Pro-rata game mode

[Paddy The Cat]

its good in thoery.. but as khan explained it wont work for those reasons... also, if its an option, people could start playing this type of game and being extra passive.. not getting cards.. etc etc.. obviously in an escalating game, if you stayed at 0, youre probably gonna be last to be killed, cause itd be a waste to kill someone for 0 cards.. so just keep dpeloying and deploying and wait to get 2nd... youd enever win, but youd never lose... so youd get points every game. Now, i dont know about you guys, but i dont think i ever want to see a conquerer who is conquerer because hes the best at being 2nd... i do not support

[Aedolaws]

SO, you are saying that poker players only have to fold all the time so they will neither win nor loose?

That logic is utterly flawed!

In pro-rata mode everyone would be on the same plane. At the end, some players will loose points, some players will win points. Who & how much is the question!

Dudes, I have been playing 1 game for over a month now, I foresee at least 1 more week in that game, if I loose...
To win, it will take me at least 2 or 3 more weeks. Now, the second place, whoever that might be, out of the 4 remaining players [ out of 8 ] would have 1 1/2 month invested in the game and will win 0 points. In fact, he will loose points, even though, by now, we (in the game) have figured out that we are as good as any of the other 3.

Anyways, why is it so hard to understand that this would be an option? If people really dislike it they won't use it. We can spend a lifetime arguing whether it would work or not, but the fact is that nothing is certain when there are so many variables.

[BaldAdonis]

Anyways, why is it so hard to understand that this would be an option? If people really dislike it they won't use it.

Because it's a really bad idea. Plenty of suggested options are rejected because they are not in the spirit of the game. If you want to be rewarded without winning, kill some people in a terminator game. It sounds like you want to be rewarded for doing nothing.

[Aedolaws]

rewarded for doing nothing?

Is playing until the very end "nothing"? Is loosing a game by a move, "nothing"? What do you mean by "nothing"? Are two players doing "nothing" when for example they decide to team up in the middle of a game to beat the rest because they have realized that it WILL TAKE FOREVER to finish that particular game (not quite a stalemate, yet not quite a draw), and for the sake of resolution they compromise on 1st and 2nd? Is it "nothing" to play for a better rank although you know there is no chance of winning?

I mean, what exactly do you mean by "nothing"?

"Spirit of the game"? what do you mean by that? You make no sense. See my previous posts, I elaborate on this. But just for kicks: What is the "spirit" of this game? Or for that matter, "what" game? The original board game? If these web-site is based on the original concept, and has developed it, does that mean that the original spirit is gone? If not, why not? it is definitely a different game, a different experience, etc, etc, etc

Anyways, I am assuming that everyone that doesn;t like it is a woman!!

[Aedolaws]

I'll give you two more reasons why a pro-rata scoring system as a setting option is a good idea.

(1) Besides being an equitable concept, it is ALSO better grounded on reality.
Think post WWII. Was there a single winner? Was there a single looser? Was the U.S. the only nation who reaped benefits from victory? Was it Germany the only nations stuck with sanctions?
When was this game invented?

(2) It would allow more diplomacy. For example, players could agree not to attack each-other, or even ally (yet they would not be able to share armies, etc, as in team mode), and likewise, they could break such pacts (something you cannot do in team mode).

Q. Why would they hassle playing diplomacy?

A. A better rank in the game that would translate into more points won or lost.

Anyways, I am sure you have not read the whole tread. Had you done so you would have understood that the question that you replied to (why people don't understand...) was rhetorical language. In fact, I think they are more people who so far like the idea (rough idea in any case, subject to modification, etc [as I duly noted in my 1st post]) than those who don't like the idea.

[Aedolaws]

I suggested this before. About 70% of the people showed some interest while about 30% were pretty sure they did not want it. I did not run a poll with my first post. I am doing so now. Please vote.

The idea in a nutshell:


[1] Basically creators of games have the option to choose "pro-rata" mode. It is just an option, just like FOW, etc.

