337 games later.

To Ryan and everyone else,

Jay Bibby is right, it is the best online multi-player I've encountered. It rewards cunning and strategy. And I’ve gotten a lot of miles out of it. There is very little wrong with the system and I don’t agree with 95% of the suggestions out there. The ELO thing is fine, the chat is fine, the odds, simplicity rules in this game. I would have quit at game 20 if it wasn’t for the ranking system, the competitive aspect of the game is highly rewarding. When playing at the 1900 tables, with about 80% of the people all possessing a more-or-less equal level of skill, the only thing left to play for is points. There is no shame in this.

But my reasons for hesitation in the beginning are my reasons for quitting now. In a word: COLLUSION. At first the whole political/diplomatic thing was fun, to decide when and who to ally with, to quickly counter alliances, to earn a reputation as a fair and equitable player.

Diplomacy is fun, however, groveling is not. And that is what separates the highest ranked players from the rest. The ability to grovel their way from a 6th/7th place finish to 3rd/4th place. People stop playing the game and start hunkering down for a middle-place victory, trying to get a treaty with the dice leader in round 4 and getting it. People say, “hey, I didn’t attack you when I could have, so let me take 2nd with my 1 territory,� when they should have taken 7th a long time ago. Being ignored because there are bigger threats isn’t justification for 2nd place.

I can usually tell where I should rank as soon as the game starts. I’m tired of seeing potential 3rd-5th place finishes turn to 7th because I refuse to say, “Please don’t kill me!� or “hey can I just hide out here in the corner? k thx.� I’m also tired of seeing a game have 7 player at round 20 with four of them holding 1-2 territories and arguing about who should be killed first!

I have two solutions, the first would definitely bring me back to the game. I apologize if this has already been suggested:

Punish protectionism/attrition. Reward aggression. My change to the scoring system:

In additional to final place, make final score a function of average number of territories held placed into some equation against the number of rounds survived. This way, somebody who holds 1-2 territories after round one and is knocked out at round 2 gets a small negative score. Make people WANT to go out fast when they have a botched start. Similarly, somebody who holds onto 1 territory for 20 rounds gets a small negative score or worse. Somebody who puts up a good fight, holds onto 1st the majority of the game, and is overcome by opponents has the potential to still come out ahead.

Permanent Alliances.

Second, create a “permanent treaty� button. Though people wouldn’t have to use it, per se, I think they would. It would prevent attack between players with a treaty. The software would have to determine when a game stale-mated from boundaries and treaties. It should also populate a public message in the chat when a treaty has been offered and/or accepted.