Of course if you want to whine about people discussing something
you've already decided on, Gavin, go right ahead.
I'm not whining, boyo.
We've had these discussions about changing game endings ad
nauseam. So far, in the current discussion, we've had one
player claiming that a 2-to-1 ratio is grounds for ending a game
and one (not me) pointing out the problems with that assertion.
The first of the two seems to be acting out of, shall we
say, annoyance. Hardly grounds for justifying a change in one of
the basic rules of any game: how it ends.
And, yes, I have already decided my own point of view. I do
hope that's allowed.
I disagree. Annoyance is certainly grounds for changing any rule of a
game. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun/challenging/etc. It's _not_
supposed to be annoying if that can be helped without ruining other
desirable aspects of the game.
The fact that this has been discussed so many times indicates that it
is annoying quite a few people. Even more reason to keep gnawing at
the problem from different angles, looking for a solution.
> Of course if you want to whine about people discussing something
> you've already decided on, Gavin, go right ahead.
I'm not whining, boyo.
We've had these discussions about changing game endings ad
nauseam. So far, in the current discussion, we've had one
player claiming that a 2-to-1 ratio is grounds for ending a game
and one (not me) pointing out the problems with that assertion.
The first of the two seems to be acting out of, shall we
say, annoyance. Hardly grounds for justifying a change in one of
the basic rules of any game: how it ends.
And, yes, I have already decided my own point of view. I do
hope that's allowed.
We've had these discussions about changing game endings ad nauseam. So far, in the current discussion, we've had one player claiming that a 2-to-1 ratio is grounds for ending a game and one (not me) pointing out the problems with that assertion.
I don't really understand your strident opposition to the idea of forcing an end to a game.
Why should a player in a clearly hopeless position force the other side to continue to pay good money just to eliminate him? How is the game enhanced by allowing this to occur?
Frankly, I would be really frustrated if I had to spend 10 turns trying to hunt down the one remaining nation that would accept defeat. That's time and money better spent elsewhere. Your idea of giving up myself only rewards such anti-game behavior.
