumble. Powerful players want to rule among smaller players, not vie for top dog status among wary peers.

Besides, in rescuing the world from big dogs allying, this also limits little guys from banding together.

Think about it. By statistical definition, the big dogs are outliers. So how many can there be? Not many. Good grief, 8 big dogs would be deadly as it is. So what good does the limit do if that's the concern? None. But the limit DOES prevent a huge number of little guys from banding together against the handful of big dogs who, in theory, might do likewise.

No, the limit is ill-conceived. Mickey, you need sleep, dude. ;-)

Well, I know they were REALLY allies anyway, but I gotta admit it looks darned intimidating when they're all hangin' out at the bar together. Good grief. What was my prediction about "less reason to ally?" Or is this a case of "a rising tide raises all boats" in a successful alliance.

Geez! ;-)

socrates
10-11-2005, 07:53 AM
Quick -- all married guys! When was the last time you heard that from your wife?

;-)

err.... wayyyyy before she said I do.... haven't heard her say that lately...

js3486
10-13-2005, 08:50 PM
Quick -- all married guys! When was the last time you heard that from your wife?

;-)


My Wife Never said that!!! is that abnormal?