• Posts: 303
  • Tag points: 17

Topic: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Greetings and Salutations Ladies and Female counterparts,

Allow me to begin by introducing myself to those sorry sods who've recently been caught in the festering cesspool known as Imperial Conflict; I am Oris Dorch, an old time 'vet' if you want to call me that but more truthfully I'm just a crazy old nutter and foohon who long ago lost his mind to the Void.

Today I'd like to discuss the topic of "Winning" in IC. There has always been controversy over who 'won' a round, and the most recent round in MW shows no exception.

We often talk about winning a round as measured by the total Network or Planets held as of the last tick, but is this truly a sufficient way of measuring a 'win'?  Do the final ticks of a round truly hold such importance that we should determine success based solely on this period? How can we so easily ignore the entirety of the round in giving such credit to a one tick snapshot taken at the final moment of a galaxy? Are we so shallow as to make immortalized heroes of those families who build up mountainous reserves of cash and resources  only to dump it into the accounts of small players with high construction bonuses as the dying gasp escapes the round?

Those families who amaze the universe by amassing innumerable planets in the early game are given little credit compared to those who wage a last minute war and relieve them of those planets. The spoils of war too often go to those cowards who seek shelter in the end of a round and not to those who thrive and succeed throughout it. Is making a last ditch effort for the top by waging an EOR war any better than waging war then having the whole family go into Vacation Mode?

So who deserves more credit - the family who holds a top rank through 95% of a round, or those who steal that position in the final 5%?  And what if account baby-sitting, Cheating, Illegal Alliances, or other mischievous means are used by the families in top rankings as of the end of the round? Have those who've lied, cheated and stolen to achieve #1 ranking really won the round? If not, why do we keep no records beyond the fact that they ended as #1?

Are there any ways that we can better identify 'winners'? Are there any universal measures of success other than NW and planets that could be considered when determining a 'Round Winner'?  Are we to forever be blinded by the shallow minded programming which deemed these statistics as the sole measure in the 'Hall of Fame' which in many cases might be better termed the 'Hall of Shame' (and why the hell do we have Helix, Pegasus and Virgo in there???)?


I post this because I wonder what the IC community thinks of this, and I post it to Universal News because this is the only place that players congregate to express their opinions regarding any given round's winners and losers.. This is the place where Success is measured, where controversy is revealed and where secrets are revealed.

Assuming that you're not so conventionalized as to accept the benchmark of success as determined by the all mighty Stefan as law, my challenge to all of you octarine smoking penny pinching IC addicted space freaks is to redefine winning in IC.

-Oris Dorch
P.S. The Void is coming to a Family near you!

RIP IC, you were fun while you lasted hmm

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 545

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

If they are able to get #1 via NW or Planet count that means they did something the other families couldn't, regardless of whatever situation every family was thrown into during the round.  We all have our wars, and some are just more fortunate than others to gain from a war, and to propel upwards to be able to a) save enough to overjump other fams or b) take enough planets from war to be #1 in size.

Therefore, yes they should be declared "winners".

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 303
  • Tag points: 17

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

So if a family jumps fleet in the last couple ticks and proceeds to break all of their naps and attack their allies for more planets, and as a result they get to #1 in planets and NW, you truly feel that they are the winners?

RIP IC, you were fun while you lasted hmm

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,498
  • Tag points: 4

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Eh, an intrigueing post Oris. We mostly seem to go wih pc, and nw as a second, at eor. But that does not necessarily mean the best  fams. Suppose a fam starts at 30, and rises to top ten? They dont make #1 or #2, but still up therw, are they less worthy yhan a fam who started top ten, and held ?

75% of all players in IC have hemorroids,

the other 25% are perfect assholes.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 545

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

> Oris Dorch wrote:

> So if a family jumps fleet in the last couple ticks and proceeds to break all of their naps and attack their allies for more planets, and as a result they get to #1 in planets and NW, you truly feel that they are the winners?


Any examples of broken NAPs that cause this situation?  Or just making up an example that rarely if ever occurs?