[2] The idea is to reward/punish the ranking within each game. Thus, a curve will be in place, with 1/2 the players gaining points, 1/2 loosing points. Think about school grades. The top player would get an A(30% of points), the second and A-(20%)... the 5th a C (-10%), the 6th a D+ (-20%)... etc.

[3] I believe this setting would encourage players to:

(a) Play the best they can, EVEN when it is not realistically possible to win the game.
(b) Would disincentivize (is that a word?) suicide moves.
(c) Would foster even more competition, as a 2nd place would be much better off (would win a few points) than a 6th (would loose points).
(d) Would promote diplomacy, as players would enter into alliances and NAPs for the sake of winning a few points, or at least, to avoid loosing many points.
(e) etc, etc

[4] The cons:

(a) Good players will be able to exploit this better than n00bs.
(b) (In an 8 players game) The last player will have a DEVASTATING loss.
(c) The winner takes all mantra will no longer be applicable.

[5] This is a proto-idea. It would be up to the veterans to come up with formulas. And then up to time, to tune these formulas.

I have kept this post short, I could go on and on about the pro and cons. I choose rather to give the community a chance to explore the idea.

Aedolaws

[dustn64]

I thought I understood it until I read this.

(b) (In an 8 players game) The last player will have a DEVASTATING loss.

I figured all of the losing players points would go into a "pot" and then divided by percent. I'm not sure if I get it.

[lancehoch]

[3] I believe this setting would encourage players to:

(a) Play the best they can, EVEN when it is not realistically possible to win the game.
(b) Would disincentivize (is that a word?) suicide moves.
(d) Would promote diplomacy, as players would enter into alliances and NAPs for the sake of winning a few points, or at least, to avoid loosing many points.

a) Players are always supposed to play the best they can

Unwritten Rules

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.

If people are throwing games, they should be reported.
b) Suiciding is a viable strategy. If you are playing a terminator game, someone could "suicide" into another player to get points. Although it would cost them the win they would have a net gain of points.
d) Some players think that there is too much diplomacy on the site already.

[Aedolaws]

I will be honest, I have been a member of the community for almost 1/2 a year now and I have not played a single terminator game. I will sign up for 5 or 10 of those this week to understand the concept.

But,

(1) Yes, it is a pool, and the vets should come up with a rational division of points to award/punish winners/loosers, in which the #8 will have the most adverse consequence ofc (that is ALL I meant by "devastating")

(2) Yes, players are supposed to play their best always (i.e. as Christians are forbidden to commit suicide). But "faith" (i.e., players are "supposed to" play the best they can) not always works. What players are "supposed to do" is the ideal, not the "reality." This setting, I believe, will push most to play right (or face the consequences)

(3) Again, I will be honest, I am not familiar with the current status of "diplomacy" in the community. I am a believer that words are as much fun (or more) than actions. So, for me, there could never be such a thing as "too much diplomacy."

[killmanic]

unlike what you said, it would harm the higher ranks, since everyone would go after them knowing even if they lose they will gain alot of points cause they teamed up on the higher rank

[Herakilla]

how would it discourage suicides? if you can get some points by suiciding into some1 and killing them thus bumping you up wouldnt you do it?

[Aedolaws]

Very good points! This is what I wish people to bring up. Now, my reply:

unlike what you said, it would harm the higher ranks, since everyone would go after them knowing even if they lose they will gain alot of points cause they teamed up on the higher rank

(1) I believe experienced players would benefit from knowledge they have already acquired, because of such knowledge they will be able to get the most out of this setting. Does that mean that experienced players would be able to benefit the most from playing against experienced players? Maybe. Is that bad? Maybe! What do you think?

how would it discourage suicides? if you can get some points by suiciding into some1 and killing them thus bumping you up wouldnt you do it?

(2) Damn! Very good point. I didn't think of it. This is the kind of thing I would leave to the vets to figure out. But, having said so... wouldn't you agree that this would be an "advanced move" for this setting? One which "the more you know (i.e. you) the more likely you will be able to pull it off?" Again, I am not sure if this is bad or good.

