"being very threatening, so the do kill you"

Sorry, typing a bit fast. That should be "being very threatening, so they don't kill you"

Another thing to point out that I think tech is missing is that the old scoring is still 50% of the adjustment. Which means the game is 50% about surviving and 50% about dominating.

Your strategy can be one of these three:
1) hide and survive
2) dominate
3) dominate and survive

You'll get the most points for 3, and won't do too bad if you only do 1 or 2.

"Another thing to point out that I think tech is missing is that the old scoring is still 50% of the adjustment. Which means the game is 50% about surviving and 50% about dominating."

Aight, let's make some algebra. Let's say, surviving requires, oh, I dunno, x% strategy. and dominance requires y%. Originally, the game asks for x% strategy, now it asks for .5x% + .5y%

If y < x, then .5x% + .5y% < x%

i.e. if dominance requires less strategy that survival, half-dom half-survive requires less than just survival.

Thats wrong dicelord.

with this strategy:
"the fight and survive, even you'll be reduced to few territories later"

You'll get a high place and + points for surviving and will have done well for dominance early and not get bad points.

With this strategy:
"expand and die early"
You get negative points for 6th or 7th place and negative points for dominance since you weren't able to maintain your territories.

Were you playing the sandbox version? It doesn't sound like you've seen many games.

Q: "I just lost points for coming in 3rd. I have a feeling no one will ever flag now.

Maybe there should be some sort of a counter to show you everyone's average number of territories. Otherwise, it's impossible to tell where you are unless you have been paying complete attention the whole game."

A: During testing there was a display by your name that said AS and kept it to a decimal place. We've found it is highly distracting and confusing as well to have all that information display to the decimal point.

Coming in 2nd or 3rd now can potentially lose you points, yes. Here's an example: You all with #1 and are spared and get handed a 2nd for being an ally. If you had 1 land in the corner you have a horrible AS thus your score will look like this (+12 for second, -20 for dominance) = -8 for second.

You might be pissed at this, but think of it this way. What did you do to get that 2nd? nothing. What did a player who came in 4th do ? lets say they had 10 lands and lost the end battle vs the first place finisher.

The score rewards what was done at a glance. At a glance, you did nothing in the corner to win the game so why should you get points? At a glance, the person who came in 4th had 10 lands and was a potential threat to win the game. They go out with +0 for fourth place finish and +16 for dominance.

end result?
1st 40 some points
2nd -8
3rd 15
4th 16

if 3rd and fourth place were really the only other people who had a shot to win it is, after all is said and done, a fair assessment of points to be handed out.

(does this change strategies and how to play the game? heck yes, dont ally and sit with 2 lands or less, thats murder to your score, etc -- with time you can figure out better tactics / new tactics to employ)

As for the flagging thing, it will actually encourage flagging. Say green has 9 lands and yellow has 14. People on the side have 2 lands and flagged. 14 territory yellow wants to get 1st and end the game so he attacks green in 2nd. Since green played a great game but now looks to be losing and gets cut, he'll want to flag to preserve the AS score he got early / throughout the game.

also, if brown did great but now has 1 land
each round is now KILLING browns AS.

thus brown wants to flag IMMEDIATELY since their AS is only being hurt by each round... even to the point of attacking to suicide or win vs the leader. Better to go out 4th and get +10 points for having played well, then go out 3rd and lose 9 for having done nothing at the end.

Above post shortened, don't try and dodge the "less strategy" point because you've only made half the scoring less strategic.

edit, thats if you ALLY with first

Tech, why do you insist that dominance requires less strategy than survival. Since we don't agree on this point we can't agree on scoring.

I think what you mean is that dominance requires less of YOUR strategy, (survive and truce), and more of thinking strategy, (like chess).

Instead of going either way the rating adjustment rewards a balance of the two.

In my opinion the survive and truce strategy is less of a strategy than thinking strategy. But in the goal of a social game the first strategy is still rewarded.

"With this strategy:
"expand and die early"
You get negative points for 6th or 7th place and negative points for dominance since you weren't able to maintain your territories. "

Mebbe. say your expansion helps kills two people. and your territories (at the rounds begging) go, oh, I dunno. [insert relatively high averaged sequence of numbers] Pretty reckless. And then you die. I wonder...What's a common AS for people to get? What's the AAS? :p

@Ryan
I bring as evidence these posts form the other thread:
12:39pm vobios
3:16pm DiceLord
3:22pm, 3:27pm Ronery
3:32pm Moemar
3:54pm,4:07pm pTm

average can degrade if the game continues for a long time once you are reduced to 1 teritory.

this things do happen