Sounds like a nice balance change. Thanks for continuing to keep the game updated!

The immediate applicability will have potentially disruptive (I am not judging this good or bad here) effect on games within final countdowns, for example...

I am in favor of the idea. I'm just not sure everyone affected in progress will appreciate the sudden change...

Sounds great.

Disagree with applying this to games in progress.

I also disagree with apply this to games in progress. Diplomacy is a skill like any other and successfully developing alliances should not be retro-actively penalized. That said, I do note the 2 member alliances have continued to need 250 planets for victory. I am at least glad to see that did not change.

I also don't like the idea of changing the win condition mid-stride. Especially for games where the countdown has started.

I like the higher number of planets for an allience to win. I think that condition eliminates the only big objection I had.

I am currently in a game (lynch), with the countdown at final turn. The game has been boring to me for the last 10 turns or so. If this means that the strategy we used to get the game over with asap (at least that was my aim) is now invalidated, expect me to drop the game (yeah, I will resign... but I really can't be bothered to drag this out again)
Leo

I'm in a game with a three-player alliance, and I'm looking forward to capturing the last 50 planets.

That's great rbos. I just have a fundamental problem with changing the winning conditions mid-stride. It would have been similar to retroactively changing the military score victory to the 250 planet win condition when it was decided that military score was not an optimal way to measure the end of a game. I have no problem with the conditions themselves and find it very agreeable, and look forward to the opportunity to conduct a game utilizing them. But the games I am in currently weren't built around that strategy. Perhaps games that are at turn 29 or less can change to reflect the new winning conditions. But games that are turn 30 or higher are too mature to change.

i like

veldan - yeah, it's admittedly a bit of a shock to me, too. Still, I don't mind rolling with it personally. It'll certainly add some spice to my game.

Also, it's beta software, you almost have to expect stuff like this.

I like the concept of the new numbers; I don't like it being applied to games in progress that are nearly done. One game I'm in is... was... 2 turns from being over, so I've been coasting for the last few turns, since there's no point playing carefully if it's all over in 2 turns. Now I find the game will likely go on for another 20 turns, this is annoying. I'd suggest that games that are already in the 5-turn countdown should be grandfathered into the old numbers, but that probably won't happen, I'm assuming.

Lynch has been guaranteed to end as scheduled to the original conditions in response to Leo's note, I see.

Perhaps New Wisconsin could also? Any others?

Odysseus

Better, but still rather one dimensional. I would still like to see multiple victory condition options that can be turned on a the start of a game.

http://vgaplanets.nu/discussion/victory-conditions-take-3

Better, but still rather one dimensional. I would still like to see multiple victory condition options that can be turned on a the start of a game.

http://vgaplanets.nu/discussion/victory-conditions-take-3

Increasing the number of planets required for an alliance win is reasonable, but I don't like the reduction to a minority for a single player win. Take a look at the Forbidden Planet System game. With this change, the Privateer is likely to win before the ship limit is reached, and without ever facing his only serious opposition.

All sounds good to me. Much better for three players needing to conquer 300 instead of 250 planets.

My one current game that already had a Planets victory condition is only on Turn 10, so no strategy adjustment required in that one. This will have an affect on my future strategy for my two games which previously had a Military Score condition (currently on turn 66 and turn 68), but that should be fine too.

Even with lowering the # to 200 planets, winning Solo will likely still be much harder than 2 players winning with 250 planets or 3 players winning with 300 planets. (assuming a friend(s) is not helping the solo player, and therefore acting like an ally without declaring alliance) In "Officer" games, without the benefit of dropped players, it should be nearly impossible to grab 200 planets and win Solo without an ally assisting (again, assuming no one is helping the Solo player, without being declared an ally).

Is this going to show up in existing private games as well? On the scoreboard for our existing game it still indicates the 250 win condition.

Great idea and quick implementation.

While I'm fully supportive of this refinement, like many here retroactive changes to ongoing games seriously concern me in principle.

I suggest we revisit this in the future and adjust the numbers of planets needed if single player wins essentially never happen. My bet is that most/all winners will be in alliances and it will be very difficult for a single player to win.

I am OK on retroactive changes in the Beta games as with a beta you might expect that but not in the post beta games.

It would be nice to have this posted, or a link to it, on the games where it applies.

Yes. My games still say "first player to reach 50% of planets" or whatnot.