Abandoning stars to another player

A player is currently abandoning all their stars to an ally, and will soon have given over all 20+ stars. This same player also sent all their ships against me. I happen to think it is against the spirit of the game to donate an empire. A player should quit if they do not want to play any longer. However, I completely understand that the spirit of the game is seen differently by others.

What are your thoughts? Do you endorse the act of abandoning all stars to an ally?

Ah, yes, the suicide and hand the lead to another player. I’d agree, it doesn’t seem very sporting. I can sort of understand if they were allies, and for some reason the one player needs to leave the game. You would want to give an edge to your ally. However, it does stink to be on the receiving end of a suicide attack and when the dust settles, you find a new neighbor has moved in and is now much bigger than the old guy.

Never done it, don’t know if I ever will. It may leave a really bad taste in my mouth. That said, there are times I really wish someone that quit next to me would have offered me their stars! Good luck!

1 Like

My thoughts on this?

There’s a real difference between threatening to do this and actually doing it.

1 Like

It’s a bit grey, but I will never “play to lose”. In other words, if I’m dying to an attack, I won’t give my surviving resources to another player because now I can’t win. Likewise, I’ve refused “gifts” of an ally’s stars (as opposed to tactical trades) because I felt it harms the game.

Now that doesn’t preclude me giving resource to help my allies, and indeed, I’ve been happy to come in second. But feeding myself to another player doesn’t (to me) feel in the spirit of the game. Likewise with the lesser act of throwing all one’s resources against one attacker and totally ignoring the other. I feel you should be playing not to lose, even when losing is inevitable.

However, there’s lots of disagreement about that, so I’m not going to call that sort of behaviour wrong. However, I don’t think it leads to the maximization of enjoyment among players.

1 Like

I’m going to add to my view. I think the only time I would willingly do this, is if I was getting taken out by an enemy that held a significant lead. If throwing all of my ships into my enemy and transferring control of my remaining stars to my ally, I could even their relative strength up, then I would consider doing it. Though, in that case, I would also keep one star, as far into my ally’s territory as possible, then share my income and any tech could acquire.

Also, thinking back, I did benefit once from this kind of move. It was a dark game with fixed scanning. I could only go one direction. My enemy and I had been transferring 2 stars back and forth for about 2 weeks. He started getting hit from the other side and figured it was over. As a parting gesture to honor the hard fought battles we shared, he messaged me and said he was going to aim his ships at his neighbor that broke a peace treaty and if I wanted to follow his ships, I could grab his stars. We were both smaller players in the game because our conflict lasted so long and produced no results, so our combined size didn’t put me ahead of anyone. It simply helped me make it to the final 3.

So I guess I feel it is very situational. Be good at diplomacy so when it happens, you aren’t on the side that gets the ships rather than the stars!

1 Like

I said I would do it if one player attacked me. All part of the diplomacy game in my eyes.

Another player got upset with the leading player and gifted his stars to his ally. Making that ally number 1. So I started giving my planets to the former nr.1 (my ally) and also gifting money and tech. But I started too late and couldn’t turn the tides.

So in this case I didn’t feel bad about it.
But in general I would threat with it, but actually doing it really depends on the situation

1 Like

I actually think threatening to do it is pretty lame but then I’ve played quite a few games with people who whine and moan at everything that doesn’t go their way so that may be where it stems from!

The whole ‘if i’m not going to win, neither are you’ line just seems a bit childish. It’s almost as bad as a game where I came third after the person in the lead delayed the end so I didn’t come second. Second and Third aren’t first so why would I care which I get? I didn’t have a chance of the victory anyway and was already moving onto the next game.

1 Like

I’ve done this once, against a player who was arrogant, insulting and generally what I call a bad egg. I know that other players left that game because of his shenanigans, and I refused to give him the satisfaction of the win.


What was your name in that game? I remember a game where one guy was a bit alpa, and another guy got all butt-hurt and called him arrogant.

Er. This one.