alright, I guess I should chime in seeing as i've probably played over 50 games on the test server already.. hehe

Initial opinion - I love it. The new system rewards playing actively and there seems to encourage more gameplay moves. This has a tendency to makes games not go to 8v8 luckfests right away, but rather I've seen a lot of games that are 30+ rounds in and there are only a few 8 stacks out. The gameplay is more fun, and it is much more rewarding as a gameplay experience overall.

Allright, ill shorten this up with bullets

Pros: It kills cheap alliances. (allying is still useful) But what I mean is there are often times where someone allied with #1 and is handed a free 2nd place... and did nothing to earn it (having 1 land in the corner). Old system that person gets full 2nd points, new system that person gets what they deserve, which is usually negative a point or two. You might not think that is fair - but consider, what did THAT INDIVIDUAL do to earn points other than sit still?

The games have more strategy. 8v8 games turn out into who gets luckier to get the first cut. These games w/ new system have a tendency to delay the 8v8 (and I think) more boring endgame.

Another pro is if you play really well, (say have 50% of the map) but lose due to a counter alliance and go out 4th or even 5th, you would normally lose points. W/ new system you gain points due to dominance. At a glance, isn't that fair? You did well and had a large empire and a good chance to win - but lost to dice luck. You are rewarded for having played well. Old system you get the place points and lose 5-15 points for 4th or 5th finish no questions asked. I think a 5-15 point gain is more accurate since you were a contender. (thats what the new system would allocate more or less)

Cons - It will take some adjusting to and people will complain. People who are 1900 players will complain a lot cuz they are not used to the new system and (perhaps some wont cut it anymore skill or playstyle-wise to make it BACK to the 1900s)... But overall I think that's fine.

Only other con is you can farm your AS score later in the game. Say all-game-long yellow dominated and owns 50% of the map. At the end you get lucky and breech the defenses and cut deep into yellow, divide em, and hold, then win. You can now get to a point where you capture yellow to one land left and then pass, pass pass pass pass your turn. This just pads your AS while hurting theirs to the point that you overtake them. But if anyone watched the game they would say that yellow deserved a higher AS score and that person is just exploiting (by not killing) yellow.

It's the only point of concern now that I see.
Other than that I think this system is phenomenal and will improve the gameplay for the better.



And it's FUN. I haven't had this much fun playing in a while. It's just rediculously fun :)


-how's that for a review?

It does cut down on cheap alliances, and, after playing a game last night w/o one alliance, it seemed feasible that a game could be played where you only concerned you self with yourself. It seems that you need to think more about how your size relates to your score, and that added to placement score allows you to look at this game as more of a survival strategy, and the tactics consistent with surviving or winning will win, and alliances can only go so far in this game, because the loss of territory to allies "hurts" your score.

One problem. Bad luck starting off and poor position at the start of the game really seem to hurt. A lot. If you can't get a foot hold by the first three or so turns, you are screwed up the rectum. If anyone can defend this logic, tell me so. This is the only problem that I have experienced. (Plus, The game can lead to a survival of the fittest sort of thing)

It's more the bad luck but I don't think it happens often enough to be a problem, barely notice it.

I agree with agro: to go along with this change there really needs to be a "completly end this game for me" button. If you had a bad start with the old system, you could still sit somewhere having fun hoping. Having a bad start now, you have to make dumb and suicidal moves to at least save your AS.

Otherwise I like it a lot, the games are more fun! You really need to have that AS counter next to your avatar though. It's very important for strategy!

Last point: I think it involves more luck, since higher risks are taken. I'm a fan of luck so I like it.

I posted this on the other thread, but only get an error on this since then.

Wouldn't it be more favorable to test the new scoring system by keeping two parallell scores on the normal game area, instead of using a sandbox?

Well I'll go against the grain it seems and say truthfully that after playing many games I really hate the new system.

I'll try labeling my reasons with numbers.

1) The new game is LESS strategic. How? Well you can only play one way, aggressively. Seriously if you try and play a defensive game you'll AS score will get raped and even if you finish 3rd or 2nd you'll lose points cause AS score seems more heavily weighted than the traditional positional score. While you could argue that you had to play defensively in the old game, I'd simply state that you was incorrect and that strategic attacking at the right time was key to the old game. I should know I'm a good player.

2) The game is MORE luck based. Well this comes from the fact that you have to attack more since joining your territories is even more important. And by attack more I guess what I'm saying is make more risky attacks. In the old game I would NEVER attack a territory with the same number of dice.(discounting 2vs2s) e.g. 4vs4. In this game you simply have to, hell sometimes you have to attack with less dice! Clearly this style of play is dependent more on luck than the safe style of the current game.

