THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

1786 days, 19 hours, 27 minutes ago

martinr

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

PERSISTANT DROPPERS IS BAD FOR GAME...

1786 days, 19 hours, 9 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Leonida is a very interesting player: He plays a lot. But, some games he plays very tenaciously, from beginning to the lenghty end, even if he hasn't much change of winning. But then some games he just resigns/drops.

Leonida, could you explain a bit your gaming behavior? Why do you resign some games and finish others? Do you have some system - what makes you to keep playing and what to resign?

This is because my gaming history is similar but in a much smaller scale:

1. first I resigned two games because the preliminray idea here was just to test Nu and then play this private game with my friends and no more.

2. Then Nu-bug bit me and I had to play another game alongside a private game, which I finished.

3. Then I started three games, but because a major event in my life I had to drop them all.

4. I started one game I finished.

5. I took a replacement position because I thought that it looked like a scenario where you defend against an all-mighty enemy and the game would be over soon, but it was completely frozen. I had to quit it when I became busy.

(Now I'm training with single player scenarios, then joining a Senior Officer game. And just one, so I wouldn't drop. :) )

1786 days, 15 hours, 21 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Leonida, please explain why you dropped the following games (That you started and were not Melee games): (All less than 20 turns)

1. Wooky World on 9/15/2014 as the Crystals with 19 planets

2. Small World on 8/27/2014 as the Crystals with 12 planets

3. New Georgia on 6/8/2014 as the Crystals with 18 planets

4. Limball on 5/5/2014 as the Crystals with 1 planet

Tenacity may be bad for you, but it helps the game a little. It certainly doesn't hurt.

1786 days, 14 hours, 33 minutes ago

martinr

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Also why have you played in the same games?

If the name is the same does it mean he map is the same so the setup is the same?

1786 days, 13 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

THE FREEDOM...

1786 days, 13 hours, 41 minutes ago

bacchus

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Tenacity is great. If i see a player next to me with Leonida's history I know two important things. Do not ally with him because there is too great a chance he will drop and if you hit him early and hard he will probably drop, thereby giving me free expansion room.

See, it works out great! :>

1786 days, 12 hours, 22 minutes ago

commander koski

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Martinr - do you mean why he for example has New Moscow sector multiple times? When one sector game ends, a new game starts with the same name - the number in front of the map changes and the map, too (the number is the actual game name).

Bacchus - I also think that way, droppers are a good target - but in this case it doesn't seem to work. In Leonida's history you can find examples where he has fought to the bitter end without a chance to win. Why he sometimes does that and sometimes doesn't puzzled me. But perhaps the reason is the same as in my case: I don't resign for game reasons, but for other reasons like problems in personal life.

But I believe here we have an ideological difference between players - Leonida resigns because he can and feels like it. And feels that he has the right to this freedom and the tenacity system has negative effect to his freedom.

But I think the tenacity system is a wonderful compromise - it does give some room to drop, but punishes if it happens too frequently.

1786 days, 12 hours, 8 minutes ago

1011010011

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

1st] Ironic with exclaiming FREEDOM ... Tenacity gives players freedom not to play with scores that are low.

2nd] He should have started the post as this "THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR 'MY' GAME.."

Toodles

1786 days, 10 hours, 3 minutes ago

mechnomaniac

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

i have missed 4 turns today....without missing ANY TURNS.

1786 days, 9 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Most of my "missed turns" are done that way, Mechno. It's extremely vexing. Site outages account for a couple more.

I suggest you check your vacation settings. That's sometimes the culprit.

1786 days, 8 hours, 41 minutes ago

martinr

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Mech, were you doing last minute adjustments in the hour before the turn was due? I think that counts as a missed turn in some cases.

1786 days, 7 hours, 9 minutes ago

mechnomaniac

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

nope, hours to go on all turns

1786 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Holiday mode?

1786 days, 7 hours, 0 minutes ago

mechnomaniac

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

nope

1786 days, 6 hours, 50 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I am willing to play to the end if I'm enjoying it at the moment .. If you do not stop That I enjoy are losing or winning. I miss the games with mega battles now with the planets with few resources, the battles are less frequent and more scarce .. Now It seems to me that the game is taking a course too elite .. too serious. it was better When It Was worse !! My respects to all !!

1786 days, 6 hours, 46 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Hm. It's tough to disagree with that, Leonida.

1786 days, 6 hours, 45 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Originally, the game was more fluid more playable .. now you impositions !! the beginners players are most disadvantaged. need more games to get carried away and choose their most congenial people! As had been given to me two years ago!

