While I prefer to stay away from analyzing who stepped over what line (and whether there are any lines to begin with), I will say this:
A problem with large FFA games is that they can be extremely inequitable. I think that the CoW generally is acting in their own best interests -- whether those are to eliminate a leading team or cement alliances for later in the game. But it is not a bit of fun to be on the receiving end ....
Of course it doesn't help that India doesn't have their own alliance, but it is not exactly like they have any options.
This sort of FFA behaviour (5v1 stomps) can be avoided by different game designs, some of which are:
Edit: And of course the tournament games are a great way to play competitively against other players -- we just don't get any feedback on how we are doing until reporting day. A little "Splendid Isolation", anyone?
A problem with large FFA games is that they can be extremely inequitable. I think that the CoW generally is acting in their own best interests -- whether those are to eliminate a leading team or cement alliances for later in the game. But it is not a bit of fun to be on the receiving end ....
Of course it doesn't help that India doesn't have their own alliance, but it is not exactly like they have any options.
This sort of FFA behaviour (5v1 stomps) can be avoided by different game designs, some of which are:
- Have preset alliances
- Only allow a fixed number of teams to be at war with any given player
- Disallow player communication and Open Border agreements
Edit: And of course the tournament games are a great way to play competitively against other players -- we just don't get any feedback on how we are doing until reporting day. A little "Splendid Isolation", anyone?