Talk:Checking Your Endgame
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Another suggested thing to check: what happens if there's a scam that gives a player unlimited resources? If the answer is "the player gains unlimited resources and uses them to win immediately", that's a perfectly reasonable outcome that isn't a problem. If the answer is "players take turns copying the scam in order to outresource each other", that leads to a huge mess (especially if there's a date-based tiebreak that's based on those infinite resources). As a consequence. in dynasties where infinite-resource scams might possibly be available, it's worth checking to ensure that they could potentially be used for immediate wins, rather than causing a timing mess. ais523 (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think that this is a responsibility of the first player to notice / use the scam. If they don't move the scam into a decisive place then they run the risk that a CfJ will revert the game to a safe state; having a scam and using a scam effectively are different things, and players need to learn the difference. Footnotes: Brendan's successful CfJ to end Habanero 1, my unsuccessful attempt in Misty 3. Josh (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem there is that if you have a scam that can't be safely used, it's nonetheless correct to deploy it in order to wipe out someone else's win, even if it's likely to destroy the dynasty in the process. I see this article as mostly being a guide for Emperors as to "how to make sure your players' actions don't end up ruining the end of the dynasty", and this is something that would count for that – even if players can't deploy it effectively, they are likely to deploy it ineffectively in order to avoid losing. ais523 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence for that? I can't think of a single example of someone tanking a dynasty to prevent a win - and in fact I don't see how a rational player would see losing in a no-victor state to be a better outcome than losing to a victorious opponent. Josh (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- Josh XXIV was quite comprehensively blown up, although the situation there was more complicated than the simple version we've been talking about so far (with multiple players blowing it up for different reasons, and a core rules scam being involved). The reason why a rational player would do it under more normal circumstances is because dynasties that have become unplayable frequently go to roll-offs, and most players have some victory chance in a roll-off, which is better than the zero chance they have if someone else wins conventionally. ais523 (talk) 10:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence for that? I can't think of a single example of someone tanking a dynasty to prevent a win - and in fact I don't see how a rational player would see losing in a no-victor state to be a better outcome than losing to a victorious opponent. Josh (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem there is that if you have a scam that can't be safely used, it's nonetheless correct to deploy it in order to wipe out someone else's win, even if it's likely to destroy the dynasty in the process. I see this article as mostly being a guide for Emperors as to "how to make sure your players' actions don't end up ruining the end of the dynasty", and this is something that would count for that – even if players can't deploy it effectively, they are likely to deploy it ineffectively in order to avoid losing. ais523 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)