The Worlds of Kaomaris

Hi,

I was wondering about the following:

If you rip a player that has already gone M-3, do you still get the rip bonus?

You still got RIPped in Feudal just because I say so

Why? Because Feudal is not a rated game

But to answer your question I would give a player the bonus if he took the last province on the same turn the other player goes M-3 (as in Feudal) since he must have put effort into it while the M-3 player should not be able to deprive others from getting what they deserve. I wouldn't give the bonus afterwards.

trewqh

Well i agree with you Treqh, but what's the rule that were set for this?

Hey, we have just voted on that:

Vote 18: Should a player only be officially QUIT at the end of his missed third turn?

Results: 7 YES, 0 NO. The vote PASSES, players are considered quit at the end of a their missed third turn, unless specifically stated otherwise in a GMs House Rules.

This means if Feudal was rated, Han would get a bonus for you but not on turn 19 and afterwards.

trewqh

What's this with you and Feudal? That's not what i was asking about. My question is more meant for Bjorn (as he knows everything). A player that is already M-3 and gets ripped, does that give a rip bonus to the other player? My guess is yes, but i'd like to be sure.

WSC's 18th vote DOES explain this! You get a bonus for a player that has not QUIT.

I used Feudal as an example.

trewqh

If you have allready gone M-3 you are QUIT and can thus not be RIP:ed.

You've got to love this game language.

Lord Fredo wrote:If you have allready gone M-3 you are QUIT and can thus not be RIP:ed.

Yes, but you go QUIT only at the end of a your missed third turn and that's what Vote 18 is all about

trewqh

PS I am ready to explain this 15 more times

The first 5 participants to RIP an opponents position, even one that is Quit/M3, will gain the indicated number of rating points.

That's from the Ratings Rules page. I add the .030 to Raws Rating when he took Piggy's last province in my group.

Donut

Who cares when you go quit Trewqh...nobody asked that...but i'll listen to you explain it another 15 times if you want.

Donut wrote:

The first 5 participants to RIP an opponents position, even one that is Quit/M3, will gain the indicated number of rating points.

That's from the Ratings Rules page. I add the .030 to Raws Rating when he took Piggy's last province in my group.

Donut

So you get credit for RIPping someone who is not even playing the game?


Who thought that one up?

Don't worry Egbert, it just makes it easier for us to fiddle the system!

My personal favourite is going to be not RIPing anyone (ie sleeping) and thus keeping my rating lower, meaning that I look like less of a threat and, if the maximum rating for entering games if ever introduced, entering easier games and thus securing more VPs!

But Shh! Don't tell anyone else!!


korexus.

Yeah Eg the RIP bonus in the ratings has things wrong with it on a few levels. While I applaud Al and company's efforts to make the game more aggressive in nature, the fact that you can get ratings bonuses simply for killing a player who is MIA or because you get lucky in the OOP is a pretty stupid one. If two players do equal work in killing another, why should one get the bonus and the other not? That really irks me....as a GM I am not going to keep track of any ratings changes, although if players want to do so and report it to the Gatekeeper they are welcome to as per the WSC vote. I am going to make sure to announce that to all my players before a game starts so if anybody really objects they don't have to play; I doubt that is going to hurt player totals though.

Egbert wrote:

Donut wrote:

The first 5 participants to RIP an opponents position, even one that is Quit/M3, will gain the indicated number of rating points.

That's from the Ratings Rules page. I add the .030 to Raws Rating when he took Piggy's last province in my group.

Donut

So you get credit for RIPping someone who is not even playing the game?


Who thought that one up?

Eggie,
The basis for this was probably the fact that when Player X RIPs Player Y who went M-3/Quit Player X gets all the resources left over from Player Y in a standard WOK 5 game. Or at least that's where I woud think it was coming from.

Sincerely,

Ec

Nick, don't be so childish. All you have to record is the round a player gets ripped and by who. This comes down to about 1 minute work in the whole game!

Eg, the idea is that although that player doesn't send in orders his troops are still around and a player has defeated those troops in order to rip that player.

Well I think it adds a new dimension to the game, it will reduce the number of players missing turns, it will result in more RIP's, less sleeping and greater diplomacy with an ally, "you finish him and I'll finish him"

And for very little extra effort by the GM......

Absolutely right Sal.

It seems funny to me to claim we want to distribute ratings as a "fair share" and not just "to the one who killed him in the end".

Wake up, thats what WOK is about ! Ive finished 3rd in two of my last games, so did I get "my share" of VPs ? No, and thats ok for me.

Same goes for rating. Instead of nagging why not present an EASY and DOABLE solution that tries to be "fair" to all Players that RIP someone else (including an M-3, its still an effort to get rid of him)? I will tell you what - YOU CANT. All you will be able to achieve is start another endless thread of blablabla....

Live with it. If you have a bad OoP but definitely want to RIP that other guy then make it part of your diplomacy work.

Introduce shared RIP bonuses and I have no problems keeping track of these things. Otherwise, I am going to leave it up to the players to let the Gatekeeper know if they have experienced a change in ratings. I have always been against luck having a largeer effect on a game (or in this case, a rating!), so I will avoid implementing anything that has to do with it as a GM. There's nothing stopping players from keeping track though, they are welcome to it.

It would have surprised me NOT to need a WSC vote to make Nick actually comply to something we voted on. Very childish, but then again I wasnt expecting anything else really.

Therefore I will refrain from signing up in his games. Id like my GM to rate me when I play, just like all the others do.

"Shared RIP bonus" - next time try to come up with something that actually makes sense before you post.

gm_al wrote:"Shared RIP bonus" - next time try to come up with something that actually makes sense before you post.

How about no RIP bonus for someone who is already M-3? That seems to make the most sense.

I know that in WOK5, you still get a player's stuff if he is M-3 and you RIP him. But that is sort of like plundering a palace after it is deserted --- that makes sense. Getting awarded a medal for killing a dead body doesn't make sense.

Also, I believe that some GMs have the rule that if a player goes M-3, his provinces revert to being neutral. How do you handle that?