Can someone please explain the new scoring system in German. I have gotten word that there are some players who don't have real good english skills and are frustrated that they don't understand what the dominance score is. I really enjoyed PTM's explanation of the strategy adjustment.. anyone care to translate it or paraprase it in Deutsch?

@Amare Stoudemire, I don't think high score in the old system must be actually much worth?

Why? I got 2 accounts, with the first I went easily over 2000 with early kdice settings, it sits now at 1900 for 1 month not playing. The other is around 1600... However I don't think I got worse in kdice playing :-)

Radioactive Egg:

You have 36% second place and 18% first place. I fully expect players with this strategy to be frustrated with the fact that it no longer works to get you a high score. And I also understand if its too much for you to adjust to .

@Lindsay: @your service

Meiner bescheidenen Meinung nach ist das neue
Bewertungssystem besser als das alte.

Weiters denke ich, man muss seine Strategie nicht unbedingt verändern.
Niemand weiß wirklich wie er/sie mit der Dominanzbewertung umgehen soll.

Jeder denkt, er/sie muss um eine bessere AS (durchschnittliche Größe) zu bekommen jetzt mehr angreifen
Aber Domainanz war schon teil vom alten kdice: Man versucht größer zu werden um den 1ten oder 2ten Platz zu bekommen.
Aber da gabs auch eine andere Strategie: Tue nichts und verbünde dich mit den starken Jungs (Mädels :-)!
Die meisten denken, dass ist unfair, da diese Spieler den 2ten Platz nicht verdienen. Das neue System benachteiligt solche Alianzen.
Das Problem ist, dass jeder sich auf die Dominanzbewertung konzentriert, die sinnlos ist. Wenn man die Möglichkeit hat, 1ter, 2ter oder 3ter zu werden, muss man nicht mehr angreifen als sonst. Das endet nur in ein "ich nehme 2 Felder, du nimmst 2 Felder", welches dich schwächt. Und du bekommst auch keine Domminanzpunkte dafür!
Ich weiß, dass jeder in eine situation sein wird, wo er nur ein Feld hat. Es macht noch immer keinen Sinn einen Selbstmordangreif zu starten. Man kann versuchen länger zu überleben um mehr Punkte nach dem Bewertungsschema 1 zu bekommen.
Wenn du der kleinste bist, musst du dich nicht sorgen, dass du mehr Punkte verlieren wirst.
Wenn du am Leben bleibst, und da ist ein Spieler mit noch kleiner AS (durchschnittliche Größe): wenn du stirbst deine Dominanzbewertung ist 2 oder 3 Punkte größer, aber deine andere bewertung ist 3 oder 4 Punkte geringer.
Es ist nachwievor die beste Strategie sich mit dem stärksten Spieler zu verbünden.
Du bekommst keine hohe Dominanzbewertung, da du nicht vieler Felder bekommst, somit ist deine einzige Möglichkeit zumindest als zweiter das Spiel zu beenden.
Mit dem neuen System kann niemand sagen: "das ist unfair!", da du nicht soviele Punkte bekommst, und andere nicht soviele Punkte verlieren.

Manche Spielen sagen, es ist mehr Glück im Spiel involviert, wenn man mehr angreift.
Ich denke, es *ist* mehr Glück, wenn Spielen mit gleichstarken Stapel versuchen sich gegenseitig anzugreifen, aber diese Strategie wird verlieren, da die Wahrscheinlich für einen glücklichen Wurf kleiner als 50% ist.
Wenn Spieler nur kleinere Stapel angreifen, aber so viele wie möglich, ist das Spiel nicht weitgehender von Glück bestimmt als bisher. Es ist nur chaotischer, da man nicht weiß wie die Würfel besetzt werden, und du weißt nicht wie sich andere in der Situation verhalten werden.

Vielleicht denkst du, die Spiele sind jetzt doof, weil jeder diese "angreifen, angreifen, angreifen" Strategie fährt. Es ist sehr leicht diese Spieler zu besiegen indem man sehr konservativ spielt.
Ich denke die Phönixspieler stimmen zu, dass das die beste Strategie ist.
Zusammendfassend sage ich: Es ist ein neues Bewertungssystem, aber kein neues Spiel!

PS: Sag nicht ich liege falsch, wenn du das neue System nicht verstehst.

