ljex wrote:Do people not realize that this changes the entire strategy of the game. Clearly everyone knows who is going to win as it starts coming down to the end and they are going to make the moves they think are best but if anything i think this addition encourages people to attack more throughout the game and not stack as much. Either way this is a good update, people can complain all they want and say it should have been done differently but i dont see how. Clearly if we are in round 19 people are going to know that the end is near and attacking will ensue so that everyone can try to put themselves in the best position. It does give a bit of an advantage to the last player to play...but seeing as that is random and being last is a disadvantage, i dont see how that is a problem.
Good update lack
While I agree mostly with your analysis, I think it's going to cause players to stack more early instead of attacking. Most notably in the short games (20 rounds), I suspect players are going to conserve troops as much as possible in the first 15 or so rounds, then it will be 5 rounds of all out suiciding to determine the winner.
It reminds me a bit of NASCAR - the first 490 laps are just driving in circles trying to stay in a position where you have the possibility of winning, and the last 10 are actually for racing.
haha problem is if you are just stacking people are going to view you as the main threat and attack you, when being attacked you have lower odds so good players will know to keep themselves not at the top but near it while still attacking around to gain strength by having a higher deploy and such.
Agreed - except in the fog games. BOB obviously helps there, but if you manage to gain a territory or two that others can't see, you could simply stack all your troops there and no-one would be the wiser.
Chariot of Fire wrote:
When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troup count.
Interesting. So at the end of, say, Round 20 the quad team with one player left with 10 armies would beat the team with 9,9,9,9 (36 armies). Seems a bit unfair somehow.
What happens in the event the teams each have a player with an equal highest number of troops and territories?
It seems to me that the best thing to do in a stalemated game 3 rounds before the end would be to have 3 of the players miss turns. If 3/4 of the team deadbeat, all the troops will be passed to the remaining teammate. Individual troop count is a very poor indication of overall team position.
I don't see why you can't work with it. A team that's 9, 9, 9, 9 versus a player with 10 and the 10 wins, well that's the first team's fault! They should have forted up a teammate as the Round Limit approached.
ljex wrote:Do people not realize that this changes the entire strategy of the game. Clearly everyone knows who is going to win as it starts coming down to the end and they are going to make the moves they think are best but if anything i think this addition encourages people to attack more throughout the game and not stack as much. Either way this is a good update, people can complain all they want and say it should have been done differently but i dont see how. Clearly if we are in round 19 people are going to know that the end is near and attacking will ensue so that everyone can try to put themselves in the best position. It does give a bit of an advantage to the last player to play...but seeing as that is random and being last is a disadvantage, i dont see how that is a problem.
Good update lack
While I agree mostly with your analysis, I think it's going to cause players to stack more early instead of attacking. Most notably in the short games (20 rounds), I suspect players are going to conserve troops as much as possible in the first 15 or so rounds, then it will be 5 rounds of all out suiciding to determine the winner.
It reminds me a bit of NASCAR - the first 490 laps are just driving in circles trying to stay in a position where you have the possibility of winning, and the last 10 are actually for racing.
haha problem is if you are just stacking people are going to view you as the main threat and attack you, when being attacked you have lower odds so good players will know to keep themselves not at the top but near it while still attacking around to gain strength by having a higher deploy and such.
Agreed - except in the fog games. BOB obviously helps there, but if you manage to gain a territory or two that others can't see, you could simply stack all your troops there and no-one would be the wiser.
Chariot of Fire wrote:
When playing a round limited game with teams, the winning team will be based on highest individual troop count, not teamwide troup count.
Interesting. So at the end of, say, Round 20 the quad team with one player left with 10 armies would beat the team with 9,9,9,9 (36 armies). Seems a bit unfair somehow.
What happens in the event the teams each have a player with an equal highest number of troops and territories?
