Forum
Advisor Blog
Reviews
Strategies
Ideas
Possible flaw with the new rating system
|
Kehm wrote
at 9:48 PM, Friday February 23, 2007 EST
Sorry if this is somewhat a long post, I really wanted to be clear on the subject. Skip it if you're not going to read it.
--- Don't get me wrong, I love the new system. It has been tested a lot and I believe it is a great improvement over the last one. I also want to state clearly (and now) that I do not blame players for playing the way they do in the new system (I do it too). --- Before I start breaking the rating system, I think it would be fair if everyone understood it and why there was a need for this new system in the first place. It might be obvious for some, but not so much for others. The main problem with the old system was that it rewarded players that used a "hiding strategy". It consisted on hoping your few (or 1, or couple) territory(ies) would overlast the stronger players fighting for the top spots. It was possible to score very good points by having a single territory for the whole game by being killed last out of generosity from the winner. The point of the new system, obviously, is to reward those trying to win: "The better game you played, the better score you should have." If you are dominating the game and an alliance turns against you and defeats you, you still get many points for the great game you played, and don't get shafted by that 1 guy who had 1 territory all game. --- The flaw. I believe it is very possible to play a great game, finish 2nd, even first, and get screwed on domination nonetheless, EVEN IF YOU MADE THE BEST POSSIBLE CHOICES over the course of the game, which ultimately led to a very good finish, but marginal rating gains. And why is that, you might ask? Simply because domination points are not calculated correctly. This is my personal opinion, so please bare with me. I don't not claim to have the ultimate truth on the matter, but I do believe I do. As far as I know, here's how the domination points are calculated: (I might be wrong, but the last time I tested in the sandbox, that's what Ryan told us) - At the begining of your turn, the number of connected territories are added to your grand total. When you are eliminated, your grand total is compared to all the other remaining players and your domination rank is calculated. It works fine as it is, but I truly believe it is flawed and could be easily fixed. That is simply because that system does not necessairly encourages good play (aiming to win), but aggressive and self destructive plays (taking useless chances to up your territory count). Example: - Player X has 4 territories, fully built (that expression means they all have 8 dice stacks). He's been playing very solid, but somewhat conservatively. He has a good chance to win, are take a top finish, since the board is generaly low stacked with a lot of fighting going on. There are big stacks around him, however. - Player Y has been playing wrecklessly. He's overly agressive, while luckily maintaining an avg of 7 unprotected territories. - 2 turns later: Player Y is eliminated, not having sufficient dice to protect his empire. Player X now has five 8-stack territories and a good shot at winning with the leader, player Z, having seven 8-stacks. Player Y gets -7 for rank 5, +15 for domination. (+8 total) --- So, what's wrong with that? I simply don't think player Y is given the right rating. I hope I'm not the only one seeing this. He played like an idiot trying to abuse the system. It's fine to abuse the system, I do it too. And there is nothing wrong with playing like this, under this system. Therefor, the system is flawed, rewarding poor play. What's the reason, then? Territories mean nothing. 3 territories with 8 dice on each > 7 territories with an avg of 3 dice. 3x8 = 24 dice, 7x3= 21 dice. Wasn't that simple enough? The solution is clearly to count the number of dice, NOT territories, at the begining of each turn. The goal is to have dice, afterall. Aren't we playing Dice wars? |
|
ak777 wrote
at 12:37 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST I haven't read every post in here. I understand your point Kehm. I don't know if there is an absolutely "fair" method of scoring. I kind of doubt it.
However, the game is based on territories. The WINNER is ALWAYS decided upon by territories. And I think that is how points should also be based upon. |
|
XicaDaSilva wrote
at 1:15 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST @ak777
kehm is right, the system can be improved somebody's net worth (dominance) is not only the real estate possesions (territories) but also the money in the bank (dice) |
|
Cyron wrote
at 6:50 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST Wow, including dice in the system somehow. That's a fantastic idea...
|
|
Xerxes855 wrote
at 7:52 PM, Saturday February 24, 2007 EST I don't really agree, very aggressive play usually doesn't work because the key is holding territories. In most reckless expansions, the attacker loses most or all of the new territories before the next turn and doesn't gain in dominance, and leaves himself in a weak position. Once in that weak position, they usually don't lost immediately, so in the turns before they die, they lose in domination.
|
|
|
Kehm wrote
at 7:45 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST Sorry grun but you are absolutely not convincing me :)
The great thing about using dice to determine domination, is that territories would already be taken into account. Why? Simply because that's what gives you dice. If someone has more dice but is not in a position to add more territories, in the long run, he will not get as many dice. So your argument seems a bit flat to me. On the contrary, if someone is very agressive, looking to add more territories, he will be getting more dice overtime. Currently, a player with 6 territories with an avg of 3 dice on the will gain more dominance than a player with 4 territories fully stacked. Someone please explain this logicially to me. There is simply no logic to it because the fully stacked 4 territory player clearly has the advantage, he simply chose to play it safer. But he's still most likely to win. However, if that player does not continue expanding, he's still only getting +4 dice a turn, while the more agressive player will get +6 dice a turn. Over the long run, the more territories you have, the more dice you will get. So taking into account dice to determine domination is more accurate than the current system while still taking into account, indirectly, the number of territories you have. |
|
Grunvagrr wrote
at 11:35 AM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST I guess there are a couple flaws I would see with counting dice - one of which is that players would be more liekly to build up to all 8 stacks OFTEN. Why? You personally get more dice, you lessen your chance of losing a defense if you stop and stockpile up your defense and furthermore, if others are fighting, then they are losing dice whereas you only gain. (yes they gain a land or two or three, but then if they lose a land, overall the defensive build-up player will have more dice on average for those 3 rounds).
