"This game is more about luck than strategy now"

Can you explain this one?

I'd say the opposite is true and I have quite a bit to back it up.

Luck always plays a factor in this game. There are dice. People have seen 8 stacks lose to 4's, 5 stacks lose to 2s, I've ever witnessed my 8 stack lose to a 3 stack, but thankfully it was at the end and I had the game basically won anyways.

Luck is inevitable. With the old system OR the new one, if someone gets a GREAT resupply that defends the front line or holds together a key chokepoint that's just luck.

With the new scoring system however, there is quite a bit of control you have. For instance. (old scoring system) How many games quickly turn into 8v8 matches where the whole map is all max stacks? It happens a lot and often in early rounds. I don't know about you, but i find that stage of the game to be more boring than the middle and begging where there is so much action (and cutting) and expansion to secure an area of the map or a corner.

8v8s equate to the end-game and usually it's a LOT of luck since its just who can get the first cut. (more 8v8 matches tend to occur *or occured in earlier rounds and much more often with the previous system*)

Consider this, you have a LOT more control over your luck and your odds when the board is open. If there are 5 stacks and 3 stacks and 1 dice lands you can choose how to run around.

Should you risk a 5v4 to secure a corner? or should you link the 'safer' way by going around and killing a 2 stack with your 5 dice.

You have more choices now in that aspect.



Another point, there are now tremendous amounts of opportunities to cut people. Since many players will likely expand a little more and have 'thinner' stacks due to slightly more aggressive play, there are many more opportunities during the game to cut people thus severely hurting their dice gain.

My last point, normally if you start last in the first round you pretty much have a death sentence and you would be lucky to make it 4th or better. But now if you are the last or second last to play a move in round one you get an extra die in your stacks somewhere. Thus, you have a higher chance of surviving. In that way, you have maybe 2 four stacks to play with instead of a 3 stack because everyone mowed you down. In this sense you have more of a chance TO HAVE a chance if you catch my drift.

there's more points but this is getting long

You still want to play sensibly and that's a hard thing to remember. Expansion and aggressive play is good, but dont go so thin you always end up going out 7th. Remember, AS is an AVERAGE. So if you have 2 lands at first for a round or two, but play smart so that three rounds later you have 8 lands and can hold it, your average will be in the middle, somewhere around 4 or 5 lands a turn.

There are a few more points as well but this is getting long.

I like what you said in response to this question once ryan. "If by strategy you mean truces, then yes".

"(more 8v8 matches tend to occur *or occured in earlier rounds and much more often with the previous system*) "

I've seen no such thing. The only thing that could do that was 16 dice, if I remember correctly.

"there are many more opportunities during the game to cut people thus severely hurting their dice gain. "

So, all the people using the same strategy, cutting people. It just depends on how often you get that -chance-. If everyones doing the exact same thing, there isn't much strategy at all. What choices have been created? There's now one option, "attack it". Or, you can call it "dominance"

in general (and it was easier to see this when the sandbox was open AND I could play the previous system) I played a bunch of games on test, then played a bunch on normal, then back to test - to compare the game play, it was phenomenal how different the games were

and in general, I did find that games tended to fill into all 8 stack matches faster with the 'old' scoring - hard to prove that with evidence but I did notice it quite a bit. Simply because there was much more motivation to play with the AS factor involved in the new scoring.



you can spread thin and be agressive trying to get a high AS, or you can play conservatively, get 3 lands and build up up up while others spread, then expand and hold a lot of territories.

this is just one new strategy

The Attack - Attack - Attack mindset is one that I will try hard to explain. It does NOT make sense in all situations. The AS (average size) score counts how many lands you have at the START of your turn.

Therefore, expanding to 10 lands in the beginning (for example) is a HORRIBLE idea since you are apt to lose it all. If you have 3 lands when it is your turn again your AS is 3 for that round.

(that idea of spreading is fine if u secure an entire peninsula, but you get my point)

Note that I did not call what Ryan refers to as dominance "attack ,attack, attack". I said "Attack it". Attack any point on your border weak enough to attack, reasonably. It's an okay strategy. But if, hypothetically, it were the only strategy, then the game wouldn't really be about the strategy one uses at all.

And, ey, you percive it how you might. And I see it how I might. But before factual claims are made, let's get some numbers.

Lets not confuse "strategy" with "goal". You had many different "goals" in the old system that gave you score. "Like stay small, ally with a strong way, die late." Many people disliked this (including me). Now the new system commonly promotes the one goal "concuer the whole map". What we actually wanted to do. You still have several strategies to do this. Therefore if you perceive these reduced ways to get a decent score, the change was a success.

Thats a good point fuzzy.

That secondary goal of the old system allowed people with high 2nd place percentages to dominate the top 25. This meant that it was the most effective goal.

Fuzzycat:
Not confuse goals you say. Alright, here's the goal. Get more points. In the old version, you get more points by staying alive longer than other people. This is the goal. Strategies involve, being non threating, so they don't kill you, being very threatening, so the do kill you, having a truce with them, so they don't kill you, kill them1 before them2 kills you, etc. There are various ways to get people to die before you. Now, how do you get points? The above, plus "have more land that other people". List for me, please, the manners in which one can gain land.

I think a lot of dislike with the new scoring has a lot to do with the fact people arent quite familiar with how it works.

So if anyone has another Q post it.