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. |
« First
‹ Previous
Replies 11 - 17 of 17
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 2:06 PM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST "The goal of the game is to gain territory. Dice are just the means."
This is one way to view it, but not the only one. For me its "The goal of the game is to remove others dices. Territories are just the means." :) |
|
DealOrNoDeal wrote
at 2:07 PM, Monday February 19, 2007 EST Any scoring system will favor one strategy or the other.
Ryan, how about my question with the domination calculation. Is it always from start to now? or since last player was killed? thanks |
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 7:32 AM, Tuesday February 20, 2007 EST Fighting back has it’s benefits. But the question is, when you are not dominating, say in 3rd or 4th place, with 3 or less connecting territories, can YOU come back? The other question is, if you were down to 2/3 territories and came back to, say 8-10 territories, how many rounds do you have to go (with 8-10 territories) before it would positively impact your AS/dominance score?
I also noticed that I am losing a lot 8v8, 7v7, 6v6, 5v5, 4v4, 3v3 moves. Funny enough, almost every time, I lost with the same dice total. For example, 30/42-30/42, 18/24-18/24, 10/18-10/18….you get the idea, right? I don’t seem to see such as often in the old system. If what is happening now is right, does it mean that the old system is not/flawed? |
|
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 10:28 AM, Tuesday February 20, 2007 EST Alpha1,
Regarding dice rolls, it is simply the law of averages. Over time, you'll see a streak of rolls that SEEM to have a pattern outside of what probability would suggest. However, if you look at those rolls among the total of all rolls, there is absolutely nothing unusual about them. Also, it is a human tendency to notice those things that confirm a suspicion, and ignore those things that don't. I bet if you kept track of every single roll for a statistically significant amount of time, you would see that there is nothing unusual about the rolls. The only way there would be something wrong is either Ryan designed it that way (which would make no sense - what purpose other than to screw with our minds) or he programmed it wrong by accident (again makes no sense since programming a random event is not complicated). |
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 5:29 PM, Tuesday February 20, 2007 EST i understand what you are saying and you are absolutely right. but how come those odd rolls seems to happen more often after the new scoring system is introduced?
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 6:31 PM, Tuesday February 20, 2007 EST Dice rolls are handled exactly as before. Nothing was touched.
Oh, I might need to say it just one more time.... No code was touched that determines dice rolls. |
|
Always Trucing wrote
at 4:18 AM, Wednesday February 21, 2007 EST @alpha:
There are just many more attacks with the new scoring systems. Most player tend to play riskier than before so we just see more constellations with similar dice-counts. |
