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? |
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 5:49 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST BTW: Ryan came up already with a detailed scoring system some time ago, that counted expanding just as you described. The score idea was +1 points for each terrotory game, -0.5 for each terretory loss.
We discussed this long all over and put it the junk, not because of nothing. There is more thought into this than you might expect. |
|
Ryan wrote
at 7:17 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST alkaven, you're an annoying person, no offense
|
|
Wurzlbrunft wrote
at 7:25 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST This is just a first day impression, so not to be taken all too seriously. While I find that the new scoring system tackles efficiently the problem of the "8-stack-borefest", I can't help feeling that one of the (to me) major features of the game is seriously constricted: the social part. There's so much clicking and attacking that nobody's got the time to have a good old chat... As I said, just a first impression, maybe it's going to change once we are used to it.
|
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 7:28 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST I've played a few games and it looks like people are going crazy. They're clicking every possible attack.
In other words, I don't think they know what to do, a big overreaction. It may take time, but strategies will develop and truces will start happening again. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 7:29 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST Probably also the first time you've seen a forum administrator ban someone and delete all of their comments.
See ya. |
|
CHolmes011 wrote
at 7:30 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST I hate the new scoring system. It completely ruined the game I had grown to love so much. : (
|
|
|
Wurzlbrunft wrote
at 7:40 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST Alkaven, are you going to be constructive any time soon?
|
|
aliaiactasunt wrote
at 8:16 PM, Monday February 12, 2007 EST lol, I am really curious to what this "alkaven" said!
Anyways: can it be true that the new system reduces fluctuation in score? Or is it just becuause everyone is still between 1400/1600? I'm still not sure if I really like the new system THAT much, but playing will be much more fun until frustration of, statistically, not being first in 6 of 7 games starts! (hiding/surviving/whatever you want to call it just isn't as much fun anymore, because good comebacks aren't possible after 3 or 4 turns...). |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 1:18 AM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST alkaven played 1 game in total, got 7th, and behaved like a real smartass telling we are all just too stupid to make this good...
|
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 1:21 AM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST altough im my very humble opinion an improved moderation strategy might have been to ignore him, and not to play with his game. As he only got himself the way he wanted to perceive in first place.
|
