But if the primary factor was territories or bonuses, it's different (and I think better). The player who is strategic enough to barricade themselves off from multiple attackers, while racing around and ensuring no one else has a higher territory count, or bonus count, probably deserves to win. The downside is that it offers a real disadvantage to the guy that goes first.
I suspect the optimum way would be to choose the winner based upon several factors.
Total number of bonuses Total number of territories (factors different if different number of territories in the variant) The remaining number of men
It might be more complex to figure out, but that is GOOD because it gives a player several ways to win, the point weighing reflects the actual strategy considerations, the special suicide end game strategy is minimized, and it would provide several strategies for winning as the turn clock ticked down, instead of only one.
Is the current "end value" computation of this new variant written in stone?
Regards,
NVRijn
this. control over the map should be given a heavier weightage than simply having more men from turtling.
demonfork wrote:5000 or so games with round limits have ended so far. Less than 100 of them reached their limits.
An update was done for something that happens 2% of the time, what a waste.
While I agree with that stat, most of the games that would have reached their limits would have been the 20-rounders. I believe, in a month or so, the 100 rounders will start coming into effect and the percentage will bump a bit (probably to 5%).
Furthermore, that's only the games that have round limits turned on - I can only assume an even greater number of games have ended with round limits turned off. So it's actually far less than 2% of the time that round limits determine the game.
i think it's a bit misleading to compare 8 player slow cook games to the horde of 1v1 farming games. who genuinely prefers playing Risk with only 2 players if not for points?
I prefer 2- or 3-player games because I don't have to wait up to a week for a turn like I might in one of those 8-player monsters. Also, don't I stand to win more points from seven opponents than I do from one or two, presuming I prevail?
there must be a reason why the top players play so many 1v1 or team games (which are essentially 1v1 too) while those with less to lose play games with a greater variety of settings..
shijinn wrote:there must be a reason why the top players play so many 1v1 or team games (which are essentially 1v1 too) while those with less to lose play games with a greater variety of settings..
There is less left to chance. 1v1 and team games are far easier to specialize in - you can script a number of plays from start to finish and do the same thing every time. In single player games, with 3 or more players, there comes a random factor of one of the players who is not you screwing up and handing the game to someone else who is not you. So while you may not win as many points in a 1v1 game, you tend to win more frequently and have a higher net gain than in other gametypes.
prob already covered but what happens when the sitter sits and builds sit and builds etc etc etc for say 20 rounds the rest work hard to try and win then its 20 round time and the sitter win for doing nothing,zip, f all theres a few maps that are perfect for that
codierose wrote:prob already covered but what happens when the sitter sits and builds sit and builds etc etc etc for say 20 rounds the rest work hard to try and win then its 20 round time and the sitter win for doing nothing,zip, f all theres a few maps that are perfect for that
I guess the only solution to that problem is to refuse to join no-cards games on those maps.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.” ― Voltaire
wouldn't have adding most spoils before going to who joint first been better. although unlikely to get there, if someone has more spoils, their in the better position.