2.1) Again backing up point 2 is the undeniable fact that dice placement is more important. Most players who have played the new game would agree with this I would think. Obviously since dice placement is random (well mostly) this increases the amount of luck involved in the game. Again this is an offshoot of the more aggressive game.

3) Alliances are screwed. Its obvious to those that have been playing that alliances take place less often in the new game. Now I wouldn't say this is because of the new game, no this is merely a period of adapting due to the fact that the best alliances are different to the last game due to the AS score system. However... I've given much thought to this and I can now say with fair confidence that the 1900 tables are gonna be terrible. Its because when you really think about it, as the 1900+ players must, allying between the 2 biggest and most far apart players is always the best alliance. While this is bad you could argue that this has always been the situation and your kinda right. BUT when the two big guys ally together all the smaller guys usually ally and fight back. Again the AS system would greatly discourage this method, fighting among yourselves would likely end in a much better score for yourself or on the coin flip if the small guys did ally together and win your score still wouldn't be as good as it would the old system.

4) This point isn't so much against the new system as it is against the ill logic shown towards the old system when discussing the 8vs8 game. People are always saying the 8vs8 end games are terrible and luck based. Now honestly how many 8vs8 games where there has been a clear leader have you ever seen switch. A few maybe. But 90% of the time the guy who's got the most stacks wins. Who has the most stacks? The guy who played better. How is this lucky?

4.1) Oh and even though some think otherwise the 8vs8 end game is still alive and well in the new game so don't even bother trying to say theres less luck because it isn't there anymore. It is.


Ok, so I'm left thinking, what is better? Well away people do get screwed like they should and... no thats it. Thats the only thing I prefer in this game and that could have been implemented in a far less game changing fashion than this.

Now I'm left thinking why the game has been changed in this way at all. I mean the scoring although different isn't really "different". Do badly and you score badly, do well and you score well. Essentially the scoring is the same but the style of play has been changed completely. I'll leave you with a good piece of advice, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Anarchist: """Now honestly how many 8vs8 games where there has been a clear leader have you ever seen switch. A few maybe. But 90% of the time the guy who's got the most stacks wins. Who has the most stacks? The guy who played better. How is this lucky? """"

I disagree, when 1 player is already sure about his win, I love to organize an "all together against the leader alliance", must times all you gotte do is to tell people that all together still have more countries than the leader. This quite often works out well and see him finishing e.g. 4th after all.

In the new scoring system he gets a good AS score at least :). In the old system he was just screwed...

2.1) I think it's less position based because you need to play for 1st more often (and also the point loss for sitting small). The increased randomness and aggressiveness this causes means 1st place is less certain when you are doing very well, so mediocre position can often go home with the +40. Terrible position probably has no chance at the big 1st place bonus anyway so just make the best of it, it's still easier to make a comeback that isn't just a cheap hope that no one attacks your last 8-stack.

I mean now I try to see what I can *do* with a bad position, instead of just scurrying to a place to hide and leaving the game.

2) Randomness --but not luck-- is my favourite part of all dice games so it's fun for me to make high risk attacks more often. Using every chance you get to force these situations can sometimes allow you to dominate your side of the board and take 1st place stress-free. Also, my disconnected territories contribute to my AS and it's easier to connect so I now only kamikaze disconnected territories 97% of the time (instead of 99% ;)

3) With the increased reward there's less reason for the top 2 to ally because the guy in 2nd wants to get 1st. However, if the top 2 ally in an aggressive game then why should the smaller guys deserve to win if they're unwilling to fight a winnable battle?

1) You basically just said it yourself, most of the time in the old game defensive was the only good strategy. Sit on about four boring territories build them up and know when to consume an enemy (or strike a truce). You can just play for 3rd or 4th and let the occasional truces --or frequent if you're friendly!-- and good fortune --failed attacks of nearby enemies-- carry your rating. The new gameplay looks more simple and barbaric but I enjoy the faster pace and different gameplay.

Playing defensively is still an option that can mean the difference between 1st and 7th, nothing at all has directly changed that? However, it should now mostly be used to get 1st place or just for a short time; I could be wrong but isn't that the point of an AS modifier?


The AS modifier seems to be relatively popular with no real cons so that's a good reason right there to change the game...

Whoops, I should've read the other topic! *shrugs*