| Octahedron Discussion |
Mon, 11 August 2008 19:57  |
|
|
|
Should we put the game on hold for a short time, since ForceUser has missed 3 turns now, and try to find another player, or just keep going?
[Updated on: Sun, 17 August 2008 23:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Sun, 17 August 2008 23:53  |
|
|
|
The thought occurs to me: because the ideal win conditions state that a win occurs when no more points are possible, the game would appear to be decided on the last man standing. No matter how it plays out, by placing the end conditions as "when no more point gains are possible", we're placing the end conditions as last man standing, because someone is always able to get more (relative) points until the other seven are dead, because we can't kill ourselves.
Alternately, it breaks down to last three standing, with the guy in the middle winning and his two allies tying for second, if we consider pure point gains, and not relative point gains (i.e. getting a lead on other players; killing your allies to ensure they don't beat you).
Perhaps we should change things so that the gp of a player is locked when they're declared dead, to add a bit of variety to the game and not make it end up as a -2gp winner and -4gp everyone else?
This way if you die you get -2 gp, but if you kept both allies alive and killed your enemies first, you're still at a higher score than the shmuck who got steamrolled along with his allies. Also, I don't see a reason to take gp from a player who's already dead, and therefore can't help prevent the destruction of his allies (and who doesn't deserve credit for his enemies destruction either).
In essence, should we change the rules so that gp is locked once a player kicks the can? Or is there a better solution to this problem?
Endnote: I hadn't really thought of this problem until just now, but it seems pretty glaring once considered. I'd like comments.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Mon, 18 August 2008 08:16 |
|
 joseph |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol | |
|
Its over when there are no more points to be "gained"
Killing someone so they get -2 points (and their ally gets -1) doesnt "gain" you any points.
So the game could theoretically be over when only 4 players are left (1, 3, 5 and 7) OR (2, 4, 6, and 8 ).
If you manage to hang onto at least one of your allies the game will only be over when you have killed everyone else (with the possible exception of either his or your other ally).
Or they kill you or your ally. So 2 or 3 players left.
As for differentiation between the losers - If you died and both your allies died and both your enemies survived you get -4 (only 1 player will get this low a score)
Then if only 1 of your enemies lives you get -3 (a few players could get this)
Alternatively both your enemies and 1 ally live -3.
-2 has several options of getting there most common likely to be "You die, I die, we all die - bye bye"
-1 is a good placing. Your enemies are dead, one of your allies lives but unfortunately you died.
0 is a possible win, most likely joint first - either you are alive, your allies and enemies are dead OR you are dead, your enemies are dead and BOTH your allies are alive.
1 You won - joint win with an ally - all others are probably dead.
2 Amazing - you won, both your allies are alive (and come joint second) everyone else is very dead. Your military skills and diplomacy must be really really good, is your name Micha?
I think the scoring as it is will be fine.
If you live you do well,
If you die then you need to have made certain that either your enemies die with you (or are so weakend that others drag them down) OR your allies survive.
Fail at all of this and quite rightly you will be judged as last.
Oh and I forgot - you do need to take point from dead people who then have their allies killed as otherwise you get the situation where the weak ally who dies first gets better points than his stronger ally who is only killed after the weak ally is dead. (ie -2 for dying first Vs -1 for losing an ally & -2 for dying)
[Updated on: Mon, 18 August 2008 08:21]
Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Sat, 06 September 2008 18:31 |
|
|
|
just a note to to chaosknight when he comes back.
I think the no-gen on Tuesday was because of my missed turns (Eldon). I ended up getting my turn in in time, and the gen happened last time on Tuesday, but is scheduled to skip on the coming Tuesday.
I am fine now with M->F gens, though I would be fine with M,W,F too, or say every 48 hrs...
naz
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Sun, 07 September 2008 08:29 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| bigcanuknaz wrote on Sun, 07 September 2008 00:31 |
just a note to to chaosknight when he comes back.
I think the no-gen on Tuesday was because of my missed turns (Eldon). I ended up getting my turn in in time, and the gen happened last time on Tuesday, but is scheduled to skip on the coming Tuesday.
|
Right, I removed that gen to make sure the Elden wouldn't miss another turn. I've but it back in now.
| Quote: |
I am fine now with M->F gens, though I would be fine with M,W,F too, or say every 48 hrs...
|
I'm still fin with 5 gens a week (no weekends), lets see what the host has to say when he gets back. He didn't say anything about it in the game announcement.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Tue, 09 September 2008 21:13 |
|
|
|
we are all in!
I am fine with Micha taking the game off hold.
naz
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Thu, 18 September 2008 01:55 |
|
|
|
I appologize for holding up the game. I've had a busy week, and Stars! ended up in the back of my mind, sadly. Turn is now in, however, so we can continue onward whenever the Solari return.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Mon, 22 September 2008 22:31 |
|
|
|
Considering the previous discussion about M-W-F generations, and a general desire not to get burned out and rushed personally, I'll make a motion to move to MWF turn gens. It wasn't discussed within the original game post, but there seemed to be some desire for it once it was brought up.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Mon, 06 October 2008 16:46 |
|
|
|
MWF is great for me.
You might want to delete the Tuesday gen regardless, as the monday gen will happen immediately when you take the game off hold (past already) and leaving the tuesday gen in will only give us 12 hrs or so to play the turn. I can only check for the next 4 hrs or so, until I go to bed.
I think it was Micha that suggested in an email that for games on day schedules (rather than time schedules), that it is better to remove gens than to put the game on hold.
naz
edit: "I think..."
edit: typos
[Updated on: Mon, 06 October 2008 16:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Octahedron Discussion |
Sat, 08 November 2008 15:03 |
|
|
|
Urg. I know the game is starting to heat up nicely, but can we get a Monday gen skip? I absolutely can't get my turn done this weekend, way too much work has come up.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I rescind that comment!
