SVC, why the conflict?

[Rogal]

What do you not like about SVC?  I know with me its the feel that some options should not be available to all kingdoms.  For example in Rex you need 4 regions to win.  With the basic SVC you need 3 plus you play to your kingdoms strengths to get the last conditions semi easy.  Is one of the main issues that under territory the unknown of option B or C the biggest issue that players have?  Is it that SVC is like Rex lite since a good player will achieve the other conditions by cherry picking the easiest ones? To be honest  I Really like the system a lot, especially for kingdoms like the Underworld, but may be not so much for the  big military kingdoms.  I am just curious  why some players just will not play with SVC for I never hear players say things  like "I do not play Rex".

[Hawk_]

What do you not like about SVC?  I know with me its the feel that some options should not be available to all kingdoms.  For example in Rex you need 4 regions to win.  With the basic SVC you need 3 plus you play to your kingdoms strengths to get the last conditions semi easy.  Is one of the main issues that under territory the unknown of option B or C the biggest issue that players have?  Is it that SVC is like Rex lite since a good player will achieve the other conditions by cherry picking the easiest ones? To be honest  I Really like the system a lot, especially for kingdoms like the Underworld, but may be not so much for the  big military kingdoms.  I am just curious  why some players just will not play with SVC for I never hear players say things  like "I do not play Rex".

In some cases the SVC have been a bit on the easy side causing games to end very early while competitors with more difficult SVC's were doing well but felt they did not have an opportunity to win.

[Rogal]

What about we as a player base make some rules (so no code changes to the game) where new players can go for SVC but the "Vets" have  to go for Rex?  Will that make a huge change in the who wins%, probably not.  I get the formula of Jumpingfist + Red Dragons + SVC = increased odds of a fast game.  But what about Gothmog (the new player yet to join Alamaze) + RD+ SVC = no change  to the %winners but could help push him into a style of game play that works better for him to understand, may be?

[Ry Vor]

The SVC are now, as posted recently, not easier than Rex here in 2015.  Its just a different way to win, with more nuance. 

[Ry Vor]

This was the turn report on the last victory by SVC.  Does it seem easy?

"The Wise One, leader of the Red Dragon kingdom has won by Secret Victory

(Be Substantial in 3 regions and Signficant in 2, Have a group with a
combat value vs PC greater than 125,000, Have 10 or more Level 4 or higher
Agents or Fanatics), regards to all who made this game an exciting contest."

Again, I think as long as we want to have kingdoms like the Underworld, we have to have more ways to win (because who doesn't want to win) than controlling 4 regions.  BTW, that used to be six regions in 1986 or so.  But that was when all other games said you had to completely eliminate everyone else to win (like Risk or Axis & Allies, or other PBEM games).  The SVC I feel is a pretty cool invention.

[Lord Diamond]

I like the SVC option for most games. Like Rick said, some kingdoms simply aren't going to control four regions and deserve a chance to win.

[Lord Thanatos]

This was the turn report on the last victory by SVC.  Does it seem easy?

"The Wise One, leader of the Red Dragon kingdom has won by Secret Victory

(Be Substantial in 3 regions and Signficant in 2, Have a group with a
combat value vs PC greater than 125,000, Have 10 or more Level 4 or higher
Agents or Fanatics), regards to all who made this game an exciting contest."

Again, I think as long as we want to have kingdoms like the Underworld, we have to have more ways to win (because who doesn't want to win) than controlling 4 regions.  BTW, that used to be six regions in 1986 or so.  But that was when all other games said you had to completely eliminate everyone else to win (like Risk or Axis & Allies, or other PBEM games).  The SVC I feel is a pretty cool invention.

[SIGH]

Hate to disagree with both Ry Vor and Lord Diamond (as I respect both of them greatly), but the statement that SVC "is not easier than Rex" is simply not true.  Every kingdom has a chance to control four regions, in my opinion, provided the game last longer than 30 turns.  And even if there are kingdoms not capable of controlling four regions the correct response is to adjust those kingdoms, not create an artifical game-ending method for every kingdom on the board.

The major problem I have with SVC is that players cannot as readily see an opponent's progress as is apparent when kingdoms control two or three regions.  [Using the RD conditions described above] Substantial and Significant can be obtained entirely through diplomacy and nobody will know.  I often have groups with combat values greater than 125,000 from GI and RD (easy to achieve) to EL and DW (moderate difficulty) to WI and WA (difficult to achieve).  These groups are easy to hide because they can be split into two groups and combined on the turn when victroy is declared.  The ten agents are a result of standing orders to train and have no impact on the contest if all they do is sit and train.

Four regions require overcoming direct opposition from the majority of one's opponents because everyone can see your rise to power.  "Uneasy rests the head with a crown."  SVC by their nature are "secret" and the goal is to achieve them precisely in the absence of direct opposition from the majority of one's opponents.

