Forum
unknown4699013
|
chris_in_kc wrote
at 11:14 PM, Tuesday December 5, 2006 EST
I don't understand the point of this! I mean, you can play 10 games and finish in the middle of the pack - out 3rd or 4th, and then you play one game where you get 3 areas and the fewest men on the board - and you lose the entire ranking you have earned.... WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!
If this is the way this game is going to be scored then I'm done with it. There is no fun in seeing everything you've worked for flushed away because you get a gameboard with crappy position. There needs to be a simple scoring system - none of this "chess" crap or whatever it is. This is NOT chess, it's risk. You get 1 point every time you take a property. You get 5 bonus points if you lead the board. And you get 10 points for every position you finish in (First is 70 pts, and last is 10 pts). If you sit out - you get no fininsh points.... period. |
|
[Fazed] HawkEye wrote
at 11:27 PM, Thursday December 7, 2006 EST Chris,
Everyone faces the same amount of bad luck in the long run. We get crappy placement just as much as you do. I admit that it's frustrating, but theres no need to change the rating system because it effects everyone equally. To summarize, quit your bitching. |
|
joby.d wrote
at 1:06 AM, Friday December 8, 2006 EST If he died three out of five games without getting a turn then that could be a point (I noticed Ryan commenting that he tried addressing that in the last update though).
I'd have to play more games to tell but based on my last one second place gets too many points relative to first place. (about +87 vs +117 and there were only a few points lower in rating than me). I haven't noticed harsh penalties for losing though, recently I kamikaze and get 7th but it doesn't seem to make much of an overall difference. |
|
Lindsay wrote
at 8:24 PM, Friday December 8, 2006 EST bye-bye
|
|
unknown5452456 wrote
at 5:46 AM, Sunday December 10, 2006 EST actually, someone ran a program to calculate the odds of losing the roll at 6 dice : 2 dice, and the odds are somewhere around .2%, so the odds of you losing twice in a row with 6 attacking to 2 defending are somewhere in the range of 4 hundredths of a percent, or about 1 in 2,500 rolls.
so either a) don't take this probably one-time occurence as an example of some flaw in the gameplay, or b) remember that techniques such as exaggeration are more difficult to understand through the keyboard than through actual voice. |
|
|
chris_in_kc wrote
at 12:08 AM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST a) If these are the correct odds - then I need to play the lottery.
b) At practically every game I've played (win or lose) there has been at least one of these "oh shit" rolls where some guy with 6, 7, or 8 dice will go against someone with 2, 3, or 4 and lose. You can claim I am exaggerating all you want - but I bet if you ask around there will be many others that have had this happen. Maybe it happening two games so close was a fluke - but it DOES happen. You have never had one of these bad beats? |
|
|
Pegasus wrote
at 4:10 AM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST If an event has odds of 1 in 2500, it will happen quite often somewhere in kdice.
But .2% squared is .0004%, 1 in 250000. That'll be a bit rarer. Came 7th 4 times in a row yesterday myself. Ah well, swings and roundabouts. |
|
MikeyNiv wrote
at 12:37 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST i actually agree with chris. i lost 2 in a row due to bad placement at the start, and i lost like 250 points, after spending ages getting those 250. most games have more points for winning than you do for losing, but this seems to be the other way around.
|
|
tongman wrote
at 1:41 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST the scoring is fine, and the top players seem to be the same people who have played alot of games, so this means the scoring balances out so if you lose a few all you need to do is win a few to get back, i got to 55th and lost a games where i placed 7th or 6th. but i played games to get my points back to 1896 and thats what makes it fun trying to get to the top.
the game would be no fun if it was so easy to keep your points as it would just be players who played the longest have the highest rank. rant over p.s thanks for a great game Ryan and chris in kfc or what ever your called i've played against you and think its just that you suck :p |
|
Tech wrote
at 1:44 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST Looking at your score now, you had, what, 1580? I'd try to avoid playing with people in say, 1300 or 1200 ranges, because that's what you must have done, to lose 250 in 2 games.
|
|
qrs wrote
at 11:56 AM, Wednesday December 13, 2006 EST I haven't read many threads here, so apologies if I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Chris has a good point. Elo is a good system for games like chess, which are completely games of skill. Then you can assume that a players rating reflects his skill rather precisely, and adjust the scoring accordingly. But in a game with a big luck element like this one, scores are bound to fluctuate quite a bit, and be accordingly less precise in showing skill level. It makes sense that rating should have less to do with the scoring.
(An idea which is probably too radical to work might be to make scoring a straight linear sort of thing, but only allow people within a certain range of each other's score to play a game together.) |