1786 days, 6 hours, 41 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

In that case, Leonida, stop playing new games and be a replacement player. There are occasionally positions open with large empires abandoned that you may enjoy a lot. Those usually involves lots of quick action. (And, success as a replacement player will give you tenacity bonuses - you win in 2 different ways!)

1786 days, 6 hours, 29 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I think I can afford to say certain things .. You missed the goal and I think the game: the battles .. As evidence of this see the destruction of my points made in practically all before! Now you are worried about losing a single ship !! Before it was not so! If I see that in a game I lose all the time thinking about the economy that fight I LEAVE THE GAME !!!!!!! In my opinion serves an equilibrium between the two things that no longer exists !! It gets boring !!

1786 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes ago

tom graves

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

What? You enjoy the clash of arms and not the supply sergeant planning sheet? LOL! Imagine that.

1786 days, 5 hours, 58 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I seem to have been clear TOM GRAVES !!!

1786 days, 5 hours, 11 minutes ago

1011010011

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Hmmmmm. @Leonida. Shouldn't the response be, "Do not you understand I'm sorry! RESIGN"

1786 days, 4 hours, 31 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

While I may not agree with everything Leonida says, I think we would be wrong not to listen.

When some of us suggested Planets was becoming something we did not enjoy because of the emphasis on controlling the queue to stay competitive, we were told that "we" just didn't appreciate the game as it is today or maybe we just weren't good enough to play at that level. Or any number of other things that sounded a lot like being talked down to.

I have been in games where was bored to tears and was told (in different ways - including threats of tenacity punishment) I should not quit. Even when I might not have any longer more than a foot note. (Thanks for For F!) That sounds exactly like what Leo is talking about. He doesn't wish to play a bookkeeper's game.

Not all of us enjoy the same things. There are some that delight in finding secrets to exploit for advantage as a way to win. No problem! There are others that prefer more of a stab and slash game. Nothing wrong with that either. Some people want a classic 11 player game that does not include certain queue exploits. Me for instance. :) Joshua IS trying to respond to player concerns and no matter what he does, he'll catch heat from one group or another.

A partial answer is the custom games some of us are hosting. Unfortunately, we just can't get any respect. We sometimes struggle to get points awarded like the NU game automatically get. Some players avoid custom games because they just aren't sure they will get points that are important to them. We struggle to get the word when we (players) create new games because there is no persistent listing of these available custom game like there is for the NU games.

I don't see what one size has to fit all. Worried about points? NU only needs to publish minimum requirements and any game meeting all the check boxes automatically is approved. Rather than just "allowing" player created games, NU should embrace it. Maybe that should be the only source of new games.

Then the only people not happy will be those that think we should all play the way THEY want us to play. That doesn't seem to bother me very much.

1786 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Gee, reading my post I don't sound much like a native English speaker, but I am. I guess my writing or rewriting (which is when most of my errors creep in) need a moment more proofing. Oh, for an edit option! Hopefully my meaning trickled through.

1786 days, 4 hours, 0 minutes ago

donaldworrell

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

tenacity was pushed by players who want campaign points. If my empire is falling apart I could at least keep the player from getting to kill my ships and get priority build points which also equals campaign points. land and disassembly my ships. Now these same people have it worked out that they get free priority points for doing nothing.
I like to play the weaker races but here on Nu you get penalized for that.

1786 days, 0 hours, 50 minutes ago

bacchus

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Donald, you are incorrect. The Tenacity rating system was pushed by people who were sick and tired of playing in games where half or more of the players dropped by turn 15. We wanted an easy system to be able to identify how many perennial droppers were signed up for a game, thereby avoiding dropfests. This system was the one that Joshua came up with. I admit that it has some problems, but it is better than what we had before.

It had nothing to do with gaining extra campaign resources.

1785 days, 21 hours, 52 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Scarse battles are result of some anonymous mofo proclaiming queue-control tactics and now most (semi)succesful players seem to mimic this strategy all too often resulting in bad games.

1785 days, 16 hours, 22 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I thought today's Dilbert cartoon applied very well to our tenacity system.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2014-09-28/

Tenacity is not the problem, although it could be improved. I hate players dropping early too. But, I don't mind them being pushed out as the game progresses and the more successful player(s) reaping the benefits. That seems realistic and doesn't seek to keep players doing something that is no longer fun to him.

That is not to say that other players don't enjoy kicking and screaming to the bitter end. Just that it should be a choice - which even ForF does not "get."

We keep trying to IMPOSE one set of actions or one kind of game, rather than allowing more choice on the front end and maybe using rewards during and after the game instead.

1785 days, 16 hours, 14 minutes ago

tom graves

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I think Joshua is making great strides in providing diverse games while at the same time trying to inhibit the worst abuses.

