EVE Search - Multiplayer, 1 player dead

Check My IP Information

All Channels

CCG Rules Q&A

Multiplayer, 1 player dead

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Fretegir	Posted - 2006.08.07 16:28:00 - [1] I assume that everyhting the player owns leaevs play, this would be the case if we would sue rules of most CCG's But inEVe that doesnt make sense. I can ahve lots of locations and ships in one players region. WHat happens to my ships/locations when teh owner of teh region dies ? Do i loose verything ? Or do the regions just stay in play. I Think the regions should stay in play, makes most sense. But i cannot find a referece to multiplayer in the rules.
Storm Mage Amarr Forgotten Souls	Posted - 2006.08.07 17:37:00 - [2] That is a good question, I would say 1 of 2 things. a) region stays in play b) your ships are sent back to your starbase/locations destroyed. Let the lightning be your warning and the thunder your battlecry!
Qual Gallente XanCom	Posted - 2006.08.07 18:26:00 - [3] Edited by: Qual on 07/08/2006 18:34:52 Edited by: Qual on 07/08/2006 18:29:49 Regions: Regions stay. Rules say that regions cannot be destroyed or leave play. That should cover a player beeing eliminated. Locations and news played by the eliminated player: I would assume these stay in play as well. Ships owned by the eliminated player: Well... Eliminated I would guess. But thats really up there. Home Region and Starbase Structures of the eliminated player: Oh, thats the tough one. The rules actually says that no region can leave play. But where does that leave the HOME Region? It cant be removed, but you cant loose control over it either. Despite that I have personally choosen to remove the Home Region when a player is iliminated along with all card assosiated with it. You can choose to use this as a guideline untill CCP comes up with a real answer to this in the rules completely uncovered topic. "The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.07 21:02:00 - [4] Location* and region stays. I'd say news, ships, and home region stuff all go away. *all homebase locations would be gone as well I'd guess.

Tallest	Posted - 2006.08.07 23:29:00 - [5] Nothing has been set in stone regarding multiplayer games, but we have been using the house rule that all the players cards are removed from play. If you are for example playing a multiplayer game with strangers at a card store or some other venue, if you get killed out of the game you should have the right to pack up your cards and leave... thats my opinion at least.

Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.08 00:02:00 - [6] Originally by: Tallest Nothing has been set in stone regarding multiplayer games, but we have been using the house rule that all the players cards are removed from play. If you are for example playing a multiplayer game with strangers at a card store or some other venue, if you get killed out of the game you should have the right to pack up your cards and leave... thats my opinion at least. Sounds reasonable. However, in cases where the player is going to still be there, perhaps their locations and outer regions should stay in play. Like in a FFA tourny/playoffs or something along those lines.
Fretegir	Posted - 2006.08.08 06:12:00 - [7] I understand the need to pick up your cards but i dont like the idea of regions disapearing. And it still doesnt answer my query about what happens to my ships inside a disappearing location. Imagine i attack player A's home region with enough ships to kill him off, his hoem region disapears, can i get the chance to return my ships to safety before the home region is removed ? Otherwise killing someone would be very harsh if it costs you all the ships you needed to attack with. Multiplayer would then slowly but surely turn into turtle tactics where you gather isk, defend, defend more until you can get an alternative win condition. Anyway, think good about multiplayer. Its an important part of becoming a success.
Qual Gallente XanCom	Posted - 2006.08.08 08:03:00 - [8] Originally by: Tallest Nothing has been set in stone regarding multiplayer games, but we have been using the house rule that all the players cards are removed from play. If you are for example playing a multiplayer game with strangers at a card store or some other venue, if you get killed out of the game you should have the right to pack up your cards and leave... thats my opinion at least. I would very much like to know what you do to Ships, Locations and News not belonging to the eliminated player if they are on one of the eliminbated players outer regions. Your house rules have to cover that as well. "The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf
Ishana Minmatar Millennium E.R.A	Posted - 2006.08.08 08:06:00 - [9] Edited by: Ishana on 08/08/2006 08:10:03 When I played with 3 other friends, when a person died, all his outer regions/locations stayed in play. All ships and his home region were "destroyed" and removed from play. The ships destroying a home base, would simply start another combat phase, and since there is nothing to attack, they simply withdrew, as per the rules, in the withdraw phase. I can understand the need to pick up and leave once you lost, but tbh it totally ruins this game imho. For example I managed to take over an outer region from another player early on. I pimped that region up by allot, and it gave me something like 10 isk/turn. If that would suddenly dissapear I would probably not have won the game. _________________________________________________________
Vir Hellnamin Minmatar Gradient Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2006.08.08 18:43:00 - [10] Edited by: Vir Hellnamin on 08/08/2006 18:45:14 Originally by: Tallest Nothing has been set in stone regarding multiplayer games, but we have been using the house rule that all the players cards are removed from play. If you are for example playing a multiplayer game with strangers at a card store or some other venue, if you get killed out of the game you should have the right to pack up your cards and leave... thats my opinion at least. In some games, like Jyhad/V:tES, some cards do stay in game. This usually leads to a situation where you just have to a) trust that you'll get the back sometime later, b) start proxying heavily, c) get cards from other decks. No other way, taking the cards out simply messes up the game. Check V:tES rulings, since it's a good multiplayer CCG imho. I would say: keep outer regions (since they are free-to-invade-for-all), remove ships (since they are player controlled)... news must be ruled by someone else, maybe based on the fact are they played on target other than controlled by the leaving (lost) player. Taking everything out, when losing game, is pretty stupid, since it might actually benefit in some variants to start playing badly to screw other's up - which is kinda counterintuitive, and would actually to benefit making decks that only use your own cards. -- V.H.

