Forum
suggested change of distribution algorithm
|
Ryan wrote
at 1:24 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST
Currently dice are distributed randomly over your territories. The effect of this is that on average fuller territories get as many dice as empty territories. This makes the probability of fuller territories becoming full higher than less full territories.
The strategy that comes out of this effect is to wait with a full territory until its maxed and then move one by one most likely always getting filled up each turn. The reason this is bad is because if someone gets a large stack at the begining they have quite a bit more power than players with even stacks. This is a lot of power due to the random algorithm. THE SUGGESTED CHANGE: Instead of distributing dice one by one to a random territory number the algorithm should randomly distribute to an available dice spot. So if a territory only has one dice it has 7 available spots. If a territory has 7 dice it has one available spot. The less full territory is 7 times more likely to get a dice. When it gets one it is 6 times more likely...etc. The effect of this is that on average dice will even out across your territories. Its important to note that the distribution is still random. This change I believe would make a fairer game and I'm posting here to get some feedback first. |
|
TheGrid wrote
at 3:36 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST The problem about players sitting with one country in a corner and stacking up is the problem with the current kdice scoring. They often finish at a high place, altough they play badly. Thats what people think its unfair if they finish e.g. 3rd or even 2nd. They have 0 chances to win the game... never the less as they are in the beginning to highly stacked for everyone else, but in the ending no threat the finish high place.
Solution would be to fix kdice scoring. As I told you already many times, 2nd finishing player often did not play more bad than e.g. 6th. Sometimes when beeing fast a dominator, its up to your free disposal in which order you kill of players. Did any of them play better? Therefore Score ONLY for player 1. Or at least Score for player 1 MUCH MUCH better than the remaining scores. For a fun game, all players should strive for place 1, not for place 3 by sitting in a corner. Or to improve their place by ignoring the dominator and attack even smaller players to finish just after him. "I will die happy, if you die first". It just sucks. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 3:39 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST Yeah, sitting may becomes more of a problem. I'll get a server up to test this stuff out. I'm sure there is a solution to all of these problems where we can still keep the games simplicity.
|
|
|
TheGrid wrote
at 3:40 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST E.g. If you are weak, make alliances with other weaks, to get a big player down - its often possible! And hope to be bigger player after that ;)
|
|
|
TheGrid wrote
at 3:42 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST Ryan:
FIX SCORE, FIX SCORE, FIX SCORE :) Its not actually a part of the game, but has tremendously impact on how the game is played! BTW: Otherwise im totaly for the 16 dices, if there are no friends for "big dices" solution. |
|
|
TheGrid wrote
at 3:46 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST Oh and since now this whole game is somewhat established.
Pre prepared that whatevery you are doing at best at least 50% are against it. Its human nature to avoid change. However after a few days whatever has changed this 50% against every change will be all for it to keep it as it has been changed ;) |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 4:02 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST SCORING SUGGESTION:
Keep track of winning attacks per player. When a player is eliminated they are ranked based on their attack wins. A player that has dominated the board will have a lot of attack wins and be first. A player that sits the the corner will have 0 wins and be last. A player that fights a lot but eventually loses will probably have quite a few wins. Technically the scoring algorithm is like this: - calculate estimated finishing position based on ELO rating when game starts. - keep track of wins per player for each player - when a player is eliminated calculate position by comparing winning attack count with other players. - adjust rating based on estimate vrs actual position |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 4:03 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST Oh, and the attack value that I use to compare player to determine position is:
attack wins + total attacks/2 This number rewards for attacking activity but more so for wins. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 4:04 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST actually the above has the problem that you can raise you score by attack back and forth a lot
|
|
|
TheGrid wrote
at 4:05 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST Ryan, sounds very good to me!
Maybe it should be weighed on how many dice were sleign? So cound how many dice were win-attacked by a player? I don't know. |
|
|
TheGrid wrote
at 4:08 PM, Friday December 29, 2006 EST well if you attack back and forth a lot, you were holding tight waters for a longer time or?
First player shuold never the less always be first and winner. Even when i hadn't the most attacks... |
