Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
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. |
|
Tech wrote
at 3:26 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST 1. Does this new scoring reward players who play to dominate (a.k.a. get all territories in their reach)?
Basically, if they still have them by the next round. 2. Does starting with a stable position on the board help you that much? Insomuch as it helps you keep territories into the next round 3. Are alliances more useful with this scoring version? If you find yourself in a situation where it's easier to keep territories when you have someone that isn't fighting with you, yes. 4. Is overall luck (or any luck at all) a larger factor in determining whether or not you get a positive (or negative) score? Well, there's a lot more focus on gaining and keeping land. Obviously, attacking and defending. These things being largely determined by dice rolls, the answer is most likely yes. 5. Is there any type of intellectual strategy that can be developed with this scoring type? Possibly. We'll may see some develop eventually. |
|
Ryan wrote
at 3:42 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Tech can you please not get political. I am trying to explain how the system works to people who initially have a negative reaction. You on the other hand are calling it propaganda. And then you go answering questions when a credible source is asked for. Why are you a credible source? I didn't see you in our sandbox discussions.
You can complain in the forum, thats one reason its here, but it isn't productive. And for Tech to keep posting complaints isn't helping me explain the new system. Can we get over the complaints? Honestly I view them as people having difficulty adapting. You can either adapt and learn, play in your old style, or not play at all. Complaining here isn't going to do much. |
|
|
Ryan wrote
at 3:58 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST for jdizzle:
1. Does this new scoring reward players who play to dominate (a.k.a. get all territories in their reach)? Yes to the first, No to the AKA. Playing to dominate is different from getting all territories within reach. Playing to dominate is maintaining territory from turn to turn. This is rewarded by measure size at the start of your turn. If you simply expand as far as you can and shrink back by the begginning of your next turn you don't get advantage. 2. Does starting with a stable position on the board help you that much? Starting positions still make a difference. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes not. You have to make the best of it. 3. Are alliances more useful with this scoring version? Alliances are still useful in this version with the exception of big brother style alliances where a small player hides behind a big player. 4. Is overall luck (or any luck at all) a larger factor in determining whether or not you get a positive (or negative) score? Luck has always been part of the game but with this version due to higher aggression there is less 8v8 game and more opportunity to make attack decisions that have better probability than 50/50. Some people claim that since hiding does not reward as many points there is more luck. With the old version if you had a bad start you could hide, truce, and hopefully get a good place. Here you are leaving you points in the hands of other players. Maybe this is more hope than luck. 5. Is there any type of intellectual strategy that can be developed with this scoring type? The same strategies apply from the previous version, ie when and where to attack, who to truce with etc. In my opinion the unintellectual strategy of hiding and trucing is the only one that no longer works to get high points, and was really an abuse of the old rating system. 6. whats the largest amount of points you can loose. This really depends on your rating. On average the lowest is around -25 and the highest is around +45. |
|
phoneguy wrote
at 4:09 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Help me understand.
1. I have been sourounded several times and the person refused to kill me to "mess up my score". Is this really hurting my dominance? Because I got suck around a stronger player. (I attacked but he would not kill me off) 2. There does seem to be alot of run it thin guys out there. I'm willing to accept that, it is an overraction. But it does seem that you don't get as many points win or lose per game. Is this true? 3. Can we please address the away issue. I'm seeing a lot more of it and it really irritates me. Can we add some type of penalty for being away more than 20% of the rounds played? 4. It really does seam as though the stacks are vary close in size at the beginning. I haven't decided how this affects the game. I will draw some type of conclusion next week. Initiall with all the run thin types out there I like to pass on my first turn and then pick it up. |
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 4:14 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Tech, let me explain again.
The *goal* of the game is to dominate the whole board. This is by design of dice wars so. Your "score" is a *RATING* on how well you are in doing this. This is by design so. Otherwise it wouldn't be an ELO rating. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system The *goal* to get a better score by any means meaing using "defects" in the scoring system is not a valid "strategy". The scoring system should messeare on how good you are in dominanting the board, not how good you are in misusing the system the think you are good. Now one common missuse has been removed, or at least enervated, people who based on this in the kdice past feel offended. I guess your problems are understood, but it is good that way. When finishing 2nd by alliancing/trucing with the 1st but stay small and pile was *never* just short off winning the game, altough you got a good score. That was wrong. Now calling this "propaganda" is really not making any sense. BTW: Ryan I fully support this changes ;-) and have right now an idea... |
|
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 4:19 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Ryan,
I commend you on your changes. Everyone complaining apparently isn't adaptable to new strategies. I have done ok, and think that it has made me more careful about making alliances. I have seen fewer alliances overall, which I consider a good thing. Once people get used to the new system, I expect that they will like it, and come to the conclusion that it rewards strategy more than luck. Keep up the good work. |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 4:24 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST "3. Can we please address the away issue. I'm seeing a lot more of it and it really irritates me. Can we add some type of penalty for being away more than 20% of the rounds played?
" Actually why? When sitting is in a special condition optimal have you to klick "end turn" every round, just to waste precious time? You just sit out... I know the problem is, people leave away players alone, since they do not consider them a thread. Well they shouldn't. Since they can sit back anytime. And maybe its just somebody like me who just goes for the toilet, or a beautiful woman messaged, which is of course much more important than any kdice related issue :) |
|
elganso wrote
at 4:30 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Hi Ryan... excellent game.
I've got one question on the new rating system that I can't decipher. The dominance rating is created as follows: "This adjustment ranks you against other players based on your average territory count at the beginning of each turn. When you are knocked out your rank is calculated and an adjustment is made." Regarding "averaging" -- does this take into account all territories for all turns you are alive, or is is weighted somehow based upon number of players still playing when you die, etc.? The scenario I am thinking about is as follows: First 10 turns, I am averaging 8 territories per turn and now there are only 3 players left in the game. For simplicity sake, let's say players 1 and 2 pick off my territories so that I only have 1 territory remaining by Round 11. Then, I sit there, not being attacked, for 10 more rounds until finally dying in round 22. So -- would it have been better for my score if I would have died in Round 12 (by, say, committing suicide) or better if I hang out until Round 22 when I actually die? True averaging would say that I would be better off dying in Round 11. Thanks for your help! |
|
|
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 4:50 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST Excellent question elganso. I was wondering the same thing but couldn't put it into words.
Ryan, how does that work? |
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 4:57 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST I got one understanding issue. It says the score for Average Size is determined by the AS of *other* players. However it is given already to a player when he dies, not when the game is over. Maybe another one would have finished with a lower AS later? Or is the AS rating determined by the AS the players have right in this moment? (i guess so) Are already killed player taken into account for this, or not?
|