Roundtable2	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:17:00 - [11] Step one: If I have to leave I'm taking my cards with me. Explaination: The locations that were on my regions would be destroyed and any ships would return to their home station If other people want to use their spare copies of regions (smart move an having them pretty much all in the starter) they can, but otherwise they can do that
Qual Gallente XanCom	Posted - 2006.08.08 22:35:00 - [12] Edited by: Qual on 08/08/2006 22:36:13 Originally by: Roundtable2 Step one: If I have to leave I'm taking my cards with me. Explaination: The locations that were on my regions would be destroyed and any ships would return to their home station If other people want to use their spare copies of regions (smart move an having them pretty much all in the starter) they can, but otherwise they can do that Well, thats an opinion on how it should be. I dont agree. Outer Regions are untouchable in the base rules, and I dont see any good gameplay reason to change that. And how the game plays is most important to me. (Other multiplayer CCG's does this, so I see no problem with EVE CCG following that line too.) "The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf
Hunters Presence Amarr	Posted - 2006.08.09 00:33:00 - [13] You can't hold a play hostage and tell him 'you cannot leave or we'll all have to pack up'. That'd just be blackmail. Personally, I'd go with the house rule that all attacking ships go back to dock. Planning for a player dropping out could be a new strategic element, evacuating his/her regions for the big attack whilst trying not to tip them off they're about to die a horrible death. ----- Me!
Qual Gallente XanCom	Posted - 2006.08.09 06:25:00 - [14] Edited by: Qual on 09/08/2006 06:27:16 Originally by: Hunters Presence You can't hold a play hostage and tell him 'you cannot leave or we'll all have to pack up'. That'd just be blackmail. Personally, I'd go with the house rule that all attacking ships go back to dock. Planning for a player dropping out could be a new strategic element, evacuating his/her regions for the big attack whilst trying not to tip them off they're about to die a horrible death. It will kill the multiplayer game, IMHO, as everyone would only build on thier own regions and attack towers directly. It would be suicede to use resources to take control of you enimies regions if they disapear once they die. I say, if you are not willing to stay the duration. Dont play. What you suggest is holding the gameplay hostage to convinience. I dont like that line of thought at all. "The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf
Roundtable2	Posted - 2006.08.09 07:12:00 - [15] Originally by: Qual Edited by: Qual on 09/08/2006 06:27:16 Originally by: Hunters Presence You can't hold a play hostage and tell him 'you cannot leave or we'll all have to pack up'. That'd just be blackmail. Personally, I'd go with the house rule that all attacking ships go back to dock. Planning for a player dropping out could be a new strategic element, evacuating his/her regions for the big attack whilst trying not to tip them off they're about to die a horrible death. It will kill the multiplayer game, IMHO, as everyone would only build on thier own regions and attack towers directly. It would be suicede to use resources to take control of you enimies regions if they disapear once they die. I say, if you are not willing to stay the duration. Dont play. What you suggest is holding the gameplay hostage to convinience. I dont like that line of thought at all. Not necessarily convinience. What if some of the event took longer than planned and you have a RL obligation (borrowing from EVE itsself where people say RL takes precedent over the game) like going to work or whatever. Then you kind of have to take your cards. I don't mind if people switch for their own physical copy of the outer regions, that works for me. Like I said, I liked that the put all the regions in the starters, so it shouldn't break anyone's back since you can't have more than one of a region.
Ishana Minmatar Millennium E.R.A	Posted - 2006.08.09 07:46:00 - [16] TBH regions and locations should never be removed if someone dies. IF the person HAS to leave, then either replace the cards with your own, or use proxy cards. If you do remove them, it will kill multi player games for sure. IMO removing them from play is not an option. _________________________________________________________
Hunters Presence Amarr	Posted - 2006.08.10 01:22:00 - [17] Originally by: Qual I say, if you are not willing to stay the duration. Dont play. What you suggest is holding the gameplay hostage to convinience. I dont like that line of thought at all. Such a rule is completely untenible for say, university or college groups... which form the majority of get-together CCG players! We have lectures to go to for one... and at college we had games of Magic that took well over 3 hours! If we had to all pack up and leave when a player had a lesson, we'd have lost hundreds of games. At the end of the day, for most people, the golden rule is Real life > Gameplay. It's alright to say, 'if you are not willing to stay the duration. Dont' but that excludes alot of players! Not everyone does nothing but play CCGs all day. They have lives, girlfriends who might interrupt them, friends who need someone to talk to. In a multiplayer environment, sodding off should not leave the rest of the players screwed up. I know if I started a game and my girlfriend phoned and said 'I'm in hospital, please come quick!' I'd be dropping my game pronto... but if there's 7 or 8 of us playing, they should be allowed to continue (and just because you might not play 7/8 player games, some people do, like myself). I find it quite scary that the game doesn't facilitate for multiplayer deaths with an official verdict. All the times CCP said 'this game is multiplayer ready' surely they must've come up with a rule, so why not state it explicately? Using proxy cards is still a very clumsy solution. What if you need to refer to that card but no-one has it? If someone has a veldspar, a scordite, a something, a something else, another thing and another something at an outer region... how do you remember those? Hope everyone has one of those cards just lying around? Not everyone will be using a megapack... only the most avid collectors will own every single card after a few series. You could write them down, but then people will inevitably forget and make poor or invalid moves because of it. Sometimes we forget cards exist when they're on the table, nevermind when they're not! At best it's an imperfect solution that increases the gameplaying time, at worst you'll lose track of what's going on and have to retire the game. ----- Me!
Qual Gallente XanCom	Posted - 2006.08.10 06:25:00 - [18] Whou, now you want to suport just leaving the game as well? Not by elimination but, "guys, im going to leave now..."¦ We have simple rule for that among the peole I play with. If someone have to leave, the game is over. Anything else will simply end up beeing unfair to someone. Im not saying that people cant leave, of course they can. Real life can demand it. But that ends the game. If I have just used half the game to gain control over an Outer Region, I would demand the game declared draw if the player that owns the region suddenly leaves, leaving me fubar for the rest of the game. You simple cant in any fair way end that game. Better just stop it there and then. "The short version: Qual is right." - Papa Smurf
Fretegir	Posted - 2006.08.10 06:59:00 - [19] I think people are focusing to much on people wanting to leave the game. Normally when i play i play with friends with time enough to finish the game. I just want the 'suggested' multiplayer rules. If CCP says regions dissapear when owner dies, fine but i will be quick to implement my house rule to keep the regions from a death player. Easy enough to take one of each region along to a game. This will allow the locations I play in those regions to stay in game. The rest the death player owns should IMO be removed from the game. Locations being borderline.
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.08.10 07:34:00 - [20] For purely rules purposes, all cards that player OWNS should be removed from play. That includes cards that belonged to him that other people now control, such as regions, locations, ships, etc. Any ships in those regions should return to their players' dock; locations in those regions are discarded. Yes, this means if you control a lot of a player's cards that you probably dont want to kill him. You'll want to focus on the other guys first, then take out the guy who owns all the cards you've taken. It's like this in many CCGs. Nothing to do with people wanting to leave after a game is finished, it's just purely a mechanics thing. Having the owner of a card not in the game whilst his cards are can cause issues - maybe not now, but down the line, with a larger card pool, it can do. Scrapheap Challenge Forums

