RSW

Hello David,

one question about game famous3u.
I recognized last turn (62) in the news:
The position xxx is once again active in the game.
This position was effectively eliminated in turn 21 or 22.
This turn (63) i recognized within the news:
The following positions are played by the same person: xxx and yyy

This seems a bit strange to me - is this useful?

Rainer

It sounds like position xxx, which had been eliminated from the game at turn 22, was taken over at turn 62 by the person who is also playing yyy.

I don't know why this person would take over an eliminated position within the same game he is already playing, but it is technically legal to do so. (An eliminated position is never really completely out of the game, since you can always give ships and/or worlds to this position and get it active again.)

There's no real advantage to doing this (though I guess he does get a free report on this position's former homeworld every turn now). There can be a serious disadvantage to doing this since this player's final score is now limited to the lower of the two position's final score, which is presumably going to be the eliminated position.

Of course, in a game of this nature (last-man-standing), the final score doesn't really matter that much, so maybe this player doesn't care about his final score.

David

drwr wrote:It sounds like position xxx, which had been eliminated from the game at turn 22, was taken over at turn 62 by the person who is also playing yyy.

I don't know why this person would take over an eliminated position within the same game he is already playing, but it is technically legal to do so. (An eliminated position is never really completely out of the game, since you can always give ships and/or worlds to this position and get it active again.)

There's no real advantage to doing this (though I guess he does get a free report on this position's former homeworld every turn now). There can be a serious disadvantage to doing this since this player's final score is now limited to the lower of the two position's final score, which is presumably going to be the eliminated position.

Of course, in a game of this nature (last-man-standing), the final score doesn't really matter that much, so maybe this player doesn't care about his final score.

David

David,
thank you for the infos!
I don't really see why it should be possible to take over an eliminated position but if player xxx gets a free homeworld report about the planet
then it is surely an important tactical advantage to get this vital mapping information, especially in this actual case as it is unkown
to player xxx. You're surely right here - scoring does not matter, so it seems to me as this is a try to get tactical information the player would not have
access to under normal circumstances
One last question:
I did not recognize before that eliminated positions are officially shown on the section of the website offered as abondend positions.
Is this a standard feature?

Rainer

Normally, it's not possible to take over an eliminated position, but this position was also formally withdrawn by its original player (in addition to having been eliminated).

The game server does offer withdrawn positions for takeover. It probably shouldn't offer withdrawn + eliminated positions for takeover, so that's a minor bug on my part. I'll fix it so the server no longer offers eliminated positions in any context.

Maybe in a last-man-standing game, no positions should ever be offered for takeover. If a position is withdrawn or abandonded, we can just consider that part of the game, and it's one more position down and one closer to victory for the leader. I'm not sure about this, though: the problem is that if someone abandons a healthy position early in the game, and that position remains unplayed, it will be an unfair advantage to the first neighbor who stumbles upon it and takes all of its resources.

Perhaps the rule should be modified thus: if a withdrawn or abandoned position has less than x%, say 10% maybe, of the average share of available resources (worlds/fleets/ships), it should not be offered for takeover by anyone, in any game--the position should be considered effectively dead. If it has more than x% of its share of resources, it should be offered for takeover, in the hopes that someone will take the position and play it seriously.

In this case, though, I'm not sure that any substantial harm has been done. The report on the former homeworld may be valuable, true, but the cost to score is surely harmful too, even in a last-man-standing game. The score is not completely meaningless--at the end of the game, the one player remaining is deemed the winner, and all of the other players are ranked in order by score. If this player is not the final victor, he will now be ranked near the bottom of the score list. Seems a pretty big gamble for a fairly small advantage.

David

drwr wrote: Perhaps the rule should be modified thus: if a withdrawn or abandoned position has less than x%, say 10% maybe, of the average share of available resources (worlds/fleets/ships), it should not be offered for takeover by anyone, in any game--the position should be considered effectively dead. If it has more than x% of its share of resources, it should be offered for takeover, in the hopes that someone will take the position and play it seriously.

I think this is a very handy addition! The base of the resources should be the resources developed at this moment by all players, not the overall resources for my taste,
if this is possible. Early in the game perhaps not all resources are detected and in player hands.

drwr wrote: In this case, though, I'm not sure that any substantial harm has been done. The report on the former homeworld may be valuable, true, but the cost to score is surely harmful too, even in a last-man-standing game. The score is not completely meaningless--at the end of the game, the one player remaining is deemed the winner, and all of the other players are ranked in order by score. If this player is not the final victor, he will now be ranked near the bottom of the score list. Seems a pretty big gamble for a fairly small advantage.

Hmm.., this is a very special game:
Trader positions only, last-man-standing, no communication.
I think none cared about scoring in this game as by this constellation, no player has a chance to earn points as trader.
The actual scoring depends on luckily holding artifacts to your advantage/disadvantage and perhaps killing pop or starting a PBB.
The only vital point here is to survive.

@Jayden and Ulprus
Sorry Guy(s),
but i simply call this playing against the rules for this game, if not cheating:
1. Playing definitely as allies/team with coordinated attacks needs cooperation and communication in a non-communication game
I'm not sure if you're not even the same player for both positions, played at minimum two positions.
The abondend position of Barrack was taken over as well by another player before his elimniation....
2. Sneaking out part of my map via reactivating an eliminated position

We started with 7 players. 3 Positions are left at the moment: Yours (Ulprus + Jayden) and mine (Wulfgar)
You're actually controlling the territory and the resources of 5 players.
I am actually controlling the territory and the resources of 2 players.
Even using the points 1+2 to your advantage at the moment it seems to be even between us.

Perhaps this is the right moment for me to quit the game so you can take over my abondend position as well
and call youself the winner of the game without being troubled by other players.

Wulfgar (Rainer)

David,
another question for my understanding:
At the start of the game, 7 players are listed.
If i see they player list, there're still 7 players listed.
But in my Active Game-List this is shown as 6-player game.

Why is it shown as 6-player game in my game list?

Rainer

It's a 7-position game, and those are the 7 positions you see in the player list. It's only a 6-player game now because one player is controlling two positions.

David