It seems to me that the best thing to do in a stalemated game 3 rounds before the end would be to have 3 of the players miss turns. If 3/4 of the team deadbeat, all the troops will be passed to the remaining teammate. Individual troop count is a very poor indication of overall team position.
You'd miss those 9 deployments.
And how many Quads games are stalemated after 17 rounds?
I do agree that highest individual troop count is a piss poor way to do it for team games. Then again, I doubt I'll ever play a team game with round limits except 2v2v2 or 2v2v2v2
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
"It seems to me that the best thing to do in a stalemated game 3 rounds before the end would be to have 3 of the players miss turns. If 3/4 of the team deadbeat, all the troops will be passed to the remaining teammate."
Brilliant! The variant just got implemented, and you've ALREADY beaten the system. I don't see why it isn't the team with the most men. That's generally who's ahead. Otherwise it's like suddenly stopping a relay race and giving it to whichever team had the guy who ran the fastest individual lap. That just seems wrong.
Victor Sullivan wrote:I don't see why you can't work with it. A team that's 9, 9, 9, 9 versus a player with 10 and the 10 wins, well that's the first team's fault! They should have forted up a teammate as the Round Limit approached.
-Sully
Agreed here, how funny would that be if the one person did win...lol I think we all get the principle here of this one, doubt that this situation would happen very often if at all, but troop count just like in singles should be the determining factor
Victor Sullivan wrote:I don't see why you can't work with it. A team that's 9, 9, 9, 9 versus a player with 10 and the 10 wins, well that's the first team's fault! They should have forted up a teammate as the Round Limit approached.
-Sully
People can work with it, but the question is: how much should the introduction of the round limit affect the play? I always felt that the calculation of the winner should favour the player or team that would likely win in the long run if there were no limit. I agree with Chariot of Fire that the intact team should prevail over the lone player. With this "single best player represents the team" method, we will now need to adjust strategy to keep the limit in mind, and pile everything onto one player. Doing this makes the other players more vulnerable to elimination, which might lead to the singleton taking the game before the limit expires. So there you have an obviously stronger team being forced to weaken its position in order to win.
nvrijn wrote:At first blush, I loved the idea. Imposing a turn limit is a great way to avoid those endless "reinforce and hold" games with no RISK (or even Fixed value Risk). CC is very responsive to players needs.
But there were several ways to do it. Determine the winner by number of territories held, by the bonus received or by number of men. Someone chose number of men, but I really think one of the alternatives (or a combination) might have been better.
Now as the clock approaches midnight in a multi-player game, everyone is trying to avoid attacking anyone else. It's pretty clear who's NOT gonna win, and any player who recognizes that fact can determine the winner by attacking the leading rival. So the temptation to suicide is going to be very strong, and the ultimate reward goes to the player who didn't piss anyone off. That tends to minimize strategy over diplomacy, and players who know each other will be far more likely to cooperate "in the end game" then they are now.
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 guy sees the very same issues I stated earlier and points them out very clearly! Well done sir.
Only using the most troops as the math to decide the winner is very problematic and just makes zero sense.
Guys.. the real issue is not the round limit... its the math that decides the winner. If more math/thought is put into how a winner is decided in the case of the limits being met.. we would find much less opportunity for abuse. I suggest we fix the big problem first.. then look at it all again and find where there could be abuse. I will bet.. once we decide on a more fair algorithm for deciding the winner we will have less to discuss.
now really cc has wasted there time coding a real stupid item on site when there are really valid things needing addressed. i mean come on this update is just going to encorage more farming etc. building games are 9 out of ten times on maps like feudal that avearge game runs more than 20 rounds. so the player who sits and does nothing wins you are taking the game away players will just sit and stack bombard and hope they win.
also what about assassin games. 1 player goes for his target his target has 1 troup left he has 19 and the other has 22 are you reaslly telling me you are gonna class the guy with 22 troups the leader.
same as in terminator games say 4 player game
player a 1 region 1 troup left because player b attacked him.
player b 15 troups stacked beside player a cornered 30 regions.
player c 30 troups 5 regions
player d 28 troups.
are you really saying player b although he has a kill his next turn wont get any points. because player c or d wont attack if it is close to end of round limit.
come on cc i thought you would look at what complications would come into effect with a option like this. all this is gonna do is piss a lot of players off.