Does it not seem strange that we both penalize droppers and have a game mechanic to force dropping?

Since I was not here when F or F was implemented was this an effort to stop penalizing players that were simply hiding to prevent the tenacity hit? What is the purpose of F or F?

1785 days, 16 hours, 6 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Tom, I believe ForF was imposed to deal with vassalage. If you are going to keep a weaker player in the game for his race skills, you must provide him with enough to keep him above the ForF limit. On the surface it might sound like more player choice, but in reality it's intent was not.

If ForF were the player's choice and not imposed, I think it would be better.

1785 days, 16 hours, 0 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

F or F was implemented to inhibit players from sticking around and fighting after they are defeated. That way they can't use their racial abilities to help the enemies of their enemy. A good example is Capricorn where the Feds, Robots, and Crystals were defeated, but still continue to influence the game.

These people say that in war, once conquered, people stop fighting. They say that stories abut the French underground in WW2 are a myth. Likewise, they say the stories of 2 Polish divisions in the French army, 6 Polish divisions in the Russian army, a polish paratroop brigade in the British army, and zillions of Polish fighter pilots saving England in the Battle of Britain after the conquest of Poland are all myths.

1785 days, 15 hours, 57 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

It's rare that I like one of MJ's posts so much that I'll comment on it.

This is one of those times.

I'd say more but I have turns to play. But Oh! what a delightful post. :o)

1785 days, 15 hours, 54 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I think MJS is right. Some defeated nations find ways to go on fighting while others just fold their tents or go to work for their conqueror. There is no one way this must occur. It's always a matter of choice by the defeated nation (player) and not imposed from above.

1785 days, 15 hours, 38 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Leonida, I agree with you. The ship limit is a pain in the butt. But, the solution is not, "Quit and screw up the game for others." The ship limit is not a problem in ship-to-ship combat. These can be arranged so you win and gain ships. The problem is ship to star base combat where you risk a ship's death. I am playing the Colonies and don't like them at all. Every time I attack a star base, I risk a Virgo. The better options are:

1. Play in a game like the PLS-70 games where ship limit is not an issue.

2. Play a race where you can take a star base without ship loss. These include Empire, Fascists, Rebels, and Birds (includes campaign game).

3. Play in a max ally = 1 game and ally with a race in #2 above.

4. Play in Melee games or as a replacement player where it is O.K. to bug out in a stalemate.

There are ways around the dilemma that you (and I) don't like that don't include dropping and messing up a game for others. If you start an 11/12 player game, you should finish it.

1785 days, 14 hours, 40 minutes ago

juuso

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

French underground didn't have 30:1 combat ratio, Polish infantry didn't lay fuel sucking mines, fighters flown by Polish didn't take 150 % damage...

1785 days, 14 hours, 40 minutes ago

okwt

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I think the tenacity system is fine. I'm a new player. I joined a game partway through and unfortunately chose one that was under attack from both sides and quickly got massacred. BUT, rather than fold and run I negotiated a deal with one of my attackers, and ended up allied to a good player. Together we turned on my other attacker, and after a long hard battle he was defeated.
I was tempted to quit what looked like a hopeless position, but I learned a lot about the diplomacy side of the game by staying in. One player called me a Fed slave. Another had worse things to say ... but his homeworld is now a smoking ruin :)
The point is, if you're going to take on a game, you should finish it. I agree with others here, if I see a player with low tenacity, I won't ally with them, and also, it's a sign that if I hit them hard enough they'll take their ball and go home. Both are useful things from the tenacity system.
To my opponent's credit in my current game, he is fighting to the bitter end, which I admire.

1785 days, 14 hours, 4 minutes ago

ethryll

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I have no problem with the tenacity system, I hate droppers, one cost me the game and I watched joshua gobble up the droppers planets to win the game. I do like reading these threads, SO entertaining!

1785 days, 13 hours, 44 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Ethryll - I hate the common cold and the flu even more, but I know that (just like game drops) they will happen. The question is what to do about it where the cure isn't worse than the sickness. And if tenacity even works in the first place.

Tenacity seeks to control behavior by punishment. Yet, when I look at new games I see 1 team game that requires 90% and then the next highest is 70%, then 60%, then (I think) all 0%. That's nothing! It MIGHT stop a serial dropper from joining one or two games, but otherwise I don't see a very high hurdle there.

I just think there are better solutions and a lack of recognition of the different reasons for a variety of droppers that tenacity doesn't handle well.