Fretegir	Posted - 2006.08.10 09:03:00 - [21] Well i strongly disagree. In any other CCG i played there never was the issue that arises with Eve. Imagine you player A gains control of a region owned by playerB, you build up various locations and income sources. Then Player C kills player B and you are seriosly screwed.
Boda Khan Gallente Freelance Investigations and Exploration Taskforce Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2006.08.16 11:43:00 - [22] Edited by: Boda Khan on 16/08/2006 11:43:47 Originally by: Testy Mctest For purely rules purposes, all cards that player OWNS should be removed from play. That includes cards that belonged to him that other people now control, such as regions, locations, ships, etc. That is actually contrary to the logic of most CCGs I've seen. Cards controlled by other players should remain controlled by them even if the owner leaves play. If the owner has to leave the site of the game then using proxies should be permissable. To rule otherwise would render pointless any effort made to take any Regions played by that player. Decks built on control would be unviable in multi-player. Perhaps a compromise would be to rule that if the owner leaves play you could replace any of his Region cards that you control with alternate Region cards of your own?
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.08.16 13:23:00 - [23] Originally by: Fretegir Well i strongly disagree. In any other CCG i played there never was the issue that arises with Eve. Imagine you player A gains control of a region owned by playerB, you build up various locations and income sources. Then Player C kills player B and you are seriosly screwed. Well, it wouldnt apply so much to regions, since you can use your own copies of them - everyone should have a full set. Other cards, though, I'd still say to remove. But multiplayer games are traditionally all about house rules, so it's all about what you enjoy the most :) Originally by: Serzos Welcome to EVE. Please select a difficulty Easy Medium Hard Minmatar Scrapheap Challenge!

