Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
Problem with the new system
|
tharris7 wrote
at 9:36 PM, Sunday February 11, 2007 EST
I was playing a game in which i was currently second, blue was first and brown was third. Blue allied with brown since brown had a threatening 8 stack. They wore me down to one stack, long after i had flagged for third.
This is the problem: Blue stopped attacking me and the two of them kept 'ending turn' for a while and i had no way of killing myself. In the process brown's dominance increased and mine decreased. I had been quite large for most of the game but having one territory for 20 turns brought my whole average down and i ended up with -6 for dominance. Anyway this is one flaw of the new system and it is similar to another scenario: Say 1st place has 15 territories, 2nd has 12, 3rd has 8 and 4th has 8. 1st and second had allied and thats how they got the dominant position. Often when the game is at this point everyone will flag. But with the new system it might be better for first and second to eat away at the others for a while and increase their dominance, while decreasing the others. Would this give them a better score than if everyone had just flagged when they saw that the game was decided? |
|
gp333 wrote
at 7:46 AM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST Ryan, keep the game easy!
|
|
fuzzycat wrote
at 8:31 AM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST A sophisticated rating system does not make the game complicated!
You do not need to understand it in detail. Just sit down, and try to dominate the board. The score is a system that rates how good you are at this. Some people want to understand it in every crucial detail, to be able to "swindle" their rating with it, but it shouldn't be that way. |
|
Jtav14 wrote
at 8:52 AM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST well first of all, hi all that was a long break from kdice ... I came to test the new system and I must say that I'm not to sure what I think about it ... what was good with the old system is that you always had a way to get a better position and you had to be a complete player (people wise and strategic wise) to be on the top table. It's true than the new system is more fair but I'm not a big fan of fairness anyway. But, it's way to soon to complain, I don't think anybody can get a good understanding of the system in less than 50-100 games.
|
|
|
gp333 wrote
at 4:41 PM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST Query: Where does the odds table on the kdice wiki come from? I have worked out odds for the 8on8, 8on7, and 8on6 and come out with 45.4, 74.4 and 91.3 percent instead of 47.1, 67.3, and 84.4 percent. I will send you a spreadsheet of my computations if you like.
A very interesting question from fuzzycat! I also have made my calculations and statistics. for example 4 against 3 is 74,283 but the statistics say 68!!! Can ryan answer? |
|
JDizzle787 wrote
at 5:35 PM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST One common denominator between the success I had in the sandbox and the wins or well placed games here are... Good starting positions. It helps to actually know HOW to play the game, and a few strategies, some experience(Since December), but, the big factor that has seemed to let me know when a game will be "easy" for me, is if my start is "defined, i.e. two's and three's between my dice. Or, set ups that make it easy to get in a corner, or peninsula. A few times it helps when people get out of your way. I know good starts help in any type of scoring, but, this time, luck may be more of a defining factor (?)...
|
|
CriticalDog wrote
at 8:07 PM, Tuesday February 13, 2007 EST I agree with JDizzle... luck seems to be much more of a factor in some regards.
If you end up with territories spread out, with no large stack, you are boned. |
|
GerMANic wrote
at 5:49 AM, Wednesday February 14, 2007 EST Jdizzle is completely correct this version of the game requires early luck to win. The dice are to even in the begining to allow tactics to be worth antyting. When the majority of things ont he map are 3s and 4s and your 4 loses to their 3 you are in deep trouble and only fortune equal to or greater than your misfortune can keep you alive, but you probably won't win.
|
|
Alpha1 wrote
at 9:49 AM, Wednesday February 14, 2007 EST I don’t know if it is the “even distribution algorithm� but with the new system, more than often then not I started being the only player out of 7 without a 5 dice territory and almost all my territories are surrounded by other players’ 5 dice territory. Needless to say, it’s extremely difficult for me to connect, much less dominate. My only choice is to survive, beefing up the dice on my 1 or2 territories left. The dominant player(s) will usually target the 2nd or 3rd place players first before me because they are more of a threat to their dominance. But even when I came in 3rd or 4th, my dominance (average size) score killed me and I ended up with a negative overall score.
|
|
|
JDizzle787 wrote
at 12:03 PM, Wednesday February 14, 2007 EST I don't know how to not make this a complaint, but, Why can't I win critical, advantaged rolls? Is it just the odds table giving me crap now, and later on, will those 8 vs. 6 (and any similar to situation)losses,that cost me the game? Will I get these rolls that DID in fact play a great deal in my point loss today back? Or am I helplessly complaining to get a "Luck is luck " speech from someone?
|
|
|
JDizzle787 wrote
at 12:13 PM, Wednesday February 14, 2007 EST I don't really want an idea to stop me from complaining or whatever. Just an explanation.
|
