A few things
Purist... one person calls me a purist because I want the game played as it was INTENDED to be played. This is not my opinion, it is simple fact and in fact is how the game is played everywhere else. Having an argument about this only shows how foolish people can be and sorry, that too is not my opinion but rather factual. I pointed out how I am in no way a purist because I have designed many games using different maps, different rules and in the game played often here (WWIV) it was designed to be won by a group determined by vote. The game is not played here the way it was designed because of ...purists.
Then someone wants to claim its ironic that I will allow such changes but not allow for a PPSC game. Yet that is not in conflict in the least, in my games the same spirit of the game is in tact. We have a winner (or even a group of winners) and the rest are all losers. How does a map tweak on a variant change the basic principal of the game? All that person did was confirm my not being a purist in the least, thank you Feces349!
And "game morals" that applies only too aptly, yes I stand by that comment 100%.
Think about it, while the statement was of course made tongue in cheek, it certainly is apt. The morals of this game are to try and win and when that is not possible, to stop others from soloing. That is how the game is designed, it is how it is played on other websites, it is how the game is played in tournaments, it is spelled out in the rules! Therefore, any who would play counter to this is playing in a spirit that would be "immoral" as far as "game morals" go (if there were such a thing of course).
The WW4 problem at 100 sc's or less than half sc's is simple. If the game were played to half SC's to determine a winner then it would never ever be soloed and it would play for 10 years. The 100 sc mark also plays a while but it too has never been won at that level and as game mechanics go, it simply never will be either. It's easy to look at the basic game and say it works for this smaller map so it must work on a larger map as well, I get that but it simply does not work that way and history shows this to be true. Any who make that claim are simply ignorant to the facts and to history. Think about that game for a moment...
The size dictates that several powers will emerge as powerhouses from each region. That is a constant and will always happen. Now you have too many large powers able to draw stalemate lines that can not be beat. Some point to stalemates as a bad thing but the basic game is designed this way. When in the standard game we have two players compete, the game will OFTEN set up the same way. Well, that is when played WTA it does.. go to any tourney and you find the overwhelming number of games all ending in stalemates. The game is set up that way on purpose, accepting this in a standard game is somehow ok but not in a larger game where the victory condition is set to an unreasonable mark.