Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Questions → Victory Conditions
Preface: Haven't played in a long time.
What do people consider the benchmark for 'winning a round' as these days? Size? NW? Score? Different people think different things? Whoever wins at least two out of three?
People used to consider rank 1 size as the winner of a round, but score wasn't around back then.
Size
Size
Agreed
Last man standing 
I've always preferred to keep track of nw/planet myself (going strictly size leads to farming), but the popular opinion has remained size.
I've always preferred to keep track of nw/planet myself (going strictly size leads to farming), but the popular opinion has remained size.
Ooh I'd love to personally go by that. It would require a change in the morale system though since having infra is currently discouraged. Last round in Starburst top two fams in size were bottom two in NW.
Undeath wrote:I've always preferred to keep track of nw/planet myself (going strictly size leads to farming), but the popular opinion has remained size.
Ooh I'd love to personally go by that. It would require a change in the morale system though since having infra is currently discouraged. Last round in Starburst top two fams in size were bottom two in NW.
You mean it requires strategy and tactics? Cause you need to have enough infra to build and maintain the fleet to take the planets, yet be lean enough not be an easy target?
The win condition is, and always has been, size.
DustyAladdin wrote:Undeath wrote:I've always preferred to keep track of nw/planet myself (going strictly size leads to farming), but the popular opinion has remained size.
Ooh I'd love to personally go by that. It would require a change in the morale system though since having infra is currently discouraged. Last round in Starburst top two fams in size were bottom two in NW.
You mean it requires strategy and tactics? Cause you need to have enough infra to build and maintain the fleet to take the planets, yet be lean enough not be an easy target?
The win condition is, and always has been, size.
For you, sure. Personally idc about size. You don't win size by fighting the strongest families, you win size by vulturing, farming, and attacking people when they're weak. Those are valid strategies to be sure, I'm just not interested in them.
It's always been up to the player. There's a reason people specify "the size win" or "the nw win" when they talk about EOR rankings.
Personally I've always seen NW as the more meaningful rank. It literally means net + worth, as in after all is said and done, which fam/player has the most value (worth)?
But then, I completely understand why others think size matters more.
There's no objective answer here. Both are valid; it's up to each player to decide for themselves.
I kind of agree with NW being the best way to determine a winner. People say it should be size because that means they warred for it, but you literally are supposed to war so you can gain planets so you can build more buildings/get a higher income/etc...it's all a product of getting a bigger NW. You can farm inactives/small people for planets, but only smart econ planning gives good NW . But I also remember EOR jumps being insanely huge (not sure if people still do these) which makes it a bit subjective to whoever saves the longest...
I don't know what the morale system is like these days, but if people are literally avoiding having a big economy so they can stay small...I wouldn't consider that much of a victory 
.
It makes sense NW would be the most important one, like Pie explained. But... there is literally no one who aims for a Networth win, unless beaten up families in the last week(s) of the round. Because they feel or know they no longer have a shot at the size win.
If you were to go for a NW win as a family from the start, you'd have no competition and so it would take no skill. Ergo it's not very meaningful.
Imperial Forum → Questions → Victory Conditions
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.