Forum
Scoring update information
|
Ryan wrote
at 10:29 AM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST
The sandbox has tested a new way to adjust ratings with the goal of making kdice a better game. The results have been mostly positive. The changes mean that strategies that worked in the other version may not work with the new version. You may have played hundreds of games a certain way and it may be difficult to adjust. But our goal is to make an all round better game experience. So keep an open mind and try pick up the strategy. So far it seems to be closer in game play to the original to Dice Wars.
<b style="color:#000">Rating Adjustment 1:</b> This is the same as the old adjustment. You get more points for placing higher relative to your opponents rating. It isn't valued as much however since there is a second adjustment. <b style="color:#000">Rating Adjustment 2:</b> This adjustment ranks you against other players based on your average territory count at the beginning of each turn. When you are knocked out your rank is calculated and an adjustement is made. |
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 5:10 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST read this again:
"that's not what i meant dicelord. i don't like the new system either. but what can we do? one thing i can see happening a lot is if you have a bad placement at the start, you'll be begging people to kill you when you still have 4 or 3 territories, instead of getting killed and have 1 left and drag on.....thus hurting your AS. This game is more about luck than strategy now." |
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 5:11 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST Yes, its a stupid argument. Leave it out in future please.
I hear it in daily talk also. When people giving ideas about this or that on local politics, they get the stupid response. "Nobody forces you to life here, take it or emigrate!". I am sure you heared such "arguments" as well in your life. They are stupid, and I do ask them not to reproduce them. |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 5:12 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST "i don't like the new system either. but what can we do?"
You can go to the forums, and explain your problem. Thats what other peoples did. :-) |
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 5:14 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST "Leave it out in future please."
may be, may be not. i don't let people tell me to shut up or what to do. your opinion is as valuable as mine. |
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 5:16 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST "You can go to the forums, and explain your problem. Thats what other peoples did. :-)"
that's exactly what i did. read carefully. |
|
Tech wrote
at 5:17 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST Ryan:
So we're removing a commonly used strategy. And telling people to find a new strategy. And just -oh so subtly- hinting that this new strategy -might- be "take more land". And, yeah, I see how that could be closer in gameplay to the original dicewars. You know, the game with the coputer opponents who made every favorable attack possibly cuz they were programmed to? If our goal is the original dicewars, I've got some great ideas on how you can get the AI to work -just- right. |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 5:18 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST I merly apply to your common sense, to rethink about this "take it or leave it" in future discussions. As you know I cannot order anything. I guess we got a consensus here, and everything beeing said that is to be said, we can stop this off-topic discussion here to not spam this thread all too much :-)
|
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 5:19 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST how tech?
|
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 5:19 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST "that's exactly what i did. read carefully."
Thats what sandybell did as well. |
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 5:20 PM, Saturday February 10, 2007 EST you are the one who started it. i merely posted my comment and you responded because you don't like mine.
|