....I hate to say this, but every CYOF with the sole exception of the first has failed marvelously. Certain members employed cheap and physically impossible ploys to quickly win their games; others god-modded; yet more posted irregularly, simply didn't care, and left.

In the end, the vets got so carried away with the game that all of us started being pricks.

CYOF 1, too, was not a complete success. The game was going fine and then suddenly...bang! Armageddon. On a certain egocentric noob's whim.

Yeah, the game has had its ups and downs. But then again, each game has had a different set of rules.

CEO and Emperor of the Samura heavy industries and empire-CYOF2
President of Liberty- CYOF 3
Supreme Overlord of the Junkers and Miners Guild- CYOF 4

Voted Best Explorer in CYOF 2
Voted Best Backstabber in CYOF 3
Voted Best Corperation, Tied for Most powererful faction, best backstabber, best sneak attacker, best tech and most effective fleet in CYOF 4

---

....I hate to say this, but every CYOF with the sole exception of the first has failed marvelously. Certain members employed cheap and physically impossible ploys to quickly win their games; others god-modded; yet more posted irregularly, simply didn't care, and left.

In the end, the vets got so carried away with the game that all of us started being pricks.

---

I'm very offended by that Wilde. I think the others have gone fine and it is obvious that most, if not all, of your complaints are directed at me.

As someone once said, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And if you hate the game so much, then I'm sure you can find the door. There's no need to discuss this here, either. If you wish to discuss this with me or anyone else, please do it over email or MSN, rather than bring it here to this public place, in a long-dead thread that served it's purpose long ago.

Thus ends my hot-headed rant.

Edited by - ww2jacob on 8/4/2005 10:01:51 PM

Whoa, whoa jacob i think you may have got the wrong impression from wilde's post.

CYOF 1 was a successful failure on the count that it failed (because of god modding which you didn't do) but it highlighted problems that could be fixed with other versions. If memory serves i thought 2 and 3 did well. 4 was disappointing due to a vast majority of us not having time. If i recall, the same happened with 5.

As for Eon, i'm not sure how its going. Apart from to say well done i haven't been on the site. For me CYOF 4 Classic was a game that could have gone so well. Its simplicity and size was fantastic although we are all guilty of any failures that arose during the CYOF games.

Okay, I understand Bret. I was very tired when I posted that and I got set off too quickly. While I may disagree with Wilde, I suppose he wasn't attacking me so I'll let it go.

Yeah, Wilde, you've been on the Warpath lately? Whats up wit dat?

Jacob, you know my feelings on CYOF, and you know how important it is to me.
Also did you get my email about the rules?

Ok, to clarify:

Jacob is guilty of one of the things on my list, which was directed at him. I am guilty of two (that is, being a prick and leaving the game, sometimes simultaneously).

I found that 2 and 3 went...well...other than the endings. Of course it was all lovely and wonderful on the winning side (which in both cases included the Administrator), but what about everyone else who felt, with debatable reason, they'd been cheated?

I didn't win CYOF 3, Wilde. In case you forgot, we had that little mix-up at the end and NOBODY won. We've had this argument before, and I don't want to go through with it again. If you don't like the game, then don't play it.

And yes, GB. I did get your email. The rules look very nice.

An inability to take criticism is not the greatest quality, jacob.

You could afford to take some diplomacy lessons. It's hard to take unfriendly criticism.

Anyway. I had an idea to combat the whole people leaving problem. I say we drop the grace period and have "rounds" that last no more than ten turns. Then the game resets and people switch factions and we start over. The biggest problems in past games were that as the games progressed we'd find ourselves bogged down in having to keep track of everything, and tempers would flare after time. Keeping the games fast and short will combat both. And if people can't play one round, there'll be a new one in a couple of days.

I know Jacob's willing to consider this. What do the rest of you think?

Good points on all counts.

Apologies, jacob. I should have been less hostile.

Combined with a point system to determine who wins, of course.

Anyways, I'll support this idea, so long as all of you don't scream for new rules and such after every game.

Apology accepted Wilde, and I suppose I owe you one as well.

Edited by - ww2jacob on 8/5/2005 2:24:47 PM

That does sound like a good Idea. But with the rules I sent to Jacob, it would be impossible for anyone lose track of things, impossible for judges and admins to look like there "winning", and it keeps things simple.

It adds the big fleet from 1 and 4, while keeping the simple income from 5. It keeps the explore system in 2 and combines research from 1,4 and 5.

The research however is strictly watched over by the judge and, can research nothing more than ships and it must be cleared through a judge or admin first.