Can we just get a formal announcement of how it works in each game? Although personally, if you have an issue with assassin, team or terminator (which I would) just don't play them with limits!
swimmerdude99 wrote:Can we just get a formal announcement of how it works in each game? Although personally, if you have an issue with assassin, team or terminator (which I would) just don't play them with limits!
my point exactly what have we got just now.
1) clan war database (waiting for coding) 2) adjacent attacks (waiting for coding) 3) babysitting feature (waiting for coding.
plus more i cant remember. and what do we get a program coded that all it will cause is loads of arguements. cc really does need to start getting decent updates of things that are needed not things that are not.
I agree with all points but the sitting feature. Do you realize how lame that would be? I'm not playing but the cpu will take my turn for me by a programmed attack? We don't need that. Anywho, I like this update, just give me some specifics and a real epxlanation of how it works please
The sitting feature is intended to give better control of account sitting, where one player covers turns for another. Right now, this is done by giving away passwords, a risky business. The built-in feature would control the authorization by one player of another to take turns, without permitting access to profiles, inboxes, and so on.
Just playing Devil's Advocate here ender, but if the new sitting feature doesn't allow access to the Inbox (which I actually believe is a good thing - I hate having my mail read) it could result in that player being kicked out of tourney games if the invite has gone via PM. I think we've all been in the scenario whereby an absent player has asked for PMs to be checked and tourney games to be joined.
Is it possible therefore to change the structure of the mail system, whereby new PMs arrive in an Inbox and any read messages (i.e. the old ones that the user wishes to keep) get moved to a 'Read Items' folder? A sitter would only have access to the Inbox, thus ensuring confidentiality of saved messages whilst still allowing new PMs to be read and tourney games, if invited, joined.
Highest position #5 (18 Nov 2010) General 4,380pts (11 Dec 2010)
I guess I have to be more careful about my pronouncements. I don't know for certain what the sitter feature would entail exactly, and I believe that there is a topic in the Suggestions forum to discuss it in detail. I was mostly trying to point out that the sitter feaure would not involve an AI taking your turns for you.
Anyway, when you create a game, can't you invite players and have that show up on their My Games page, without using a PM?
ender516 wrote:The sitting feature is intended to give better control of account sitting, where one player covers turns for another. Right now, this is done by giving away passwords, a risky business. The built-in feature would control the authorization by one player of another to take turns, without permitting access to profiles, inboxes, and so on.
Ohhhh. Cool, I'm sorry for my statement and being out of the loop on that one, I agree that would be nice. This would mean that it would automatically post who took the turn as well correct?
ender516 wrote:I guess I have to be more careful about my pronouncements. I don't know for certain what the sitter feature would entail exactly, and I believe that there is a topic in the Suggestions forum to discuss it in detail. I was mostly trying to point out that the sitter feaure would not involve an AI taking your turns for you.
Anyway, when you create a game, can't you invite players and have that show up on their My Games page, without using a PM?
Very true. Although from what some tournament organizers have told me, it is sometimes simpler to send out a PM with a bunch of game links for players to join than inviting each individual player to each game. Think Map Blaster - where each player plays over 170 games, that would require over 1000 invites for one group alone. Or HA's 200th tourney - where players are PMed instructions on how to join the next round, but no invites could be sent.
Perhaps something else in the coding that the PM sender can tick off for "sitter can read".
Coordinating the PMs (part of the forum database) with the sitter feature (part of the game database) strikes me as tricky, but I don't honestly know. It might be better to have the sitter PM the TO for special dispensation in these cases. I would hope that the absent player would let a sitter know that there was a tournament with games that the sitter would need to join.
