Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
Problem with the new system
|
tharris7 wrote
at 9:36 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
I was playing a game in which i was currently second, blue was first and brown was third. Blue allied with brown since brown had a threatening 8 stack. They wore me down to one stack, long after i had flagged for third.
This is the problem: Blue stopped attacking me and the two of them kept 'ending turn' for a while and i had no way of killing myself. In the process brown's dominance increased and mine decreased. I had been quite large for most of the game but having one territory for 20 turns brought my whole average down and i ended up with -6 for dominance. Anyway this is one flaw of the new system and it is similar to another scenario: Say 1st place has 15 territories, 2nd has 12, 3rd has 8 and 4th has 8. 1st and second had allied and thats how they got the dominant position. Often when the game is at this point everyone will flag. But with the new system it might be better for first and second to eat away at the others for a while and increase their dominance, while decreasing the others. Would this give them a better score than if everyone had just flagged when they saw that the game was decided? |
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 10:14 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST not trying to act like a 'know it all' but i guess such tactic do give the 1st and 2nd higher score than it should have been.
i can see this happening more and more, expecially from those who are playing for ranking. |
|
StunnedFazer wrote
at 10:33 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST What Alpha said
|
|
algios wrote
at 10:47 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST I disagree it is not worth much points, everyone going crazy because they think having found a leak.
So weighing points/time it is not efficient. You can as well sit out if something like that happens to you, or abuse the round timer... |
|
Ryan wrote
at 11:08 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Algios is right. People are getting excited about this but don't realize we tested quite a bit in the sandbox. Its not a big deal. You'll see this as the game play matures.
In short, compare it to the old system. 3rd doesn't get many points. In the new system in this situation you have domination points from the first 4 players who are out plus points for third... you're doing better than the old system. If 1st and 2nd didn't team up you might do better but this happens. |
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 12:05 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST So alliances do hurt you in such a situation…….
|
|
aixo wrote
at 12:28 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST But I think there´s no difference if you take out the 3rd player early or later... it´s your decision to extend the game to secure more domination-points for the 2nd, but this doesn´t depend to the other players on the table.
But if they do that to steal the points for the 3rd player, I think the community will remark this as well as the so called pre-game-alliances... |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 1:41 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST Alkaven, let me know when your great game is up with your well designed scoring system. It sounds excellent.
|
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 2:44 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST Alkaven: "bad scoring is usually due to poor development"
No you don't have to be a singer to critique one but nobody is going to take your opinion seriously unless you have some credentials to back yourself up. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 4:44 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST Give it up Alkaven. Go post this flame bait somewhere else.
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 5:45 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST Alkaven, well looking above, I'd say you started rather, well undiplomatic into this. So the reaction *was* actually provoked.
Alkaven: "bad scoring is usually due to poor development" --- not a good idea to say. "That's obvious 'poor-developer' trait right there." --- not a good idea to say. When you start giving feedback, by summerizing it "all in all it shows you have bad skills" (my interpretation of sentence 1), isn't really a good way to open listining channels. If in the sentence 2, you start telling the the other hav negative traits is really a killer. If you will in future will learn about theories about human interactions, a number one rule in conflict situations is, to asperse BEHAVIOUR not TRAITS. If you want to say somebody you felt an reaction was not the way you appreciate it, say you BEHAVED not in a way I appreciate it. not you ARE in a way I don't like. |
