*no revert to previous turn, the game continues*

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Fri May 04, 2012 6:12 am

Several accounts have been hacked, some have been damaged more than others. There is disagreement about whether to revert to the turn before this happened, or to play on. I know most players want to continue without reverting to the previous turn, but some have requested reverting.

We have to make a decision today so the game is not slowed down.

Btw one argument against reverting to previous turn is that some players made a large invasion against Terror and more or less destroyed him. If the game is not reverted then Terror's cities will be back from the dead, and his allies might benefit from this. Should Terror's cities be deleted? If he's more or less gone already due to the invasion, then in case of reverting to previous turn deleting could be fair.

jhh · Post by **jhh** » Fri May 04, 2012 6:33 am

I don't think we should anymore revert. So much has happened. We would need to play two/three turns again if we reverted.

Terror conquered one city from me as Scottish, but I instantly conquered it back, so I lost only few units to that hacking myself. AFAIK the damage to others was quite small, too.

I suggest we give some gold for those that this affected? However I don't need any gold myself.

zsigy · Post by **zsigy** » Fri May 04, 2012 6:34 am

My account was one of the hacked. I have no units, my nation is in anarchy, no production, garbaged diplomacy.
My opinion is: the game must be reverted, but terrors cities deleted. Without reverting there is no point for me to continue the game.

monamipierrot · Post by **monamipierrot** » Fri May 04, 2012 7:27 am

I've been hacked and suffered minor damage.
My friend Cgalik suffered much more from my zombified (or terrorized?) units.
For me, we can continue. Can't say the same for Cgalik.
In my opinion we can wait for the nation of Terror to be picked up from a new player. It's too relevant to be just deleted.

cgalik · Post by **cgalik** » Fri May 04, 2012 12:11 pm

monami's terror hacked nation attacked me, but did minimal damage. But I don't request a revert.

Yes, we destroyed a lot of terror that turn, but I think if we had to do it over again we could. I would not be opposed to reverting and even delegating terror to akfaew or KG (or anyone) even though strategically this isn't good for my alliance, it's been a good game, and I look forward to continuing it.

Whatever you decide is good by me.

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Fri May 04, 2012 12:13 pm

at this time it is useless to revert. I think that regardless dmg made by this hack breaking point was reached and going back will do far more dmg than hack itself

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Fri May 04, 2012 8:05 pm

Zsigy, would you agree with a compensation in gold? If other players give you a 5 turn time-out you'll be able to at least regain your units. Terror may have done other damage, but the units we can bring back in this way.

In any case please try to reach a compromise, this situation should not drag on.

det0r · Post by **det0r** » Fri May 04, 2012 8:32 pm

Unless you guys plan to split your alliance and finish the game (or I am mistaken and there are less than 10 of you) then there is little point reverting.

munk · Post by **munk** » Sat May 05, 2012 4:01 am

det0r wrote:Unless you guys plan to split your alliance and finish the game (or I am mistaken and there are less than 10 of you) then there is little point reverting.

This brings up an interesting question or two:
I've seen talk in chat about LT30 where it was discussed that the game would end at turn 160, but I haven't seen anything official about either the game ending at a certain turn count or what that number might be. Is there some sort of plan to end it at a certain turn count?

If so, would the winners just be the top-scoring 10 players left alive within the winning alliance?

munk · Post by **munk** » Sat May 05, 2012 5:51 am

Kryon wrote:If a turn limit is set and more than 10 players are alive and claim victory then the best solution would be to have no winners.

any particular reason why, other than to *force* a large alliance to break apart and turn on nations they have been working peacefully with through most of the game?

elrik · Post by **elrik** » Sat May 05, 2012 7:04 am

Game rules for example?? There was a poll about that:) Idea behind that was to avoid making string alliances. So acording to game rules alliance can now collapse and fight until there is only 10 or choose the other was of making the winners list:)

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Sat May 05, 2012 9:39 am

[offtopic] I also heard this "160 turns" thing, but I cannot remember a vote about this. Unless someone shows proof of a vote there is no 160 turn limit.

Any player can propose a poll to introduce an endturn, it will have to pass with 75% of the votes (only votes of living players are counted).

When endturn is reached and there are more than 10 allied players there are 3 possible outcomes:
- the game ends without winners
- 10 players kill their other allies and claim victory
- 10 players force their other allies to surrender and accept them as winners[/offtopic]

So what do we decide about reverting? Do we need a 1-day voting to take the decision?

jhh · Post by **jhh** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:32 am

elrik wrote:Game rules for example?? There was a poll about that:) Idea behind that was to avoid making string alliances. So acording to game rules alliance can now collapse and fight until there is only 10 or choose the other was of making the winners list:)

This has never worked on our local games... You simply cannot force an alliance to break down and fight against themselfs. It does not work. They simply stop playing before that happens. (Some of them might try to do it, but they would be just the last bit of fun for the rest.)

Marduk · Post by **Marduk** » Sat May 05, 2012 9:43 pm

Too late to revert to the previous turn, let's continue the game as it is.

Victims of Terror are welcome to apply for gold as compensation for their losses. We'll have to figure out a way to calculate what is a reasonable amount.