Login

**Lord Diamond** · (This post was last modified: 03-03-2015, 10:11 PM by Lord Diamond.)

There is one huge point that argues against the ability to eliminate a player from the game who still wants to play and has the ability to issue orders; the SETUP FEE. If I a
m paying both for a monthly subscription and a setup fee for the privilege to play in a particular game, you shouldn't have the ability to take that away from me unless Rick is planning to refund a portion of that fee. If I invest a good chuck of cash and many months in a game, you should let me play it as long as I damn well feel like it.

The first time I find myself getting administratively eliminated in a game when I feel I have a potential to have fun is going to be a very bad day.

**Drogo** · 03-03-2015, 10:49 PM

You are paying for the chance to play in a wargame. If you lose, you lose.

**Beatific** · 03-03-2015, 11:10 PM

(03-03-2015, 10:49 PM)Drogo Wrote: You are paying for the chance to play in a wargame. If you lose, you lose.

Ummm, no. I do not pay for chances for anything. I pay to do. And if I can't do, then I don't pay. It is actually pretty simple. I will admit, however, that some may decide to gamble in this way. That is ok since it is their money to gamble. But, again, at the end of the day, it is a business decision. Unfortunately, this one is more likely to decrease the community size since only some people will want to pay a lot of money with the risk of not playing a game. You obviously are, from your advocation, but I will not. Especially as a NooB, I have a much higher risk of getting eliminated early. That would get very old, very quick. Paying for the abuse would become a terminal case of non membership. No worries, since I can find other sites and other games. I could be wrong, of course, or in the radical minority, but I think this could be a deal breaker once people experience it. On the other hand, making it a game format instead of an everygame thing, could be quite workable (you could call it the "ironman variant"). In that case, people would have the choice of whether to join it or not. Of course, the coding would have to allow for either choice.......

**Ry Vor** · 03-03-2015, 11:22 PM

I think I posted at least a couple times, that the way 2nd Cycle is now, is how it will stay. The last change was to give the BL the chance to recruit a Phoenix brigade. All other changes listed as on the table are deferred until the next scenario or later.

So in Classic, you can wail away with no population center. There is no way I know of though to have no emissary and no king therefore, to continue.

**Beatific** · 03-04-2015, 12:58 AM

(03-03-2015, 11:22 PM)Ry Vor Wrote: I think I posted at least a couple times, that the way 2nd Cycle is now, is how it will stay. The last change was to give the BL the chance to recruit a Phoenix brigade. All other changes listed as on the table are deferred until the next scenario or later.

So in Classic, you can wail away with no population center. There is no way I know of though to have no emissary and no king therefore, to continue.

"Wail away"? I prefer to think of it as guerilla warfare. "Wail away" sounds so......futile... Rolleyes

**Thudargh** · 03-04-2015, 01:07 AM

I can tell from this and prior discussions that the topic of player elimination evokes strong feelings on both sides. So I have a question of a purely practical nature. Is there any solid data on how often this situation would potentially occur? For example, if the criteria for elimination is losing all your PCs, how many actively played positions would have been eliminated over the past 100 games? If it's only happened once, then it's probably of so little impact that it's not worth worrying about either way. If virtually every game has had an active player that would have been eliminated, then how this is handled would have an impact on a significant number of people. I haven't gotten a sense from any of the discussions as to how often this really might happen.

**Jumpingfist** · 03-04-2015, 01:13 AM

Game 300 has elimination rules and 2 players have been eliminated. Game 143 was won by a player with no PCs. I think it is not really about looking back who it would impact because if the rule is in place then it will get used. I know I would hunt a players PCs to make sure they did not bother me anymore. I like the idea of having a variant but it is should be reserved for only experienced player games.

**Beatific** · 03-04-2015, 01:17 AM

(03-04-2015, 01:07 AM)Thudargh Wrote: I can tell from this and prior discussions that the topic of player elimination evokes strong feelings on both sides. So I have a question of a purely practical nature. Is there any solid data on how often this situation would potentially occur? For example, if the criteria for elimination is losing all your PCs, how many actively played positions would have been eliminated over the past 100 games? If it's only happened once, then it's probably of so little impact that it's not worth worrying about either way. If virtually every game has had an active player that would have been eliminated, then how this is handled would have an impact on a significant number of people. I haven't gotten a sense from any of the discussions as to how often this really might happen.

Well, therein lies the irony. Most normal people would simply drop out (yours truly included). There are some fanatic die hards, though, who will consistently stay in any game as long as they can ("from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hell's sake I spit my last breath.....") Indeed, I think there is an award for such behavior....the "iron willed".......I think..........Much depends on the personality.

The difference, though, is choosing to quit versus being forced to. Granted, a bit nuancy, but the money's the difference maker I think.......As Rick says, it is not an issue right now, but the next evolution may encompass it........

**VballMichael** · 03-04-2015, 01:20 AM

(03-04-2015, 01:13 AM)Jumpingfist Wrote: Game 300 has elimination rules and 2 players have been eliminated. Game 143 was won by a player with no PCs. I think it is not really about looking back who it would impact because if the rule is in place then it will get used. I know I would hunt a players PCs to make sure they did not bother me anymore. I like the idea of having a variant but it is should be reserved for only experienced player games.

In a diplomacy game, rather than just hurt a player, 2 or 3 players could work together to eliminate a player within the first 3-4 turns. And yes, sadly, that would happen if eliminating becomes a rule. Also sadly, Game 300 did not announce that elimination was a factor, and yet it happened. I am not in favor of elimination unless you get to the point, as Ry Vor points out, that you have no king, no emissaries, no actions to take.

**Jumpingfist** · 03-04-2015, 01:32 AM

(03-04-2015, 01:20 AM).lVballMichael Wrote:
(03-04-2015, 01:13 AM)Jumpingfist Wrote: Game 300 has elimination rules and 2 players have been eliminated. Game 143 was won by a player with no PCs. I think it is not really about looking back who it would impact because if the rule is in place then it will get used. I know I would hunt a players PCs to make sure they did not bother me anymore. I like the idea of having a variant but it is should be reserved for only experienced player games.

In a diplomacy game, rather than just hurt a player, 2 or 3 players could work together to eliminate a player within the first 3-4 turns. And yes, sadly, that would happen if eliminating becomes a rule. Also sadly, Game 300 did not announce that elimination was a factor, and yet it happened. I am not in favor of elimination unless you get to the point, as Ry Vor points out, that you have no king, no emissaries, no actions to take.

Very True. I could easily see this happening especially to an UN type. Or the wizard kingdoms joining forces to just wreck havoc.

I believe 300 was announced just not shouted more mixed in with everything else going on.