And if there is no round reshuffle, you can be assured that family wont make top 10 the following round - people don't forgive.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,135
  • Tag points: 7

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

"If they are able to get #1 via NW or Planet count that means they did something the other families couldn't, regardless of whatever situation every family was thrown into during the round. "


A lot of families go after the #1 when the end of the rounds comes closer... So keeping that #1 rank is a lot harder then just win a big eor war. Very often you have to win several at the same time.

...meh...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,085
  • Tag points: 62

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

doesnt matter as long as there is IC there will be cheating and the ones who wait ill last minute of round to break naps and ruin others..yes its a very sad thing but u shoudlnt be shocked.. thats why IC isnt what it used to be nor will it ever be again..

" i am the bringer of death.. destroyer of worlds"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

8 Reply by Love (edited by Gwynedd 30-Jul-2008 09:02:55)

  • Love
  • Love
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 906

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

great post!!!

My fam got titled as sissys and suckers as we didnt win last round mw.

We have been nr 1 all round in planetcount AND nw.

We didnt win any of them at eor.

We did stick to taking only 15%-20% max total war gain per war per fam.

We did not farm nor did we vultur.

But still we suck and are [woof!] because last 11 days of the round, 4 players go on vacation while we about to enter a big outsaved war. if its 12 days before eor no vac mode can be entered ---> causes spellforce to be raped as he was on vacation and could not log in at all and made his entire efford all round to be [woof!] up  ---> lets make it clear he was the NR 1 banker at that moment in the whole gal.

Now we dont win round because others do NOT give a crap about letting small fams live, or not to vultur or even rape allies, next to taking over half of a fams planets in war. And they get praised for it how a great round they played. well all i can say is lol. Great post i hope more players will see ur point and maybe something changes along the line, but i doubt it will.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

9 Reply by Oris Dorch (edited by Oris Dorch 27-Jul-2008 21:07:56)

  • Posts: 303
  • Tag points: 17

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

> TheOldbie wrote:

"Any examples of broken NAPs that cause this situation?  Or just making up an example that rarely if ever occurs?"


From what I understand, MW just ended with a final tick pnap break that resulted in the 2nd placed in planets getting 1st.. I don't know that this is fact, but it's the allegation.

RIP IC, you were fun while you lasted hmm

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 303
  • Tag points: 17

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Love -- have you considered that perhaps your fam did win that round? Again -- I'm asking what we define as winning, and some would say that you did win that round for holding on to #1 for so long.

a few examples things that could be considered "winning":
- Holding on to #1 rank for more ticks than anyone else in the round
- Highest average networth through the round
- Highest average planet count throughout the round
- Best ratio of planets lost v.s. gained in the round

Cheers
OD

RIP IC, you were fun while you lasted hmm

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 321

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

All those suggestions could mean that a round is won allready  halvway through, which would be really bad.
You would take away the thrill of the end and often degrade the rounds to a very boring end.

IC has always been like it is now and was always won or lost in the last tick. Most people see planet count as most important(me to). NW jumps is an additional win which is ok in my opinion since it mostly represents the strong economy of the family.

If people break nap or do unhonourable things, they usally get a bad reputation and even punished for it in later rounds.


Love: You had a great round, but as always round are won in the end. Your people might have had problems with vacation in the end, how about other familys? Dont you think others have these problems to? We had people away for weeks earlier in the round, a draft had to be replaced cause of rl problems,   and one of our main attackers was away the last 4 days, but thats something that happens. Every family has to deal with such things from time to time. You owned early and midgame till the end, but I see it as a greater accomplishment to start small and work the way up till the top like 791 did for example.

Bahamut

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,599

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

that last 5% sadly is the only victory those families are ever going to have.  But its not real.  I win the round when i can look back and say i've made the best use of our resources, motivated people, committed to wars and ofc won wars.  I care nothing for my rank.  I couldnt cope being an undeserved 1st place.

"It's very quiet on the political arena. I wish someone would stir up some trouble!"

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,135
  • Tag points: 7

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

"Dont you think others have these problems to? We had people away for weeks earlier in the round"

Well Bahamut, thats the whole point of this thread, the first weeks are clearly not as important as the last ones, since only the last 5% decides the winner.

...meh...

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 545

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Consider a 1600m race (or a mile)....