And in your example, maybe Joshua was the one that spent the capital in ships and risk and chased the dropper out and therefore being able to gain an advantage because of it makes perfect sense to me. Maybe you should have chased YOUR neighbor out and then he would now be complaining. :)

1785 days, 13 hours, 30 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Incidentally, I've got a great cure for the common cold.

1785 days, 13 hours, 23 minutes ago

turssi

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Tenacity is good. Now Leonida what you need to do is what I'm doing: Improve your game so that you always have a battle group able to fight even the most prepared enemy. Then you have fun and can be proud that you prepared those ships.

Also if you take a beating, it will be so hard that you'll soon been dead and out of the game ready for the next challenge :-)

1785 days, 10 hours, 26 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

"Incidentally, I've got a great cure for the common cold."

Then, what do you need a bookstore for?

1785 days, 10 hours, 14 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

"French underground didn't have 30:1 combat ratio,"

Considering that the French underground blew up the railways responsible for bringing reinforcements to throw the Allies back into the sea, they were about 30X more effective than the average French soldier.

"Polish infantry didn't lay fuel sucking mines,"

Considering how the Russians stopped their attack and allowed the Warsaw uprising to kill myriads of German elite troops, it could be said that the Polish did, indeed, suck the "fuel" (men) out of the German defense of Poland.

"fighters flown by Polish didn't take 150 % damage..."

Considering how the large influx of Polish pilots allowed Fighter Command to keep flying when it should have been grounded, it could be said that Fighter Command was 150% tougher due to the Polish pilots.

1785 days, 3 hours, 5 minutes ago

ethryll

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

@mule My ally in the game was the person who dropped, leaving me exposed and very vulnerable. Although I will give Joshua credit for playing well, it could have been a good fight had my ally stayed. Did I sound like I was complaining??

@Mj I like your analysis.

1785 days, 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Eth >

Ahhhh! Yes, a dropped ally IS a problem. But one quite aside from the normal droppers. If dropping on an ally would not stop him, I'm sure tenacity would not either, which is the thread topic.

I have also heard it said that when our ally drops we are partially responsible for making a bad choice.

Complaining? No. But perhaps a bad choice of example. see above.

1784 days, 22 hours, 28 minutes ago

donaldworrell

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

making a player drop is the goal of the game.

1784 days, 22 hours, 17 minutes ago

the-thing

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

This is a sad game then, if this would be the goal. Most players in my game dropped, and I tell you, winning and playing this game is no fun and felt like a waste of time.

1784 days, 22 hours, 6 minutes ago

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Worrell raises an interesting point, and it's one we too often fail to address.

We play this game to win, folks. When we do, our long-term goal for every other player in the game should be either
(1) to force them to retire, drop, or die
(2) to profit from their corpse after someone else does (1) for us
(3) to work with them to make (1) happen to others

Don't misunderstand me here. The game is fun to play, and one of my best learning experiences involved me getting sandwiched between two former Supreme Commanders while getting hammered by a third. Even a non-winning game can be worth while.

But if you play to win (and why play if you don't play to win?) then your goal should be to eliminate the other players from contention. That's (1), (2), or (3).

- Tenacity makes (1) harder.
- FoF makes (2) and (3) harder.
- FoF makes (1) easier.
- Tenacity makes (3) easier.
- Low minerals makes (1) and (2) take longer.

Net, it's a loss; it's harder to loot the corpse of a kill or a drop these days. Too bad, but there it is; the game has become slightly harder, marginally less easy to understand, a fair bit longer.

Good news? It's probably still a fun game for most of us.

1784 days, 17 hours, 30 minutes ago

emork the lizard king

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

In my opinion, tenacity wants to do too much. It wants to assure that players don't join without thinking that this includes a certain responsiblility for the fun of all players and then drop also without thinking about this. Very good mission!
But when it turned out how hard it is to distinguish a "bad" drop from a drop-because-I'm-next-to-dead a wrong conclusion was drawn. This conclusion was to handle all drops and defeats the same way and punish them. Additionally some quite unrelated other factors - how fast you make your turn (sorry, but that was a crazy idea) and sector rescue - were included to form the tenacity rating. As this tenacity rating can boost achievements a lot the leaderboard players have to care about it even if they think that this rating is otherwise meaningless or even wrong - like I do. The 100% tenacity rating of many constant droppers in contrary to the below 100% tenacity rating of caring and not bad players proves this.

Leonida >> I miss the games with mega battles now with the planets with few resources, the battles are less frequent and more scarce ..

Interesting and complex point.

It is a question of personal taste. I personally like planets exactly because single good manoveurs DO matter. Towing or intercepting at the right time after good preperation gives enough return on investment. If many and big battles happen then such manoveurs become irrelevant because their impact in relation to these big battles is too small. If you prefer the Starcraft-like style to pump out troops and send huge masses against each other without micro commands then you'll disgree here of course.

