|
|
Post by Dominion of Zabéara on Jan 9, 2015 1:34:31 GMT
As of this turn, arthur5005, the player controlling the Adherents of Veritas, has withdrawn from the game. Coincidentally, the Adherents of Veritas are badly loosing a war against the D'kali Hegemony. I wish to address a few points about this:
- The Adherents of Veritas slot is officially open to a replacement. However, we will not be proactively looking for a replacement who is new to space empires, since the Adherents have a difficult (but apparently not impossible) military situation that would be unfair to impose upon someone not familiar with game mechanics. This would be for an experienced player looking for a challenge or a new player looking for a death wish.
- I would like to take this opportunity to publicize a convention of ours. Normally, if a player drops from the game, noone may start a war with that empire until it has a replacement player. However, if two empires are at war, and one of them drops, the other player can continue with the war. The reasoning being that dropping from a loosing war cannot be used, intentionally or not, to suddenly deny the other (presumably winning) Empire their ''prize.''
- Given the particularities of the military situation in this case, the D'kali Hegemony will be allowed to continue having its way with the Adherents and their territory, but won't touch the actual homeworld. This state of affairs will continue unless a replacement is found for the Adherents, and by the judge of things, found rather quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kortl Rheus on Jan 15, 2015 0:10:43 GMT
I don't think anyone should be restricted from invading the homeworld of a player they are currently at war with. Homeworlds are pretty beefy prizes, but the homeworld should still be on the plate, as anyone could just quit before their world is taken and lock-out their enemy from the gains. Even if the war is still not over. In a mechanics sense all such a policy would do is slow down the game and make it more frustrating when a player drops out (which is inevitable with some when you are losing the war - some just don't want to play out a loss that they feel is inevitable - which is totally fair since losing is not as fun as winning).
Still, in this case, and all others, homeworlds should remain fair game for conquest, whatever the circumstance surrounding that player quitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sethulkra Hive on Jan 15, 2015 1:14:10 GMT
I think it depends on the context. Perhaps a vote among the players could resolve the situation in a satisfactory way for the majority. It could also be abused (since there's a conflict of interest) but the purpose of the game is for everyone to have fun, not necessarily to be precisely fair and just.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amarr Empire on Jan 15, 2015 1:31:30 GMT
If the war going to badly the player left, which from the context seems what happened it should just be played out like nothing happened. I can't blame the player from leaving a no-win situation but that shouldn't hurt the victor.
Context is of course important, but the homeworld is like 95% of an empires value in proportions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dominion of Zabéara on Jan 15, 2015 1:32:31 GMT
In principle I agree with Kortl, but in this case, at the time of the decision, the Adherents were actually in some ways winning the war: their fleet had smashed successive D'kali fleets, taken control of the centre field, and even after loosing their industrial base were quite salvageable when Arthur quit controlling them. So, I thought it would be fair to put the HW off-limits if noone took control of the Adherents. Now, I think Kortl is right to point out this line of thinking may be too meta-gamey, perhaps, especially considering that this line of thinking would leave open uneven interpretations in future situations. But its certainly not the kind of situation in which someone quit a loosing empire before a HW was invaded to prevent its loss, which obviously would not be tolerated. In any case, the D'kali player agreed with my reasoning on this. What do other people think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amarr Empire on Jan 15, 2015 1:56:56 GMT
Very valid points, however I imagine D'Kali would very quickly smash the AI now that there is noone in control. And while you said he won a few battle losing your industrial base means you more or less lose the war short of intervention.
The reason I agree with Kortl is because quitting the game should give you zero scorched earth advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Skathari Awakening on Jan 15, 2015 2:28:42 GMT
I am not clear on whether or not he quit because he was loosing or if it was truly unrelated?
|
|
|
|
Post by D'Kali Hegemony on Jan 15, 2015 3:37:22 GMT
Okay, so let me start by prefacing this by stating that I am aware that I have a massive conflict of interest in this whole thing.