Someone could be leading the entire race...and at the last 100m stretch someone else speeds past them to win it.  Is the person that led 1500m of the race going to complain that it's not fair the person won?  Is he going to go to the officials saying he deserves it because he led most of it?  No.  It is what it is when its at the end.  Not the beginning, not the middle, but the end.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,471
  • Tag points: 4

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Hmm nice way of putting it oldbie..

Makes me consider it..


I am unsure how to say a family wins the round hmm

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 321

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Gekko: I dont see it like that. If people are missing early, it exponentially works itself out on the whole round. People missing early always hurts. You wont have as good a start as with the missing people etc. If people are missing in the end it can be bad, but its also possible that it doesnt matter.

For 799 it mattered in the end, but thats bad luck.

Bahamut

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 4,031
  • Tag points: 671

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

the fam that has most fun wins the round.

NEE NAW NEE NAW

Primo

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 1,578
  • Tag points: 21

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

Good [post oris and i really agree but I still say nw is more important then planet count fa sho

Texas Made Texas Raised

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

19 Reply by TheOldbie (edited by TheOldbie 27-Jul-2008 23:47:54)

  • Posts: 545

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

> Orbit wrote:

> that last 5% sadly is the only victory those families are ever going to have.  But its not real.  I win the round when i can look back and say i've made the best use of our resources, motivated people, committed to wars and ofc won wars.  I care nothing for my rank.  I couldnt cope being an undeserved 1st place.



Thats something a losing coach tells his team in the playoffs tongue

Just remember this quote from *guess the movie* - If you're not first place, you're last!

...nobody remembers second place wink

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 386

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

The way I see it, its up to the members of the galaxy to decide who is remembered and whatnot.

Its way easier remembering those on top, cause you see them, right there...on top...

Imagine this...old school greek/roman/trojan or whatever war. Who is remembered ?

The hero who stabs 6 people and lives, or the hero who smashes 18 people and dies amongst the rest ?

Who is left to tell the story ? To remember it ? Its up to the players of the galaxy to choose its winners. Nobody else can decide.

~ If I treat you like an idiot, it most likely is because you ARE an idiot ~

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 0

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

in addition to the starting statement, my personal view is that the person or person's that had the most fun during a round is the one that won.
meaning that if you played with honor, held your own, and stuck together then you won the game.
too many times i see less than honorable people claiming they won by sheer numbers as they are calculated in NW and amount of planets, but in truth if you showed no honor or used deceitful tactics, you did not win, you merely cheated someone, and for that you actually lost miserably, kind of like a boxer that knocked a guy out with a rabbit punch, and is similarly disqualified.
i think it should be a vote to the galaxy as to who done the honest (honorable) way of playing and won so that the diplomacy comes back, and people start to care about how they are viewed for their actions, as to weather they won or not.
it would be nice if it could be calculated by the numbers but, in cheating no one wins and the outcome of game should reflect that.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 0

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

I agree with Primo smile

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 545

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

It isn't cheating if you follow the rules of the game.  If breaking NAPs were illegal, they would be swiftly banned by the mods.  It is a deceitful tactic, but it is legit.  If your reputation didn't follow you into the next round, I assure you that many many more would use these tactics.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

24 Reply by Barbatos (edited by Barbatos88 28-Jul-2008 06:14:55)

  • Posts: 1,578
  • Tag points: 21

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

The fam who stayed top ranked and finish #1 in nw is the true winner period in my opinion which dont mean nuttin but theres alot to holdin #1 or even finish #1 un less it is breakin NAPS or attackin ALLIES then ur disqualified tongue

Texas Made Texas Raised

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 0

Re: An inquiry into "Winning" in IC

i know how things are kids, i was suggesting how they should be.
and to break a nap/ally agreement is worse than breaking the rules, you have defiled a friendship.
if you are mature enough to understand that, then i suggest you also change your ways to avoid ever doing it again.
this is a community, and will become more so with the merger of MW and andro next round, and those of you that scoff at this.... well your future rounds wont be as pleasant as your demented mind would have hoped "trust me on this".
it is the time that the majority of the community members fight back against those that defile our game with ruthless tactics and dishonor.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points