Folks, this is just an idea, for a setting. I am not sure how much effort it would take to implement. But I am sure it cannot hurt CC if it can be done cheaply.

[FabledIntegral]

This would just cause people to suicide higher ranks to make sure they get out first + gain more points, even if they lose.

[Aedolaws]

This would just cause people to suicide higher ranks to make sure they get out first + gain more points, even if they lose.

Maybe. I am not sure. You vet would have to weight these concerns. BUT, I think you misunderstood the concept. There is no point to "suicide" in pro-rata mode. In fact, this whole concept PREVENTS that. It is better to remain alive than to suicide. It is better 3rd than 4th. So, I can see "suicide" is a big concern -- So it was/is for the world's biggest religion -- But this pro-rata mode is meant to actually curtail this. Now, that some players 'MAY' use 'this (one of many) setting' to eventually pull an strategic move (i.e. to help their friend [I am trying to think how suicide would be benefitial]) does not mean that it is bad. War is the art of deception. This setting could easily (and actually would exacerbate) the tendency to play politics and war, which would be in the spirit of the original game we are no longer able to play.

[lancehoch]

Maybe. I am not sure. You vet would have to weight these concerns. BUT, I think you misunderstood the concept. There is no point to "suicide" in pro-rata mode. In fact, this whole concept PREVENTS that. It is better to remain alive than to suicide. It is better 3rd than 4th. So, I can see "suicide" is a big concern -- So it was/is for the world's biggest religion -- But this pro-rata mode is meant to actually curtail this. Now, that some players 'MAY' use 'this (one of many) setting' to eventually pull an strategic move (i.e. to help their friend [I am trying to think how suicide would be benefitial]) does not mean that it is bad. War is the art of deception. This setting could easily (and actually would exacerbate) the tendency to play politics and war, which would be in the spirit of the original game we are no longer able to play.

If two players are both pretty weak relative to the other players, one may suicide into the other (killing them or not) so as not to lose as many points. People would likely kill the weakened player first, then the person who suicided. Have you played those terminator games yet? I really think that is more along the lines of what you seek.

[Timminz]

It seems to me, this would encourage people to simply sit around doing nothing in order to survive longer and/or encourage people to attack someone who's helping hold the game in balance, just to have them killed first.

WIN OR DIE!!!! or play terminator

[JACKAZZTJM]

add .....I have no idea what your fucking talking about ....to you poll

[Aedolaws]

Very insightful Jackass. You can speak indeed. It is amazing what a 1st world education can do to an ass.

[Dirar]

The rules are winner takes all, all the rest lose. In that way someone who got kicked out right at the begining and someone who put up a great fight are treated equally. Is it not fair if there be an incremental system whereby the longer you stayed the less points you lose? e.g. a 5 player game 1st loser - 20; second loser -10 third loser 0 2nd best +10 and winner +20.

[Ryall55]

i agree,

Great suggestion

[Hotdoggie]

How about no?

[yeti_c]

2nd is 1st loser.

C.

[Pedronicus]

I think that when you were knocked out of a game would be a good indication of ability in an automated 5 rating
winner 5 stars
It would depend on how many people are in the gamer to break down the other places / stars

[BaldAdonis]

I think that when you were knocked out of a game would be a good indication of ability in an automated 5 rating
winner 5 stars

What about in an escalating game, where one player has grabbed a continent and turtled there with no cards? They are making a really bad move, but they'll doubtless be the last one killed, because they're worthless to anyone going on a run.
I played a tournament where this happened, and the player repeatedly finished second, hardly ever won. ("Freedom isn't Free", US Senate games). He won 1/21 games, and finished second 6 times. He got points for that though, and moved on to the next round. So I suppose the "strategy" worked, but we just ended up having a weaker player stay longer and give away more points.

To the OP: If you think you played well and fought hard (and made kills), then play terminator. You'll be rewarded when you make good moves, and not just for winning.

[Dirar]

Thanx for the suggestion. I only played 1 terminator so far. I noticed I have better chance at triples