Forum
let first...
|
Awesomeness! wrote
at 3:22 AM, Tuesday December 18, 2007 EST
have his/her first if they have earned it!
too many times, i have seen a guy in first with 8-12 lands and 2nd and 3rd with 6-10 each destroy first! before u guys say thats the game etc etc blah blah bullshit! im all for attacking first when there are 4/5 even 6 players left and thats fine cos 1st then has the option of retalliating while only one is attacking or ask for a truce if 2 are attacking...but so many times this month have i and mant players alike been stripped of the 1st we worked hard and earned to finish 3rd because 2 noobs truce! i mean srsly, how are we meant to counter that? do we aim to be in 2nd or 3rd place by the time it comes to 3 players? this sucks and is happening more and more often. i think that 2nd and 3rd should take what they have got and let 1st take what he deserves |
|
a big fat lie wrote
at 4:04 AM, Tuesday December 18, 2007 EST "many times this month have i and mant players alike been stripped of the 1st we worked hard and earned to finish 3rd because 2 noobs truce!
this sucks and is happening more and more often." You rating allows you to play at 1k tables... just my guess - there arent many noobs at 1k tables. And if there are really that many other players who face the same "problem" it shouldnt be so difficult to fill 1k tables (at least from mid-month on). Spread the word and make the 1k tables more popular. |
|
|
Awesomeness! wrote
at 4:44 AM, Tuesday December 18, 2007 EST fair point but...
1) noobs do still get past 1k somehow 2) u have no idea how many times i try to 'spread the word' but no1 wants to play cos of the reputation 1k has (which is wrong) 3) 1k's dont happen all the time and i was referring to 200 games as well as 1k |
|
www.lolfish.biz wrote
at 6:02 AM, Tuesday December 18, 2007 EST there's nothing more frustrating than having two or three people team up on you when you're in first. Occasionally you can get away with it because you dominate so hard, but it's usually near impossible to defeat two or three people at a time.
I mean I guess you can flag, but considering the costs of doing that, it means that you will get hardly anything because you're in third. In that regard the point system seems a little broked. Good call Awesomeness! |
|
|
Harry Tuttle wrote
at 5:04 PM, Tuesday December 18, 2007 EST This is quite funny - this is exactly the thinking that caused the worst excesses of the, "I'm flagged" days, which came so close to ruining the game that they required a full redesign of the game play by Ryan. If you're in first but can't dominate, use your diplomacy and work something out. If you're not good at it you'll likely end up with all against you. If you're pretty bad at it you'll ally with #2 and folks will start making sure they kill you first in future games. If you know what you're doing you should be able to secure your position and your reputation at the same time.
|
|
Rhode Island wrote
at 9:39 PM, Tuesday December 18, 2007 EST Give them first.
|
|
biteme wrote
at 12:50 AM, Wednesday December 19, 2007 EST No matter how much we try to escape it, KDice is a social game. Ryan can fool with the point system all he wants, and he'll never, ever, be able to remove the social aspect from it....unless he turns it into a single player game like dice wars...since it's a social game, you won't be able to remove aspects like this. My belief - learn use this behavior to your advantage. That doesn't mean shoot for 2nd...it means don't become dominant too quickly. This is no different than what we see in so many examples in nature/human nature. Who was the democratic and republican front runners 6 months ago? Who are now?
I have a hemaroid. |
|
Cleopatra wrote
at 1:29 AM, Wednesday December 19, 2007 EST I agree with Hurry Tuttle and biteme, and with someone who was saying this in the Forum at other threads ( I don't remember now who was it) - there is no such thing as "deserving" until the very end of the game!
This game is more complicated than Awesomeness would like it to be. The player who has most teritories after the first part of the game won only the first of the game, not the whole game. He asks "How are we meant to counter that?" (2'nd and 3'rd attacking first). Well, there are methods for that, but they must be applied earlier in the course of the game. biteme wrote about one of them, there are others... Yes, Awesomeness, there is more sophistication in the game than you see... And I don't mean pga, I mean honest during-the-game strategies. |
|
|
www.lolfish.biz wrote
at 2:53 AM, Wednesday December 19, 2007 EST I think the real problem with this game is not really so much how people play the game, but more how the points are distributed when all is said and done.
To be frank, I think points ought to be based not only on rank and dominance, but also several other factors such as: number of times attacked, nubmer of times attacking, number of dice per territory, etc. This way, you don't dominate at the beginning and then have everyone else killing you off to nothing. Seems fair to me. The system right now is a little ridiculous, especially the fact that you can get screwed from a ton of points because of dumb trucing and the like. |
|
pastry wrote
at 3:07 AM, Wednesday December 19, 2007 EST If there's fairness to a 2:3 takedown, it's that the 1st place player usually has enough dom built up to make up for the loss, while the 3rd place player (now 2nd) leaves the table with a positive score.
|
|
|
www.lolfish.biz wrote
at 3:39 AM, Wednesday December 19, 2007 EST Do not let Awesomeness!'s air of dignity phase you. He in fact is the exact kind of person who would kill off the person in first place.
I just ended a game where I was in first for and dominating relatively and none other than Awesomeness!, whom I'd let sit in a corner all game teams up with the person in second in order to kill me off. I obviously had to flag because of the terrid point system, once I was in third. It just goes to show that people can say one thing and then do the exact opposite. I love douchebag hypocrites. GG |