Bis bald auf den 1900er Tischen, nächste Woche ;-)!
-pTm

"Das Problem ist, dass jeder sich auf die Dominanzbewertung konzentriert, die sinnlos ist"
nicht "die" sondern WAS sinnlos ist.

Ansonsten bekommst du von mir eine 1- für die tolle Übersetzung. Außerdem danke dass du das für mich übernommen hast. :-)

Sinth makes a very good point:

"...I wouldn't mind some variance between how many points you lose as 7th vs 2nd, but let's face it, coming in 7th usually has more to do with bad luck than anything and currently feels very overpenalized."

It would be a good idea to make the variance between 7th an 5th /very/ small. Going out 7th usually means 1) bad starting position, or 2) really dumb gameplay in the beginning.

I'm not sure on what the mix is between those two things, but in any event, it would prevent the frustration of 'seemingly' always going last or by having all of your disparate 'big stacks' surrounded by even bigger ones.

Theres some misconceptions I have seen while reading these posts. Let me try and straighten some things out:

Your average size is only used to give you a ranking within the game - and average size is what determines your dominance ranking. This means that if 1st place has a higher average size by .1 than second place - they get the same amount of dominance points as if they had a higher average size by 50. It doesnt matter HOW DOMINANT YOU ARE - just that you are MORE dominant than the other people. So the theory of 1st place "extending the game" only serves to waste everyones time.

Also - spreading yourself thin or "suiciding" to increase your average size in fact -doesnt- help. This is because average size is calculated at the BEGINNING of your turn - not the end. You have to suicide attack AND THEN keep all the gained territories to increase your average size. But if you manage to keep those territories - shouldn't that attack then be rewarded anyways?

The average size score also keeps people from sitting off to the side with one territory the whole game. Their average size should be the lowest in the board, and therefore they should lose points due to dominance. Because ranking itself has been de-emphasized, the net point's from a match should thus be negative for that player. It encourages lone players to take chances and attack surrounding territories in an effort to increase their average size, and thus rank higher for dominance.

Try thinking from this perspective: whoever has more territory is obviously playing better, correct? Nevermind that luck may have played a huge part in their size. Its still a matter of whoever is bigger should be feared. The use of average size/dominance is supposed to reward players who have played well, but been a victim of sometimes unfair truces. So the 2 territory guy who truces with first place ends up getting second, but in the end has a lower average size, thus a much lower dominance score, and therefore ends up gaining much less points than the person who got third. So if you think about it, the new system emphasizes smart play and playing to win.

I think the result of the system will be that people will start "playing to win" instead of "playing to get points." I think this is why people such as "radioactive egg" are so angry about the new system: they rely on truces to get a higher ranking. Instead of playing to win, he creates truces in order to survive and increase his score. This strategy is no longer viable.

From my perspective - instead of wussing out against a viable opponent and trucing, he should stand his ground and attack. In the end, with good strategy, he should come out with a much higher score and ranking. Of course - if his strategies are inferior to the players around him, you should see his ranking start to fall.

But this is just my argument and analysis of the new system. Ive talked many times to Ryan about the inner-workings of the new system, and in the end I think it is a much better system for rating TRUE skill and strategy because in the end - thats what the new system is suppoosed to do, right?

@morningsleepy
The algorithm is not explained, but people make wild guesses. We had a guru on the other thread realizing that he was talking nonses based on wrong assumptions, after of course ansering lots of questions.

Your post is also *wishful thinking*, there are deficiencies in the new algorithm and they show up in normal play. I reposted for you my post from the other thread. There several real life situations posted there were not explained.

So, do you know the details of the algorithm? Do you knowthe exact formulas?
If you answered NO please stop confusing us with your BS.

REPOST:
Just finished a game. I fought for first, I was leading but while I finished the 3rd place player. the second cut me and had more dice. Anyway I flaged and finished second.

My dominance adjustment: -1

Sounds good?

so it seems that you really need to dominate the early rounds, especially if players are eliminates at that point.

Can we see the *algorithm*, at least will know what to "adapt to", it will help a lot those that have "difficulty to adapt to the new system", to quote a popular expression ...

It seems like a lot of players are now playing to aggressively because they don't understand the effect the adjustment well, they are over compensating. It seems like people will start realizing this and stop complaining once they think it through.

this new system sucks