|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Sat, 11 November 2006 18:22   |
|
|
|
| joseph wrote on Sun, 12 November 2006 09:57 |
To start the ball rolling, in "Bidding for Techs" Dogthinker used a "every 10 years 1st and 2nd place, must break all treaties with each other and set each other to enemy"
|
And I must say, from observing the game as host, it has been a tremendously lively game. I know of a number of instances where the rule has literally started wars between players that had previously been allied or at least cooperating. It's hard to tell how much of the fluidity in the diplomacy is due to the players or the rule. If pushed I would say that the rule created a suitable atmosphere for lively diplomacy, and a few nudges. Not all the players like the rule - after all, it *is* very arbitary and to a certain extent unpredictable, but I think everybody has had a heap of fun so far. I think this is definately a viable method, and will be using variations of it in any future (1winneronly) games that I host.
[Updated on: Sat, 11 November 2006 18:23] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Sat, 11 November 2006 21:11 |
|
|
|
I actually prefer your second suggestion, or some version of it. Here's my take.
Each place has a certain number of points awarded to it, but, if there is an alliance, then the points from all players in that alliance are pooled, then reduced by some number and then that score is distributed equally among all members. Not sure what factor to use for the reduction. The penalty should be larger the higher the ranks of players involved.
However, this approach doesn't work well in situations where player A and B are allied, player A and C are allied, but player B and C are at war. Maybe each alliance could decide half of the points for player A?
Of course, this system would work better if the points were acculmulated across multiple games. That way, winning by a smaller margin would be undesirable, as would helping players of similar skill gain points.
The Dopelar Effect:
The tendancy for stupid ideas to seem more intelliegent when they come at you rapidly.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Sat, 11 November 2006 22:10 |
|
|
|
Another option would be the restriction wizard includes in many of his games:
Everyone has to be set to enemy except one ally. The ally can be changed once every 10 years. Tech exchange between enemies is not allowed.
For big games where you usually want to have more options available for diplomacy, you could allow tech exchange or a number of up to 3 players to form an alliance.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Sun, 12 November 2006 19:59 |
|
|
|
Here's another alternative way to score a game:
Take the integral of score over the entire game (with a fixed end date.) This would rank the players on their performance throughout the game, rewarding strong early/mid play as well as late game play. Going out in a blaze of glory could still get you a decent position, if your performance in early/mid game was strong enough to counter the tiny scores you'd be getting in the end game. Supporting a highly ranked race would be a worse move than usual, as their summed lead over you would be growing every year - jumping ahead of them in the last few years as 2nd rank players often plan to do, would not be enough (unless the gain was *massive*)
As an example, joseph has just abdicated at 2511 from Bidding for Techs, but from looking in from the outside, I think he deserves a little more recognitition for his performance than being ranked 6th (last.) Out of curiosity I will put the data together later (won't publish for a fair while though, as the game is still ongoing) and make an integral through to 2500. I think this scoring system would've placed his Brutes into 4th place, helped by their early/mid strength and hindered by their late game weakness. Of course a 2500 end would've been very premature for this particular match, as you can see by the fact that our first permanent inactive is at 2511 
[Updated on: Sun, 12 November 2006 20:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Mon, 13 November 2006 02:52 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
With regards to giving the players a score ... IMHO most will simply *not*care* about that score. And they won't act towards it in-game ...
One-Winner-Game: two people ally in 2410, they fight, grow, conquer together and slay all competition, by 2480 they rule the universe, they have bonded, are brothers in war, they got this far *together* ... *they* will *feel* they have won. Oh wait the score board has something that is called 1st and 2nd place? Huh, and host says one of us did *not* win? Weird ... <shrug> let's celibrate!
What people *feel* matters much more than some scoring that is "artifically" created and pinned upon them ...
IMHO if you want a OWG you'll either have to find the players with the right *attitude*, or work with the *in-game* friend/enemy/etc restrictions (and even then players will look for loopholes!), just some fabricated and imposed score will not work.
mch
[Updated on: Mon, 13 November 2006 02:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Mon, 13 November 2006 10:19 |
|
|
|
Going by your post, I'm assuming you mean the top-two diplomatic restrictions idea, not the summed scores idea. Just for clarification.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Winning conditions |
Tue, 14 November 2006 09:08 |
|
 PricklyPea |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005 | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Sat, 11 November 2006 18:22 |
| joseph wrote on Sun, 12 November 2006 09:57 |
To start the ball rolling, in "Bidding for Techs" Dogthinker used a "every 10 years 1st and 2nd place, must break all treaties with each other and set each other to enemy"
|
And I must say, from observing the game as host, it has been a tremendously lively game. I know of a number of instances where the rule has literally started wars between players that had previously been allied or at least cooperating. It's hard to tell how much of the fluidity in the diplomacy is due to the players or the rule. If pushed I would say that the rule created a suitable atmosphere for lively diplomacy, and a few nudges. Not all the players like the rule - after all, it *is* very arbitary and to a certain extent unpredictable, but I think everybody has had a heap of fun so far. I think this is definately a viable method, and will be using variations of it in any future (1winneronly) games that I host.
|
A side effect of that rule was that I did not take the offensive since I was wary of an ally turning against me on the 10 year (which came true when I finally did!).
Solo victory combined with 'all bets are off from turn 90' ought to do it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
) the lower your score and -2 to -5 points if you are allied with the winner
Plain "Single player may win" rule actually works (to extent). 
