"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 insisted on that to make the point that "the point Tech keeps missing", doesn't answer the question.

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

Pff. Chess? See, refer back a bit. Dominance requires you to get more land, true?

Tech, whats your question? All I see is you making claims.

"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."

Strategy: n.

A plan of action intended to accomplish a specific goal

There is no 'less of a strategy'. What's that supposed to mean? They intend to get points less? The goal is less specific?

"Tech, whats your question? All I see is you making claims. "

*shrug* Someone had to take care of the orphaned "This game is more about luck than strategy now" statment. Otherwise it simple would have been dismissed with naught but rhetoric. and I think it should be treated just as fairly as a statement such as "This new thing is AWESOME".

Sides, debate is a fun mental experience. I'm enjoying this, don't get too personal with this sort of thing. Otherwise it won't be fun for you.

tech, you are contradicting yourself:

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

and

"There is no 'less of a strategy'. What's that supposed to mean? They intend to get points less? The goal is less specific? "


My response was in response to this first claim.

Honestly, I will leave this thread to Gunvagr. I've spent many hours testing and refining the system with the players generous enough to share their time in the sandbox. The new ratings work and make the game more fun.

I'll probably wait a month or so before revisting this argument.

Situation;
A + B are truced and just reduced C to 1 territory, while hey each have 14.

current average sizes are:

round x:
A 5
B 6
C 8

c is flaged, but A and B refuse that.
after enough rounds the averages will be:

round y:
A 14
B 14
C 1

What will be the adjustments if game ended at round x versus round y.

C was the dominant player early, he was brought down by an alliance, and if the game ends at round y he will most likely get less points than people that finished 4th, 5th maybe even 6th.

One last thing for tech: I'm not taking this personal its just a bit frustrating... and now I understand why since you're arguing for the sake of argument.

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

and

"There is no 'less of a strategy'. What's that supposed to mean? They intend to get points less? The goal is less specific? "
"

I'm sorry, it was a bit ambigous.
The first statment is that there are fewer distinct strategies, 'plans of action, etc..."
The second statment is that any two distinct strategies are equally strategies.

There are now fewer strategies.
There is no strategy that is less of a strategy.

It may not be very successful, or appealing, but it's just as much a strategy as any other. And now there are fewer of them.

"One last thing for tech: I'm not taking this personal its just a bit frustrating... and now I understand why since you're arguing for the sake of argument."

Arguement? Such degrading terminology.

Debates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
"Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates."