Forum


Spell out why there is ante to me (please)?
JKD wrote
at 11:11 AM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
"Hey guys, want to play this game called kdice? It's a multiplayer version of Dice Wars with same gameplay except your score is rewarded for quitting early."

With ante I would quit over half my games of Dice Wars instead of winning them all.

Another example I saw yesterday was sinth asking someone to flag when there was four players left. Buddy in first separated them all down to four territories and could've milked them for more ante but chose not to for some reason. It seems you have to play with friends to not get screwed by this. I see there is an autoflag if you're at -15, but how do you tell who gets knocked out first by this?

In theory, winning a convincing 1st place is *bad* because if you don't trick your opponents into thinking they can do better, they'll flag early. That's not a fun strategy.

The main two drawbacks I see of ante (they're small, but I don't know any benefits):
1. Instead of strategy that makes the best of a bad situation in a fun, suspenseful, random game; you quit. (Battles get reduced to boring 1vs1 at a time until everyone has flagged?)
2. It's more complicated than not having ante

In poker, it'd be like going all in with pocket Queens, and getting all your money back if you quit when the flop shows Ace or King. Anyone can do that. With ante, anyone can hope for the payoff of a risky attack and minimize their losses if it goes badly. There's no strategy left in thinking about if 4vs5 is good idea, just do it and flag when it fails.
There was a couple other minor cons that I'll reply with if I remember them while playing.

There's less skill in knowing when to flag than using strategy, you're taking away skill points and rewarding them to people who exploit bad players, just like in poker, that's not fun.

Without ante people shall still flag. Player in 3rd can say, "I'll flag if you kill off 4th." Game ends fast, everyone gets the place they deserve.

The only reason there's less 8vs8 is everyone's racing to pick off neutral/kamikaze lands. Then they quit immediately when there's a clear winner. I like 8vs8 when there's at least 3 people all going for 1st, and even 2 players is fun because there are so many people who are bad at 8vs8 (because they always flag and never played Dice Wars).

----

This is incoherent and uninformed but would still like to know the improvements ante brings and where I'm wrong. Haven't seen any topics discussing ante except that "you don't get punished as much for getting last" which can easily be accomplished without ante.

Replies 1 - 10 of 17 Next › Last »
JKD wrote
at 1:41 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
That's part of the randomness. Ante eliminates the randomness and leaves only luck in that case. Even with 6 players vs 1 from the start the one guy *can* win.
JKD wrote
at 1:41 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
But with ante he has to forfeit.
rnd wrote
at 2:38 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
JKD... you aren't seeing it.

The system as it is now rewards people who win long games -- more than people who win short games. People will stop flagging out so soon -- and start playing the game like they always did.

Simply put, that's the fairest thing to do.
JKD wrote
at 2:54 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
and in those long games, 2nd and 3rd can wait until the last minute to screw over 1st, who then loses everything.

I see a few cons and more complicated gameplay to reward the victors of long games. I don't care if someone made two million points for winning a long game. I don't see that as better than strategically crushing everyone with a good start, instead of stupidly allowing them to ally and make a comeback. This extremely highly favours people who play with friends and exploit bad players then, I just want to win a multiplayer game of Dice Wars where everyone tries their best until eliminated. Much simpler.
rnd wrote
at 3:03 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
It's a logical paradox to have "strategically" in the same sentence as "good start".

If you play the game right, even if second and third gang up on first towards the end of the game -- the person who was winning would take most of the points with them by flagging. (Another proof that the system is a "Good Thing")

Playing with friends is also 'selected against' by the new rules -- since most of the points go towards the "One True Winner" -- and to get a real good juice from the game, you have to screw everyone else (possible friends included). People playing alone will grow exponentially faster than those with 'friends' -- watch and see. :)
JKD wrote
at 3:15 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
So you're saying if there was no ante: the player in 1st can't "take most of the points with them by flagging" and "go towards the 'One True Winner'"

You can have all this without ante.
JKD wrote
at 3:18 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
My second quote cut off at the beginning, whoops:

* and you're saying you need ante for more points to go towards the "One True Winner," (and cause playing with friends to be negatively affected).
rnd wrote
at 3:24 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
No. I'm saying you need ante to reward hard struggles.
JKD wrote
at 3:58 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
Okay. I gave two examples where rewarding hard struggles directly creates incentive for unfair play. Plus ante adds complication and other drawbacks that I've said. Plus I don't want to miss out on points for doing the best I could to make sure I win (instead of letting my opponents think they have a chance). Making long games worth more is frustrating and creates more incentive/rewards for unfair play; doing it with ante is even worse.

So I don't think it's worth it.

The examples I gave were:
a) If someone controls a 4-player game, they can let me and the other two players think we're all going to get 2nd, so 1st stalls the game, gets bonus unfair ante points, and gets away with it because I don't know him. With no ante, the player in first has less incentive to be greedy and more incentive to end the game quickly. This shall result in more games where 1st is honest about who he's going to kill, so they can flag to end the game faster. And 2nd-4th don't get gypped out of ante points.

b) I'm in 1st, but not in control. Logically I should finish at least 2nd if they trust my threats and care about time. But they ignore me and ally to put me in 3rd. Plus since they know how each other plays they wait until the last minute to ally, get extra ante points, and get away with it because I don't know who they are. With no ante they can still double team me, but since there's less incentive it's easier for me to hold a grudge, and I don't get screwed out of as many points.
rnd_ wrote
at 4:29 PM, Tuesday September 4, 2007 EDT
While I understand your example, and agree that the game is exploitable that way; this is the rare case -- not the norm. Both of your examples are easily defeated if you simply learn who you are playing against. At the low tables, this may not be possible, but believe me; at the high tables -- it is.

Slowly winning and convincing others that you are a strong, dominating first -- while a valid strategy that upon success will give you extra points -- is also hugely risky, and may result in you losing the game.. There are ways to garner points from the system without 'tricking' anyone. Think about it some more.
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006 - 2026
GAMES
G GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
K KDice
Online Strategy
X XSketch
Online Pictionary