Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
The effect dominance has on coming back - post 2
|
Vohaul wrote
at 8:51 PM, Sunday February 18, 2007 EST
My first post was either ignored or deleted, but the fact remains that dominance in it's current form STRONGLY punishes any attempts to stage a comeback later in the game. Outside of the 1st and 7th place players, spots 2-6 are essentially the same value to a player who gets behind.
In this example from my own play, the 4th and 5th players were the former 1st and 2nd place players with 9 territories each. The 1st-3rd players are myself and 2 players who only had 5-6 territories left and tried to fight back after fighting with each other/top 2 players most of the game. At the end, the territories were 1-2-9-18 for 2 turns before flags were raised. abmoraz1's turn mattman8129 surrenders and finishes 4th. Rank: 1037th Rating: +1 1562. (-2 for 4th and +3 for dominance) mattman8129 stands up SilentRecoil surrenders and finishes 3rd. Rank: 5079th Rating: +2 1435. (+8 for 3rd and -6 for dominance) SilentRecoil stands up Vohaul surrenders and finishes 2nd. Rank: 663rd Rating: -2 1593. (+7 for 2nd and -9 for dominance) Vohaul stands up abmoraz1 finishes 1st. Rank: 780th Rating: +32 1582. (+14 for 1st and +18 for dominance) abmoraz1 stands up As it stands, only first place gets the benefit of fighting back (the 1st place bonus of territories held at the end). 4th annd 3rd place get a total of +3 combined, and 2nd place gets -2 points! There's no benefit of losing early in a tough position, and there's no benefit in fighting back. This post isn't just to rant, but to illustrate how the final dominance points are distributed in what amounts to a zero sum game (winner takes it all). If the 2nd and 3rd place finishers were allowed the 1st place bonus (the dominance of territories held at the end), there would be hope for the final players to at least attempt a real comeback. |
|
|
Vohaul wrote
at 8:55 PM, Sunday February 18, 2007 EST Just checking the math once again to clarify one "error". If the 3rd place finisher had received the +5 rather than +8 bonus, they would have received -1 points (5 + -6). Which means that the 4th-2nd place players would have an overall NEGATIVE value of -2 (+1, -1, and -2)!
|
|
DealOrNoDeal wrote
at 1:42 AM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST Good point.
Dominance is based on average size at certain points T1, T2,T3 ... Ryan is the average computed for the time intervals [0,T1], [0,T2]? maybe havin it [T(i),T(i+1)] instead will help with the comeback issue. |
|
swiver wrote
at 4:17 AM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST I dont see the problem
Claiming that fighting back has no use is wrong. They still get a much better ranking than if they would just have resigned, in which case they would get bad rankings from both position and dominance. This way, they come out close to zero although pretty weak throughout the first part of the game. Seems fair enough for me. |
|
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 10:22 AM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST Swiver,
I agree. You absolutely do benefit from coming back, even if you aren't 1st overall. You may not get huge benefit from it, but that isn't a problem. If the guy who was first for most of the game gets chewed up by 2nd and 3rd, he should still get plenty of points for doing well most of the game. And that is the way it works now. It has taken me a while to get used to the new scoring and develop strategies, but I am working my way up now and love the new scoring. It is far superior to the old scoring system. |
|
Ryan wrote
at 10:54 AM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST I agree with swiver.
If there was not a come back instead of coming out about even you would get approx -30. I think what Vohaul is trying to point out is that coming from behind like this is a hard thing to do and probably should have more value than breaking even. However, from the scores it seems like 5th, 6th, and 7th probably had positive dom points. My guess is that there were two sets of allies. The first set dominated the early game and the second set dominated the late game. At the end of the came the second set of allies surrenders and probably shares dominance points across 4 players. If Vohaul took out his other allies, 3rd and 4th, he might have done better. But this would probably have other complications and may not be possible so surrender is probably the best bet. Its an interesting situation. |
|
z3dd wrote
at 10:54 AM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST This simply illustrates the fact that there is no benefit of surrendering unless you have been in a strong second for the whole game.
|
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 11:44 AM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST z3dd, not entirely. If the four of them were allies then but 2nd not surrendering he might get allied against and lose position.
|
|
|
DealOrNoDeal wrote
at 12:55 PM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST What it illustartes is tha slowly building and becoming a force is rewarded less, than having some size for a while without any chance of becoming strong (like having lots of one and two dice stacks poorly connected).
|
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 1:08 PM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST The only thing wrong with having a few dice on some territories is that it makes them attack targets.
The goal of the game is to gain territory. Dice are just the means. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 1:14 PM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST Howie, you're right. If you slowly build you miss out on early round dom points. If someone is able to build quickly and dominate early rounds they will get more points if they win.
I think this is arguable which one takes more strategy/skill. I think it may be a bit harder to be successful in early rounds and hold on to that to win the game than to grow slowly. However if you grow slowly and win you will still get more points than players who dominated in the early rounds. |