I do recognize there is an order that allows one to divine the SVC of the other players.  But who wants to utilize up to eleven orders to determine how the game can end?  Seems like a good way to not be in the running for victory at all.

I think the problem with SVC has been addressed in The Choosing; my understanding is that if a kingdom obtains its SVC the contest will not end so that the other players can continue to pursue Rex.  I do also like the suggestion earlier in this thread that SVC could be available to those players without a podium finish while everyone else must pursue Rex.

Let's just decide to stop saying the SVC is equivalent to Rex in difficulty.  I might be convinced this was the case if the SVC were posted on the turn results for all other players to see.  Then instead of SVC it would be AVC (alternate victory conditions).  How many of us have taken part in diplomacy where we stopped fighting enemies to join against a dominate position?  This is the type of diplomacy that thrives when Rex is required.

As always, the above is just my opinion.  But I am only playing in the upcoming full diplomacy SVC condition contest because I need to finish a game with RA and SO to have played all kingdoms.  I truly believe there are a body of players that do not wish to play SVC at all.  I do not think any players object at all to Rex.

The only way Rex becomes a problem is if too many of the games are finishing on turn 40 and status points are determining the winner.  That, with the present Rex victory condition, is not a problem.

[Sinestro]

I agree with everything you just said lord Thanatos

[Airborne Ranger]

This was the turn report on the last victory by SVC.  Does it seem easy?

"The Wise One, leader of the Red Dragon kingdom has won by Secret Victory

(Be Substantial in 3 regions and Signficant in 2, Have a group with a
combat value vs PC greater than 125,000, Have 10 or more Level 4 or higher
Agents or Fanatics), regards to all who made this game an exciting contest."

Again, I think as long as we want to have kingdoms like the Underworld, we have to have more ways to win (because who doesn't want to win) than controlling 4 regions.  BTW, that used to be six regions in 1986 or so.  But that was when all other games said you had to completely eliminate everyone else to win (like Risk or Axis & Allies, or other PBEM games).  The SVC I feel is a pretty cool invention.

[SIGH]

Hate to disagree with both Ry Vor and Lord Diamond (as I respect both of them greatly), but the statement that SVC "is not easier than Rex" is simply not true.  Every kingdom has a chance to control four regions, in my opinion, provided the game last longer than 30 turns.  And even if there are kingdoms not capable of controlling four regions the correct response is to adjust those kingdoms, not create an artifical game-ending method for every kingdom on the board.

The major problem I have with SVC is that players cannot as readily see an opponent's progress as is apparent when kingdoms control two or three regions.  [Using the RD conditions described above] Substantial and Significant can be obtained entirely through diplomacy and nobody will know.  I often have groups with combat values greater than 125,000 from GI and RD (easy to achieve) to EL and DW (moderate difficulty) to WI and WA (difficult to achieve).  These groups are easy to hide because they can be split into two groups and combined on the turn when victroy is declared.  The ten agents are a result of standing orders to train and have no impact on the contest if all they do is sit and train.

Four regions require overcoming direct opposition from the majority of one's opponents because everyone can see your rise to power.  "Uneasy rests the head with a crown."  SVC by their nature are "secret" and the goal is to achieve them precisely in the absence of direct opposition from the majority of one's opponents.

I do recognize there is an order that allows one to divine the SVC of the other players.  But who wants to utilize up to eleven orders to determine how the game can end?  Seems like a good way to not be in the running for victory at all.

I think the problem with SVC has been addressed in The Choosing; my understanding is that if a kingdom obtains its SVC the contest will not end so that the other players can continue to pursue Rex.  I do also like the suggestion earlier in this thread that SVC could be available to those players without a podium finish while everyone else must pursue Rex.

Let's just decide to stop saying the SVC is equivalent to Rex in difficulty.  I might be convinced this was the case if the SVC were posted on the turn results for all other players to see.  Then instead of SVC it would be AVC (alternate victory conditions).  How many of us have taken part in diplomacy where we stopped fighting enemies to join against a dominate position?  This is the type of diplomacy that thrives when Rex is required.

As always, the above is just my opinion.  But I am only playing in the upcoming full diplomacy SVC condition contest because I need to finish a game with RA and SO to have played all kingdoms.  I truly believe there are a body of players that do not wish to play SVC at all.  I do not think any players object at all to Rex.

The only way Rex becomes a problem is if too many of the games are finishing on turn 40 and status points are determining the winner.  That, with the present Rex victory condition, is not a problem.

[Hawk_]

I agree with everything you just said lord Thanatos

Ry-Vor is also correct that the new SVC program is much more difficult than the old system was and should  eliminate games ending extremely early like some did in the past.