Forum
unknown5219604
|
Bedevere wrote
at 3:57 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST
I saw this was discussed some in the ELO thread. There is a huge difference to the gameplay depending on if the ranking system gives you a rank based on where you finish or if it gives you a rank based on win/loss.
The current way you have an incentive to try to come in 5th rather than 6th, for example, so you end up ignoring the big guys once they've gotten a lead and wage your own private war against other smaller players. This is kind of interesting, but very often it becomes clear who is ahead and very little will change it. Also, the difference between 5th and 6th is often determined arbitrarily by whoever is ahead or bad starting position. Conversely, if it were an all or nothing sytem there would be much more diplomacy because everyone would have to constantly attack whoever is ahead. Also, any alliance that gets formed will have to eventually be broken, so there is always the question of when the backstab will come. If every player is vying for 1st or nothing, then there is a self-regulating aspect to the game. Also bad starting positions will be somewhat negated because there is much less incentive to pick on the little guys, since bringing down the big guy becomes priority #1. Each method has it's advantages, but I think an all or nothing/win-loss ranking system would make the gameplay much more interesting. |
|
joby.d wrote
at 4:02 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST i think everyone would cheat with friends in an all or nothing
|
|
Pegasus wrote
at 9:03 AM, Saturday December 9, 2006 EST joby.d has a good point.
Here's another idea. Suppose the reward structure was something like 4, 1, 1, -1, -1, -2, -2*, then half the time improving your placing by 1 but not winning will not make any difference. So half the time a strategy of ganging up on the leader might be more profitable. In particular when there are only 3 left there is no point playing for 2nd. *(these numbers would be put into the ELO formula somewhere, so ratings were still taken into account too. But they are proportional to what the point changes would be if everybody were on the same rating. On that basis the current system has a reward structure of 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3.) |
|
|
Bedevere wrote
at 3:55 AM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST Maybe. Or maybe something like the proportional score you get is 49, 36, 25, 16, 9, 4, 2, 1
You just sometimes get a lot of silly artifacts in the game when you are trying to maximize your position rather than go for the big score. |
|
Tech wrote
at 10:57 AM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST *shrug* It's hardly so simple. I've many times seen people team up to take down "the big guy". But I digress. How is changing it from "always take out the litle guys" to "always attack the ig guy" more intresting? Then the other half of you can come in and complain about how anyone who tries to be agressive gets immediatly knocked down.
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 11:31 AM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST Tech has a good point and this is probably the reason I haven't changed anything yet.
I want to be sure that whatever I change it improves the game in all aspects. I agree that the current system causes people to ignore the big guy. But if everyone went after the big guy you would end up with a longer game that cycled between big guys... when would it end? Obviously it would eventually, but would the game be more fun. I think the current system may be more fun since the game is shorter and more than one player gets rewarded. |
|
|
Boyo wrote
at 2:23 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST I agree with Tech and Ryan. I have played many games where the first leader takes a big advantage, only to be attacked and perhaps eliminated by the other players.
I feel that it adds an element of excitement and intrigue to the game to not know whether the losing players will band together against #1 or whether they will fight amongst one another. In my experience, it is not always the case that attacking the weaklings is the best strategy for #2-4. Anyways, the 'diplomacy' is much more interesting this way because it is not automatic. In a winner-take-all scenario, I suspect that attacking the front-runner would be the default behavior - whereas now it requires that players negotiate with (and trust) one another. So, I don't think the rules are broken. |
|
Eyeless wrote
at 2:26 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST I agree with Tech and Ryan as well. If everyone had to always go against the big guy, the games would never end.
Bottom line: The current scoring system can't be changed unless the beginning is made more even. |
|
|
Bedevere wrote
at 4:40 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST Yeah - good points. Like I said, there are advantages to either way. BTW, I forgot to say Great Game!
|
|
Loki wrote
at 6:01 PM, Monday December 11, 2006 EST What difference does it make? We are all playing by the same rules, and everyone knows what they are. Tech is right, make changes to just about anything and another group will start bitching.
Shut up (about this) and PLAY!!! |
|
|
Mad Max wrote
at 2:51 PM, Tuesday December 12, 2006 EST I think the "playing for first" is much more interesting because it is not a simple "hiting" the first! I had a few games were was one big guy and the other three played against him.. but at the point another one getting to big it switched automatically .. you had to watch on all number of fields and the dice in stack .. than the real strategy begins .. an most the time there is only one to three "runs" on the first and than some has much luck or other be not attentively enough.
Most the time the current version is to get a good starting position, collection dice and than try to grow as fast as you can .. If you only become second strongest it means nothing because the strongest decides who becomes second and who third ... |