That said; when the host first told me that the Adherent player was dropping, we discussed what to do and I did agree that there was a chance that a new (albeit very good and experienced) player could salvage the war and still put up a fight. The homeworld would be off-limits while I would still be free to allow the D'Kali free reign over any other Adherent assets, as per the previous laid-down rule regarding players that drop during a war. While attrition was very much on my side at the time of that discussion, there was still a chance an especially wily player could have protracted a war and been a royal pain.
Since that discussion however, D'Kali forces won a major engagement against the Adherents with minimal losses and completely regained the upper hand. With their fleet and industry in ruins, the reality is that the Adherants are doomed, unless I just completely ignore them. From a role-playing stand-point, this makes no sense for the D'Kali to suddenly break off on the eve of victory. The only other thing that could save the Adherents now would be massive and sudden intervention on the part of a foreign power, but again there is to my knowledge no role-playing reason for this.
I agree with the Kortl that leaving the game should not be a way to deny another player the spoils of war; I also agree with the Darkstar that an AI-controlled empire makes for an easy target. Ultimately I will bend to the will of the game admins, but in this case I do think that just leaving the Adherent homeworld fallow will just forever leave it an unclaimed world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dominion of Zabéara on Jan 15, 2015 4:54:29 GMT
In the name of AZH....just kidding
So, i'm ok with revising and saying that the D'Kali can conquer the homeworld, but in acknowledging that, something should be done to make the conquest slightly more challenging.. At the very least, I could reset the adherent's password, go in and turn on the AI. Even more ideally, someone far away, such as Solvani, Amarr, or ITCo, should take over the Adherents to fight things out until the end...whether that be a negotiated peace or conquest. It would be the realistic choice. Of course, the player taking over would not be allowed to do any tech/resource trading for conflict of interest reasons, and would have to provide ''receipts'' in the form of before/after screenshots of the adherent's balance sheet. I've already chatted with Solvani about the possibility of him taking over, but he hasn't moved on it yet, and time is rapidly running out. If anyone else far away from the warzone would like to step up instead, let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amarr Empire on Jan 15, 2015 5:51:16 GMT
I'll do it I guess
|
|
|
|
Post by Xirtalahan Consensus on Jan 15, 2015 13:07:06 GMT
I've no problem with D'Kali taking over the Adherant homeworld but someone should definetly take the player slot and build up the defenses (well, as far as they can be at this point) so invasion won't be too easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by D'Kali Hegemony on Jan 15, 2015 18:12:19 GMT
I am D'Kali, the children of Roxal and Kalisa. The invasion will still be easy  As for a player taking over, my only other concern would be meta game knowledge of my position/tactics/etc. But we're all grown adults here  |
|
|
|
Post by Tau Ceti Empire on Jan 15, 2015 18:35:25 GMT
In the original discussion I sided with disallowing the conquering of the Adherants HW due to the relative strength of their position in the hands of a skilled player. Despite the destruction of the industrial base, a war could have been dragged out with the potential of recovery. If the central fleet would have been destroyed in addition to the industry, my vote in the beginning would have been different.
I was also not a fan of a in game third party taking control of the Adherants due to the knowledge of strength/positioning etc. and the pain it is to ensure that tech/resource trading is not abused. Not to say that I don't trust you guys....but I don't trust you guys. To this point, I can be bent by the will of the majority though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sethulkra Hive on Jan 15, 2015 20:04:51 GMT
As far as I know, the Adherents have no orbital infrastructure. No SY. Nothing except their homeworld, a couple of destroyers and a colony ship. Despite their precarious situation, they're pretty far from Kalisa (5 systems) and could conceivably mount a defense in the time it would take for Kaar to mount an offensive, if he already didn't.
I think the third party control, as far as it's someone without a direct conflict of interest in the area, is the best option. The Amarr player would be perfect I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kortl Rheus on Jan 15, 2015 21:03:33 GMT
We'll have to evaluate it case-by-case, but any actions taken by a non-player should be fairly restricted to only building defenses - no new trades, deal, treaties, etc. If at any point it seems that survival is likely, we should re-evaluate a permanent replacement possibility.
|
|
