I just won a 3P game in which both other players booted.

But, according to this, I got no elimination credit for the game:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Zombie+Islands/Rankings

I would like to see elimination credits for all boots during a game awarded to the winner of the game.

But they were not actually 'eliminated'? 

On the topic of eliminations, however, win conditions that allow you to eliminate a player but still leave them with territories on the board do not count as eliminations, which is just wrong.  For instance, on Battle of Bladensburg, the British taking or even just artillering Washington D.C. counts as an elimination because Washington is a capital, check.  But, for the Americans to win they need to hold all those road ends as a Win Condition that DOESN'T count as an elimination, Blah!  Furthermore, since scouts are autocapture, if you have a silly opponent who refuses to surrender (which counts as an elimination in 1v1 situations), you have to make sure that you strand their artillery and leave them alive while you autocapture all their scouts before finishing off their last standing artillery, just to 'earn' the elimination.  So freakin tedious!  I asked Tom why that was and he said holding the road ends didn't eliminate all their on-board units, so not an elimination... But taking a capital doesn't eliminate all one's on-board units, yet it does count as an elimination.  Riddle me that one bat man?

I tried to build the most unbeatable winning streak ever once, and it was slightly shortened from where it should have reached due to this condition stated above.  How'd said players steal my eliminations when I obviously knew what needed to be done to get them regardless?  They'd let themselves get booted due to the boredom of me being required to go the extra mile just to get the elimination!  Which brings us back to the OP. A player depriving elimination by being booted instead of actually being eliminated.  At most, however, it could follow the 1v1 rule as it applies to surrender.  There are no half eliminations. In that event, camel could get 1 elimination for above mentioned game if a 'boot in 1v1 situation counts as elimination rule' were put into place.

So then to nit-pick the situations in the comparison, the field has to vote the surrender in multi player situations, but not in the 1v1 situation where it instantly counts as an elimination.  This is important because an elimination conscious individual might refuse to vote, or delay to vote a surrender if they think they can instead eliminate said player (who is probably pretty weak on the board) first.  You have no such option to 'hold' a discouraged player in the game who is purposefully letting themselves get booted in order to retain the rights of elimination...

In your situation, at most you could be granted 1 elimination as said above (the last boot during a 1v1 situation), but, since boots can happen for many reasons besides being defeated, a player who gets 'eliminated' by boot might respond, 'like hell I was eliminated', because maybe they were in a winning position and got booted because RL intervened and disrupted their play time?

Anyway, food for thought, I guess.

berickf wrote:

But they were not actually 'eliminated'? 

On the topic of eliminations, however, win conditions that allow you to eliminate a player but still leave them with territories on the board do not count as eliminations, which is just wrong.  For instance, on Battle of Bladensburg, the British taking or even just artillering Washington D.C. counts as an elimination because Washington is a capital, check.  But, for the Americans to win they need to hold all those road ends as a Win Condition that DOESN'T count as an elimination, Blah!  Furthermore, since scouts are autocapture, if you have a silly opponent who refuses to surrender (which counts as an elimination in 1v1 situations), you have to make sure that you strand their artillery and leave them alive while you autocapture all their scouts before finishing off their last standing artillery, just to 'earn' the elimination.  So freakin tedious!  I asked Tom why that was and he said holding the road ends didn't eliminate all their on-board units, so not an elimination... But taking a capital doesn't eliminate all one's on-board units, yet it does count as an elimination.  Riddle me that one bat man?

Taking the last capital from a player does eliminate all his units, on and off board. The territories go either to Neutral or to the eliminator, depending on 'Capital city unit assimilation %'. It has to be that way, since the game might have more players. Sure, Tom could code it to not be an elimination in 1v1 but meh.

Achieving a non-default winning condition on the other hand is clearly not an elimination, wouldn't make sense imo.

Anyway, it's such an irrelevant issue.

redshift wrote:

berickf wrote:

But they were not actually 'eliminated'? 

On the topic of eliminations, however, win conditions that allow you to eliminate a player but still leave them with territories on the board do not count as eliminations, which is just wrong.  For instance, on Battle of Bladensburg, the British taking or even just artillering Washington D.C. counts as an elimination because Washington is a capital, check.  But, for the Americans to win they need to hold all those road ends as a Win Condition that DOESN'T count as an elimination, Blah!  Furthermore, since scouts are autocapture, if you have a silly opponent who refuses to surrender (which counts as an elimination in 1v1 situations), you have to make sure that you strand their artillery and leave them alive while you autocapture all their scouts before finishing off their last standing artillery, just to 'earn' the elimination.  So freakin tedious!  I asked Tom why that was and he said holding the road ends didn't eliminate all their on-board units, so not an elimination... But taking a capital doesn't eliminate all one's on-board units, yet it does count as an elimination.  Riddle me that one bat man?

