Back to 50% for victory in 64 player games?


#1

Hey Folks,

I want your opinion about whether or not we should go back to 50% victory in the 64 player games.

The game currently requires only 25%, but in the last few games I have played, it has been very disappointing that the largest players, the players that were racing for the win, were in different parts of the galaxy and didn’t need to fight. That, or they decide to ally, and just race each other for the victory rather than fight each other for it.

I reduced it to 25% because it can be a real drag to pick up the required stars when there are so many, I can take weeks after its fairly clear who the winner can be, but right now I feel the games are ending just as things are getting interesting.

What do you think?


#2

Yeah, I totally agree with this. In fact, I was recently in a game with this scenario. It was on the old Mega Grid map, and I basically managed to claim a little over half my sector. I didn’t extend past that, but there was another player who quickly started catching up. But luckily for me, 1st place won just on time, and the other player was 1 star behind me, so I managed to run off with 2nd place, when the other player really deserved it.

That said, I still think 50% is too much, and then 2nd and 3rd place would only be the allies of 1st place. I think maybe somewhere in between, like 33%, is good.


#3

Yes, I am finishing a game where three empires with 60-70 stars turned the tide against two mega empires with 160 and a third empire with 60. We had them beat but third place gave the win to first place by giving him stars. Disappointing.

Could the Galaxy shrink relative to the remaining players? The map would look the same but the light years would decrease as the total numbers of active players decreased? This would speed up the late game monotony of the larger games but preserve the battle dependant gameplay. (Which I much prefer to racing).


#4

Yeah I think 33% is a good call. We don’t have the same ‘quarters’ issue with the new map design but 33% should mean the leading player will need to cut into more empires and alliances in order to win.

I think 50% would make the game too long so maybe try with 33% first and then up it if it’s still not solving the issue.


#6

From the opinions so far it is clear that the victory condition should be set between 33% and 50%
However, I very much doubt there will be ever a “right” amount, as it very much depends on the game dynamic. If the galaxy is polarized between 2 very big players then 50% seems a better choice (to force a fight), on the other hand, if the empires are more evened out or dominated by one big player, then 33% looks better.
Maybe vicotry should not occur by planets count, but through “vicotry points” accumulated (or lost) in different ways? The ultimatele goal should be conquering as many planets as possible, but flexible enough to satisfy different dynamics.


#7

After playing a few of the games, winning won and watching how each one progressed, I think that the setting should be 33%. Right now it is too much of a race to victory

Due to the fact that at 25% 1st and 2nd do not ever really have to come into conflict to keep their positions and have 1st to claim victory. This leads to very obvious end game strategy where 1st and 2nd will almost always work together because to work against each other poses greater risks than gains.

If the setting was raised to 33% this would cause a lot more diplomatic problems in the end game and make it more challenging.for a player with an early lead to race to victory without contest.


#8

I know this is an old topic but this has really been annoying me. I recently had a game where my large alliance was defeating another large alliance, but one of the players in the other alliance pulled out the win suddenly and I felt cheated.

Another game; this is a current one so I won’t go into too much detail for fear of giving away info to other players in the game, but there’s a large player on the map, and I would like to expand and get stronger and then eventually defeat him, but there’s the constant threat of him sneaking the win.

I think it should be changed to 33%, or maybe even more (is 40% possible?)


#9

I think we should just add alliance win conditions.

If an alliance has over 50% of the stars, OR a single player has over 33% of the stars, they win.

Another option is having 50% of non-conceded stars. This would make it easier for alliances to concede to victory.


#10

I guess I am in the minority, but thought i should speak up at least. I think 25% is fine and i think 50% is overboard. In every 64 endgame ive reached (and won a few)…the end is a real slog at that point. 50% would be painfully slow to finish.

I understand the desire to change up endgame to liven it up, but im not convinced raising the count required to win is worth the negative aspects. 64 games never get conceded out once the outcome is decided since several players always stick around no matter what and spending another few weeks just getting 200 more stars to win a game that I already have in the bag sounds awful. It could even backfire and encourage allies to feed stars to the winner just to finish the blasted thing or players might get sick of it all and start going afk or half assing the game…screwing up endgame even more

64 games are classified as “experimental” still/always and personally I would encourage a different solution to change up endgame…whatever that may be. All that being said, I wouldnt wholly oppose an increase to perhaps 33%, but any higher…meh :confused:


#11

33% sound good