by Dulkal
rayffis wrote:
Mr Suplex wrote:
LazyJ wrote:
...Not use them?
If you're struggling a lot with Alliances, take them out. It shouldn't affect the play-ability of the game.
If you're struggling a lot with Alliances, take them out. It shouldn't affect the play-ability of the game.
If someone can prove to me that the scenario I outlined is not broken I'm willing to use them. So far no one, the designer included, has given any realistic way around it other than some unwritten philosophy that alliance wins are less valuable than single player wins.
In my opinion that unwritten philosophy is valid because every competitive player whom I have met seems to think so. And I think that it's just not me and my buddies.
It is valid, and widespread. But it is NOT universally expected.
There a some of us that still hold to the notion that unless otherwise specified, the goal of a game is to win, and that throwing away a near-certain win because you want to win in a more impressive way is contrary to the spirit of the game.
I have no problem with games being designed to work on a different basis. I also realize that I am free to (and will) avoid playing with alliances in 4-player games. Also, props to the designer for maling the assumption explicit in this thread.
I just think players need to be aware of it. Because the alliance system WILL break the game in a 4-player group that follows the 'play to win' philosophy.