Taking the last capital from a player does eliminate all his units, on and off board. The territories go either to Neutral or to the eliminator, depending on 'Capital city unit assimilation %'. It has to be that way, since the game might have more players. Sure, Tom could code it to not be an elimination in 1v1 but meh.

Achieving a non-default winning condition on the other hand is clearly not an elimination, wouldn't make sense imo.

Anyway, it's such an irrelevant issue.

Well, in a 1v1 situation, one and the same.  Alternatively, perhaps the designer should be given authority to decide if the win-condition is being used in an elimination type way, or not.  Anyway, usually when I have explained why it seems I was wasting time in that situation, players mostly agreed to surrender anyway.

berickf wrote:

redshift wrote:

berickf wrote:

But they were not actually 'eliminated'? 

On the topic of eliminations, however, win conditions that allow you to eliminate a player but still leave them with territories on the board do not count as eliminations, which is just wrong.  For instance, on Battle of Bladensburg, the British taking or even just artillering Washington D.C. counts as an elimination because Washington is a capital, check.  But, for the Americans to win they need to hold all those road ends as a Win Condition that DOESN'T count as an elimination, Blah!  Furthermore, since scouts are autocapture, if you have a silly opponent who refuses to surrender (which counts as an elimination in 1v1 situations), you have to make sure that you strand their artillery and leave them alive while you autocapture all their scouts before finishing off their last standing artillery, just to 'earn' the elimination.  So freakin tedious!  I asked Tom why that was and he said holding the road ends didn't eliminate all their on-board units, so not an elimination... But taking a capital doesn't eliminate all one's on-board units, yet it does count as an elimination.  Riddle me that one bat man?

Taking the last capital from a player does eliminate all his units, on and off board. The territories go either to Neutral or to the eliminator, depending on 'Capital city unit assimilation %'. It has to be that way, since the game might have more players. Sure, Tom could code it to not be an elimination in 1v1 but meh.

Achieving a non-default winning condition on the other hand is clearly not an elimination, wouldn't make sense imo.

Anyway, it's such an irrelevant issue.

Well, in a 1v1 situation, one and the same.  Alternatively, perhaps the designer should be given authority to decide if the win-condition is being used in an elimination type way, or not.  Anyway, usually when I have explained why it seems I was wasting time in that situation, players mostly agreed to surrender anyway.

Yeah, you could ask Korrun to put Last Man Standing for Americans and owning the road ends would trigger an AutoCapture factory that takes an isolated territory that is initially at Neutral. This territory would have a one-way border to an also isolated territory that is the capital of the British.

berickf wrote:

So then to nit-pick the situations in the comparison, the field has to vote the surrender in multi player situations, but not in the 1v1 situation where it instantly counts as an elimination.  This is important because an elimination conscious individual might refuse to vote, or delay to vote a surrender if they think they can instead eliminate said player (who is probably pretty weak on the board) first.  You have no such option to 'hold' a discouraged player in the game who is purposefully letting themselves get booted in order to retain the rights of elimination...

Ooohhh, how about if a player is skipped twice and supposed to be booted, the option pops up where any other player in the game can decide to 'hold' said player in game and bring them back into the rotation un-booted.  Once one player clicks to retain (but only non-teammates in team games), then they are still in rotation and the option goes away for everyone else since they are already retained by someone else.  If everyone clicks to boot, then player gets booted, or finally automatically booted if they go through their entire turn clock again with no one voting to retain.  A little risk/reward there, but could assure a player gets eliminations if that is what they are going for there?  I don't expect any such system to be implemented.  Just shooting the $#!*.

berickf wrote:

berickf wrote:

So then to nit-pick the situations in the comparison, the field has to vote the surrender in multi player situations, but not in the 1v1 situation where it instantly counts as an elimination.  This is important because an elimination conscious individual might refuse to vote, or delay to vote a surrender if they think they can instead eliminate said player (who is probably pretty weak on the board) first.  You have no such option to 'hold' a discouraged player in the game who is purposefully letting themselves get booted in order to retain the rights of elimination...

Ooohhh, how about if a player is skipped twice and supposed to be booted, the option pops up where any other player in the game can decide to 'hold' said player in game and bring them back into the rotation un-booted.  Once one player clicks to retain (but only non-teammates in team games), then they are still in rotation and the option goes away for everyone else since they are already retained by someone else.  If everyone clicks to boot, then player gets booted, or finally automatically booted if they go through their entire turn clock again with no one voting to retain.  A little risk/reward there, but could assure a player gets eliminations if that is what they are going for there?  I don't expect any such system to be implemented.  Just shooting the $#!*.

Not a bad idea.