Tallest	Posted - 2006.08.16 13:51:00 - [24] I agree with Testy regarding the regions. Since you get a full set of them in each starter pack, most players will have piles of extras. But again, there is no official multiplayer format yet, so nothing that comes from me is final regarding multiplayer. Use your own house rules and for gods sake have some fun!

Boda Khan Gallente Freelance Investigations and Exploration Taskforce Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2006.08.16 14:05:00 - [25] I have to say I am a little surprised that no thought was given to the multi-player format of the game before it's official release. The format is just as viable as two-player and questions regarding it were quite inevitable. Encouraging people to use house rules is just dodging the issue and likely to cause great confusion as more and more players meet each other to play. It would be much better IMHO to have a common, agreed-upon format for everyone to adopt (the sooner the better).

Tallest	Posted - 2006.08.16 14:19:00 - [26] Saying that no thought was put into the multiplayer format is a bit harsh. If you look the cards you will see alot of cards that work better or differently in multiplayer. Like using "friendly ships" instead of "ships you control". Just to make things clear, the official release date for the card game is in the first week of october and it will not be available in stores until then. We have been selling PRE orders of the game and we lauched it at Gen Con, but the official public release of the game is not yet upon us. Rest asured that when that happens you will see alot more from us regarding the card game, with tournament structure, multiplayer rules, spoiler, a snazzy website and everything else you need to keep a card game community alive. It's not that we aren't going to support the card game, its just that we are still gearing up for the official release and we have alot of things to take care of before that happens.

Boda Khan Gallente Freelance Investigations and Exploration Taskforce Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2006.08.16 14:29:00 - [27] Ah ok thanks for the clarification. I had thought the official release was GenCon. And yes I guess that was a little harsh (sorry).
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.08.16 14:38:00 - [28] Originally by: Boda Khan I have to say I am a little surprised that no thought was given to the multi-player format of the game before it's official release. The format is just as viable as two-player and questions regarding it were quite inevitable. Encouraging people to use house rules is just dodging the issue and likely to cause great confusion as more and more players meet each other to play. It would be much better IMHO to have a common, agreed-upon format for everyone to adopt (the sooner the better). I actually disagree with this; in principle I think multiplayer games are pointless exercises in who's the best politician and not who's the best player/deckbuilder. Of course, this is totally my opinion and huge amounts of people do and will disagree :) It's been my experience that nearly every CCG doesnt include multiplayer rules, but dont eliminate multiplayer as an option; eve does this too (you'll notice some cards mention opponents and such). I think it's far better to come up with your own rules, as MP is a fun format, and you should rule it how you want it to be fun; formats such as three man, two headed giant, assassins, etc are all easily transferrable between CCGs. Scrapheap Challenge!
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Kimotoro Directive	Posted - 2006.08.16 17:24:00 - [29] I can think of atleast one card off the top of my head with: "Target opponent discards a card, then ALL opponents discard a card at random". House of ill repute/animosity both have effects which mention/imply multiple opponent effects iirc.
Hygelac Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.08.24 18:25:00 - [30] All but 2 of the games I've played so far have been 3-4 players. We have adopted the house rule that All Regions and Locations played by that character stay in game, except the home Region which is removed. All ships and News leave the game. I can understand that one guy might want to leave and take his cards with him, but these cards form the strategic landscape of 1/3 or 1/4 of the game and can't just be removed without destroying the whole balance that has been developing. Additionally, you should be rewarded for removing one of the players from the game, that reward is the chance to absorb part of his income into your own. The chances are that you'll need the extra income to try to rebuild the losses you've just suffered by taking out another player. If it's possible to replace those cards from spares then that's cool by me, after all most locations and regions will be available in your folder anyway. ---



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.