Big battles (stacks of many ships clashing) make only sense between races of the same kind (fighter or torpedo). A torpdeo commander which seeks the big battle with a fighter commander doesn't know what he is doing. Under the current rules he will always lose. So I'm a bit surprised to hear this complain from Crystal Supercommander Leeonia.

Unrelated point: @Leonida, why are you once again not in the champ game? Last time you said you'd like to. Again no invitation arrived?

1784 days, 15 hours, 30 minutes ago

megalomaniac

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Hail,

I mostly agree with our esteemed Emperor but also disagree as I dodge those Lizard thrown boulders.

1. Tenacity does indeed discourage dropping/serial dropping. WIN

2. Tenacity discourages signing up for that 8th game when you are having trouble completing turns in your other games. WIN

3. Good drop vs Bad Drop - Both are equally discouraged under current tenacity rules. Indeed, in my last game my Pirate ally kept one remaining enemy ship under tow without robbing him so he wouldn't inadvertently die in our minefields and lose tenacity despite the fact that he fought till the bitter end.
---Bad drop - should be punished by tenacity
---Good drop - really shouldn't be punished but should not be encouraged.

"In games where the Fight or Fail option is enabled players who are defeated (less than 15 planets) will not incur a tenacity hit. The Fight or Fail minimum planet count default is 15 but may vary in some games. "

If FOF is enabled, it has removed the tenacity hit. This is great for the player who fought bitterly and is eliminated or drops when its hopeless (a 'good' drop). However this system could be gamed a bit by the serial dropper who purposely destroys his own planets to drop below the minimum and then not suffer tenacity loss. Under this scenario, a bad dropper could game the system to fall to FOF and drop the game without a tenacity hit. It still an improvement over games without FOF as his ships and SBs are killraced and not available for robbing, imperial assault etc...

4 Sector rescue - This is the part where I dodge boulders. Its a good thing to have someone jump in to put up a fight when someone else has dropped and should be encouraged

5. Early turn submission - I still have to dodge some boulders here. Its a good thing to encourage early turn submission with a tenacity boost. You do need to have a way for some players to fix their past sins

Cheers,

MEGA

1784 days, 15 hours, 27 minutes ago

smn

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

I opened a uservoice on improvements to tenacity some time ago, seems like it has got some votes, time to plug it to get more:

https://planets.uservoice.com/forums/136520-general/suggestions/6099531-improve-the-tenacity-concept-by-allowing-graceful

Idea in a nutshell: The longer the game continues, the smaller the tenacity penalty for resigning should be. We don't want players to drop on turn 15 because of not ideal planets, we want them to drop before turn 100 because they have defeated.

The exact formula: min(10, 15 - floor(turns played / 5) means that dropping/dying on turn gives 5% hit, dropping/dying on turn 75 gives no penalty at all.

1784 days, 14 hours, 53 minutes ago

ville kauppinen

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Quitting is definitely _your_ right. But, at the same time you're pissing into other players serials hard. Even now there are few games in my active 8 which could have been interesting but due to droppers in notable positions they've turned into something else.

In few I've taken advantage, few I'll propably lose. But in both cases the time I have invested is more or less lost.

1783 days, 10 hours, 43 minutes ago

megalomaniac

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..

Hail,

Mega says: "Its a good thing to have someone jump in to put up a fight when someone else has dropped" - as if that were a given. If a player drops at turn 7 just because he doesn't like his planets, I would want a replacement right away. But, if I defeat and demoralize an enemy and make him drop at no little risk to myself, I sure don't want a fresh player jumping in.

I would say having a replacement player at any point is a benefit to all players in the game, even the neighbors if they are more looking for a challenge then a simple game of colonizing the dropped players. Certainly early on its quite obvious how a dropper can destroy the balance of a game, but even later, a player who drops at the first robbed ship or sign of a few cubes creates an opportunity for his neighbors that others can't exploit as easily. Even if its your cubes that scared him off, it is now much easier to make prisoners of his ship to farm merlins which you may not be fond of seeing your opponents take advantage of. Also of course it makes it much easier to capture his ships by towing them into webs or waiting for them to uncloak from fuel loss and be captured if you are unopposed. In my current game the Crystals dropped at the sight of a few cubes but a replacement filled in within a turn or two and delayed the inevitable which bought more time for other races to be a bit stronger so they can delay their inevitable assimilation. They will be a tastier treat now :)

Cheers,

MEGA

1783 days, 9 hours, 4 minutes ago

mule

RE: THE TENACITY IS BAD FOR GAME..