In the old version starting position was very important, bad start and you were screwed for half the game... somebody would have grown faster and bigger than you, then he would be stopped by the other players because he was dominating too much. so if you played conservately with your bad starting position you would still have a nice game, not ?

you could play and maybe win it with tactic and strategy.

Now, the new game.
The games I've played mostly turned out like this: everybody rushes for domains, when somebody is very big, most players flag, game over...


So, the old game used to be longer, but more fun.. I hate being dependant of starting position, and losing the game because i blew the wrong big-stack

Starting position is very important, especially when people seem to go very thin in order to get as much domination points as possible.

What I like about the new game is that rarely does it end with 4 or 5 people all 8-stacking their lands leading to a see-saw battle at the end.

I agree.... it seems the old version was more about strategy. With the right strategy and diplomacy you could build 2 or 3 teritories up and win the game. Now its too dangerous to try that because you will lose a lot of points. Better to just flag.

I vehemently disagree. In the new version, if you get a terrible start you can flag on round 3 for minimal losses. In the old version, if you got a terrible start you were going to get socked with a massive ELO loss for 7th place.

This was particularly true at the top of your table range. Did you never hear people complaining towards the end of the ELO system that it was far easier to keep a 2050 ELO than a 1950 ELO?

It's because being in the top of your table range you'd end up with ridiculous scoring like +15 for 1st and -40 for 7th. And if you got a bad start, there was NOTHING you could to about it but bend over.

To make it to the next level (or for the 2kers, top ELO spots) it wasn't enough to have a decent win percentage, you needed some lucky streaks where you got a lot of wins in a row with no 6ths or 7ths.

This new system is way more fair in that regard.

i totally agree. it's about taking chances, when in turn depends on your luck.

Of course... let's all read the top banner of this page.....

kdice
Online Strategy Game

Well, with this new system, and i hate to join in with the long list of complainers, it's become an Online Game of Luck. Mostly dependent on your start. You say, well, if you get a bad start, just flag early so you don't lose as many points as you used to. Well. That boils the game down to how lucky you are in round 1. You get a bad placement, lose a 5v3, and well, your game is over, luck was not on your side, and throw any strategy out the door. It pains me to say this, because I know Ryan and Sinth put a lot of work into this new version of kdice, but it needs some major tweaking.

Its not all about luck, I want to see you do the shittiest moves and depend on your luck to win it. It won't happen. Getting a bad start was the same thing with the Old Version, you were screwed. If you lose a 5v3 in round 1 in the new or old version, you would have to sit back with your two little lands and hope to take a higher place than some of the other people losing. But with the new version, you can actually flag and take minimal points, that in itself is strategy. Knowing when to flag and when to stick in a little bit. You are not gonna get a good start every game, so learn how to deal with the sucky ones.

All these are valid points. But let's face it, a lot of people would stop complaining if a simple change was made: the point allocations. Right now, #1 gets almost all the points, #2 might suck up a few (avg of 4 mind you, so not very close at all).

Early flaggers due to bad starts is fine, but for 3rd place and 4th place flagging very quickly, the end game goes out the window. If 4th through 1st had more evenly weighted point spreads, they could stick around and battle it out, making it less luck based.

I think that allocating a minimum number of points based on position isnt a bad idea, or at least a very simplified remedy. I know it sort of works like that now, but it still needs to be tweaked. If 1st got +30, 2nd +15, 3rd+5, 4th +0 (all very rough estimates), then i think the end game would be far more strategic, more like the old game.

Just my 2 cents, but I like the old rules and overall experience a lot better.

@decalotus2:

It's not that easy.. the points have to come from *somewhere*. I've done the math 13 ways and the only way to have more positive points at the top is to royally wreck the people at the bottom.