Forum
The one critical part of dice wars that is missing.
|
call this bluff wrote
at 9:25 AM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT
The changes seemed to be introduced so that the game would go quicker (it does), people would be more aggressive (they are). Basically, get closer to its multiplayer dice wars roots.
However, I just remembered one facet of dice wars. As soon as you become the largest country on the map, the other teams all stop attacking each other, and only attack you. Therefore the mid-to-endgame is still difficult. In the new kdice system (in my limited experience), it seems that if you become the largest on the map, instead of everyone ganging up on you, they increase the amount of attacks on each other, because they start fighting for 2nd, 3rd, etc.... Which is warped. No valor, no dice wars. Lots of rats in a bucket. And I don't like rats. Just my $0.02 |
|
Ryan wrote
at 9:41 AM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT good idea!
It will only be a matter of time before many players realize that the guy in the lead is taking the most points away from you. If you want more points it makes more sense to gang up on the leader than to fight for 2nd or 3rd. |
|
|
call this bluff wrote
at 9:47 AM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT Thanks, Ryan. At the beginning of each game, can you have these words of wisdom scroll past the battlefield to remind everyone of this truth?
I still like the new system more than the old. Good stuff. |
|
MADRE wrote
at 10:40 AM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT Yes, Its fine:
I could defendmyself from first, win the second (I was third) and all I got was: MADRE's turn MADRE surrenders and finishes 2nd in round 29. Rank: 3141st Score: -5 to 4â—†. (+3 for 2nd and -8 for dominance) MADRE stands up See ya! |
|
integral wrote
at 10:48 AM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT I totally agree with you but for the most part most players play the I just want positive points card and they don't go after first, instead try to get second/third etc.
They have more incentive to kill players off than fight a losing battle vs the strongest opponent. The top players is riddled with this behaviour and is the main reason I've stopped competitively playing. I honestly don't know how you fix it unless you make winning everything, but again, there's problems there too. |
|
suckmyballs wrote
at 11:36 AM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT there's more game theory here than a bunch of AI bots attacking the largest opponent.. you have individual players with individual self interests -- even though the game is modeled on dice wars -- its not in each players best interest to 'gang up on first' unless *everyone* does it -- just one person who decides it might be in their best interest to ally with first (and take second from the 'gang') changes the whole dynamic of the game.
such is life -- if you don't want to play with *real* people, don't. ;p |
|
JKD wrote
at 12:06 PM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT Comments:
1. If you care about 1st then you may need to encourage people to take him down maybe as early as round 1, instead of complaining about when he allies and walks away with the game 10 rounds later. I've never seen anyone fight against 1st until the game is already over. 2. Yeah in general it's a lot easier to get 2nd, and once you have it 3rd is coming after you so it's in your best interest to defend it. There used to be so many points for 2nd and 3rd that people will call you a 'backstabber' if you don't honour your alliance until the end. I'm working my way up to the 400 tables to see what the standards shall be like there and hoping to not be disappointed (again). |
|
|
JKD wrote
at 1:27 PM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT I just made negative dominance for 1st place, that's a problem if you want people to play for 1st.
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 1:37 PM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT """It will only be a matter of time before many players realize that the guy in the lead is taking the most points away from you. """
It would help people to realize whats "right". If we got written *detailed* how the score is calculated. |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 1:40 PM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT About all this scoring stuff. Look as I said 6 months ago. Again its getting more and more complicated, and we see its still not going right. Maybe the right path would be to go way back, and rething were it went wrong.
IMHO there should be only 1 winner. The winner. Not other places, "half winners" on 2nd place, "a third winner" on thrid place and so on. People then said, "so if you only track winners as winners, people will drop the game as soon they see they are not going to win. We need the other places to keep people playing". Now you went down that track, and what came you up with? A system where people drop out, when they see their not going to win. But the whole issue only muuuuuuch more complicated. ^_^ |
|
Vermont wrote
at 1:46 PM, Friday September 7, 2007 EDT For someone who is "gone for good" you post a lot. ;)
|
