End Game

elk-tamer · 09-08-2005, 04:09 PM

There have been a few posts about getting Geos for owning a city. The argument against it has been that some players would eventually get unbeatable.
I think that may be a good idea though. Let some players dominate, and then end a game when one player "wins"(owns all the cities). Then a new game would start, and the only advantage would be experience. Each game may still take weeks, but the only other option is to gear the game towards a state of equilibirum and therefore stagnation.

Lukepuuk · 09-08-2005, 04:19 PM

For once I have to disagree with you.
I think it should be a neverending game.
Where you can silently gather troops in your home base for month before attacking and taking over the whole of europe or america.
And I don't think you should get Geo's for cities.
People will always want to conquer. You see that now, and now you don't even get anything in return.
If the game would end after weeks, then the ones with less time on their hands would quit immediately because they would never ever have a chance at beating the ones who can play a lot.
The fun thing would be if there are more resources and that after a year you could look back and see all you have accomplished, conquered or built.
An economy would also make it easier to keep the game fun if its neverending.
By the way...an economy would be useless if the game would restart each time. As would allies be.

This way, you have big guys, but they are not unbeatable.
If the game would restart, there would be no sence in giving it my all to get an enormous army. Why would I, if after a few weeks it would all be gone.
The fun is in really accomplishing something after months and months and still get more influence on the game while you get bigger and invest more Geo's in stuff.
I think a lot will agree with me(I hope)

elk-tamer · 09-08-2005, 05:32 PM

I see your point, but as a response I'm going to attack that city you're helping to defend.

Lukepuuk · 09-08-2005, 05:34 PM

hahaha don't attack it just to spite me

elk-tamer · 09-08-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukepuuk

hahaha don't attack it just to spite me

If you stick to our secret agreement, I will destroy Nichloas and let you have El Paso.

Lukepuuk · 09-08-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elk-tamer

If you stick to our secret agreement, I will destroy Nichloas and let you have El Paso.

Can't do. He's my ally. So how about a secret agreement of not attacking him

Join us allies

09-08-2005, 04:09 PM	#1
elk-tamer Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 93	End Game There have been a few posts about getting Geos for owning a city. The argument against it has been that some players would eventually get unbeatable. I think that may be a good idea though. Let some players dominate, and then end a game when one player "wins"(owns all the cities). Then a new game would start, and the only advantage would be experience. Each game may still take weeks, but the only other option is to gear the game towards a state of equilibirum and therefore stagnation.

09-08-2005, 04:19 PM	#2
Lukepuuk Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 847	nooooo For once I have to disagree with you. I think it should be a neverending game. Where you can silently gather troops in your home base for month before attacking and taking over the whole of europe or america. And I don't think you should get Geo's for cities. People will always want to conquer. You see that now, and now you don't even get anything in return. If the game would end after weeks, then the ones with less time on their hands would quit immediately because they would never ever have a chance at beating the ones who can play a lot. The fun thing would be if there are more resources and that after a year you could look back and see all you have accomplished, conquered or built. An economy would also make it easier to keep the game fun if its neverending. By the way...an economy would be useless if the game would restart each time. As would allies be. This way, you have big guys, but they are not unbeatable. If the game would restart, there would be no sence in giving it my all to get an enormous army. Why would I, if after a few weeks it would all be gone. The fun is in really accomplishing something after months and months and still get more influence on the game while you get bigger and invest more Geo's in stuff. I think a lot will agree with me(I hope)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-08-2005, 05:32 PM	#3
elk-tamer Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 93	I see your point, but as a response I'm going to attack that city you're helping to defend.

09-08-2005, 05:34 PM	#4
Lukepuuk Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 847	hahaha don't attack it just to spite me