Forum


The new system removes strategy and promotes luck and aliances.
GerMANic wrote
at 5:33 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
First off I would like to point out that I have problems with the game other than just the scoring so don't skip reading this post.

I noticed that in the begining of games the dice stacks are are more even now. Thus it is hard to find any territory in the first round that you have a decent chance of winning against. This removes strategy because when you are forced to only attack territories that are close in dice count to yours and you can't string together a large number of territories that you can take to get reinforcements with then the game turns into a luck fest with the person that either gets the luckiest attacking rolls or the luckiest defense rolls winning because the other people who lost have weak territories with hardly anyreinforcements first through second round. So by this point unless there is a powerfull alliance between the 3rd and 4rth largest people the game is pretty much over. And if you have an very unlucky game and your enemy defends a lot against you you get negative dominance points just because you couldn't get any good attacking rolls. Thus this game rewards one thing and one thing alone, luck. If I play a smart game of take and hold (can't do that anyway because there are hardly any stack size differences early game now) I will get bad dominance points unless I am lucky enough to get good rolls and take first or second place.
This new system also only makes alliances more of a problem than before because they now just slowly whittle down all the other players and kill everyone elses dominance rating. So when one person is super big or there is a big alliance the only thing you can to do not get raped point wise at the end of the game is to go kamikazi and hope to achieve a good dominance rating since trying to take and hold territories and get decent stacks will only kill your dominance points in a long game where a pathetic alliance between the two largest people slowly destroys you.
I could write more about this but this post is long enough. In conclusion the new system rewards early luck and alliances between the two largest people and it punishes the idea of taking and holding small numbers of territories in the first few rounds and working the advantageous stacks.

Replies 1 - 10 of 33 Next › Last »
PointSix wrote
at 10:57 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Wall of Text hits you for 2345 points of damage.

You die.
Agro Crag wrote
at 11:07 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Well, It seems that there is less use for alliances b/c of the dominance points. Why let someone else have territories that could be yours? I'm not sure of what others think, but that's my view
(P.S., There was a sandbox up before this, so the scoring could be tested. Complaints SHOULD have been worked out then, but whatever.)
Cronus6 wrote
at 11:22 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Argo Crag : "Well, It seems that there is less use for alliances b/c of the dominance points. Why let someone else have territories that could be yours? I'm not sure of what others think, but that's my view"

I agree, alliances are much less important now... which means we might as well be playing the single player Dice Wars...
fuzzycat wrote
at 11:25 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Cronus6, I disagree, multiplaying is not just about alliances, its about having smarter opponents!
qwertqwert wrote
at 11:49 AM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Too add on to fuzzycat, multiplayer is also more fun because of the people you can talk to. If you meet someone you dont like, then you can mute them now too.
Cronus6 wrote
at 12:29 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
I disagree, watching players stomp around the board in hyper-aggressive fashion to increase their "dominance score" is far less intelligent than forming an alliance and working together to place 1st and 2nd.

But to each their own, since I started playing there have always been idiot super-aggressive players that attack anyone all the time (even when they have little chance of winning the roll) that act just like mindless bots.

As I said to each their own... I always enjoyed the truces and such. It was what made this BETTER than the single player to me.
Agro Crag wrote
at 1:07 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Well, I didn't rule out alliances, but, in the sandbox, I was able to play one game w/o a truce called...
fuzzycat wrote
at 1:18 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Cronus, have you read "pTm"s post about strategy in the other forum?

To make it short, currently people over-aggresive because of the change, in the sense of an overreaction due to the chance, altough in most scenarios this isnt the optimal strategy. In a longer run, you will see, what behaviour will really be subsidised or penalized.
apocalypse wrote
at 1:26 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
Hmmm... the game has *always* rewarded alliances between the two largest people. It's generally "game over" for everyone else at that point.

That's why I make it a point not to ally with the "other big guy", if I am big. It's not really a fair way to play.

But I agree with most evryone else here... I think the new scoring does not increase the reward for aliiances. If anything, it will cut some of them down, because you get penalized for small size whether you get 2nd or not.
Cronus6 wrote
at 1:46 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
@Fuzzy Cat :
What "other" forum?
KDice - Multiplayer Dice War
KDice is a multiplayer strategy online game played in monthly competitions. It's like Risk. The goal is to win every territory on the map.
CREATED BY RYAN © 2006
RECOMMEND
GAMES
GPokr
Texas Holdem Poker
KDice
Online Strategy
XSketch
Online Pictionary