That's a problem, of many I see with it. I think dice-counting for domination would seriously alter gameplay to protect the dice one already has and might lead to a LOT more 8v8 play --or make 8v8 play come earlier in games-- that's annoying as I find the greater 'skill' moves come prior to all 8v8 warfare, when there is selection and choice of what stacks to attack and what odds to risk when attacking |
|
JDizzle787 wrote
at 12:05 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST Grunvagrr, I'm not going to read that post, since I just lost a long and calculated one by a keyboard error, like pressing tab, or something.
To make my several paragraph long post again, I meant to tell Kehm that his idea isn't too bad, but, I theorize that there may become the same problem as with the previous version of kdice, like you just posted, Grun. And, I point out that this hypothetical player who is so conservative (I may sound like a bone-head) has a flaw in his playing style. Why isn't this player attacking more often? On to a problem I have myself with the game, and that even in skilled players, anyone has to hope for an all out and to keep it, or to get eventually stronger. It seems unlikely that anyone will get a chance to gradually get stronger again after being whittle down to one or two territories. The survival aspect is disappointing, and that is what upsets me. Grun, with your problem of the people being afraid of the "big guy", because they may think they will be hurt by anyone afterwards. But, if people understand this, it may stop: In my analysis (I could be very wrong) If you do have a big stack, and are a threat o the big player, use it, because, you will cause damage, and, there seems to be a possibility that you will retain more territories and get stronger after the shock of more territory gain. In simple terms, you have a chance of staying bigger, and But, that is a hypothesis. It shouldn't be tried in excess, or at all. But, that is what I do, and what I believe to support it. Abusing the system seems more like an occupational hazard of playing this game, no matter what system of points you use. I admit, there seem to be crazy thing going on with this system, since not only people abuse it in gaining territory, but those helping them lose it abuse it by keeping them there with one territory. I hope my several minutes of posting was worthwhile. |
|
JKD wrote
at 3:00 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST I prefer the current way because you can make strategic but risky attacks such as 4vs5 and not be directly punished. In your example Player Y seemed to have 'dominated' the game until he was eliminated and therefore deserved the +15 adjustment. I do not think the current system will reward poor play in the long run.
|
|
|
Kehm wrote
at 3:14 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST I personnaly have no problem with the way the game is played right now. It's actually fun to see all those crazy attacks and risks taken. I'm not for or against any type of playstyle. I'm an advocate of the fact that the current system doesn't reward points accurately, no matter the playstyle.
As a reply to Grun, I don't see how playing conservatively in a system where domination takes dice into account would serve you well at all. I honnestly don't see how stacking up to 8 dice would be a good strategy at all, actually. Maybe that's how it sounded when I suggested that a 4 territory player fully stacked was ahead of the 6 territory player that avg's 3 dice per, but it was only a clear example where the system doesn't reward points accurately. Like I said in a previous post, taking territories translates into dice. While losing a territory now is only a minor step back (domination-wise), it doesn't translate well into who's actually winning. Consider these 2 scenarios. 1. I lose a territory with 1 dice on it. Very minor step back to my winning chances. Domination? Minor stepback as well. 2. I lose a territory with 6 dice on it. Big step back to my winning chances. Domination? Minor stepback. Why? Because the territory system doesn't accurately taken into account a player's dominating factor. If we take the same 2 scenarios, but judge the domination factor by taken into account dice count, we get the accurate results. Minor step back for losing 1 dice, big step back for losing 6. --- Is the right or wrong strategy to build up or to expand? I think this will never change. The right strategy is to win and most players will aim at having a chance to win. In the current system, if you have no chance to win you have the option to try and get as many domination points as possible before dying. But if you have a shot at winning, you will do your best to expand and protect as you always have been. Would it change the gameplay? Perhaps. Territory domination did change it a bit, so we can expect changes from a dice domination game. But honnestly, I haven't seen that many changes at all, other than going all out when you have nothing to lose (compared to hiding in the old system). Hiding might come back if we get a dice domination game, but 8, 16 or 24 dice, late game, is worth absolutely nothing. So they will still get screwed by domination and hiding therefor becomes a useless strategy other than winning a few rank points as is the case right now. What would change my mind on the subject is if someone could show me in which cases a dice count is inferior to territory count as a good reflection of the current state of the game (who's winning?) I have a ton of scenarios where dice count is superior to territory count as an indication of who's actually leading, but I have none where territory count is superior. Find some and I'll be open for more discussion. |
|
|
Kehm wrote
at 3:17 PM, Sunday February 25, 2007 EST As a side note, please don't think I'm saying dice count is the perfect way to see who's winning the game. As some suggested, namely DaSilva, there are way too many factors to take into account. I do believe, however, that it is far more accurate than territory count. And this is the whole point of the thread.
|
