Possible variant

Suggestions on improving the site or comments in general?

Re: Possible variant

Postby Shampoo » 28 Dec 2017, 22:19

Thanks, that’s a good article and reflects more or less my thoughts (always possible to think about scoringmethods).
Shampoo
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 15 Dec 2016, 21:38
Location: Netherlands
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1256
All-game rating: 1246
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Possible variant

Postby asudevil » 28 Dec 2017, 22:23

Nibbler wrote:
TTBen wrote:Have to agree with the previous posters that getting a solo for losing would be a tough sell. I’d be more in favor of a scoring option that allows you to still get SOME points even if another player solos. Something that can recognize being able to hang in until 1915 is different than going out in 1903, that having 16 centers at the end is different than having 1. I don’t think it is something that should be required in all games but it could certainly encourage longer term alliances like he is seeking for those that want to play that way.

I have been playing here almost a year now but really not posting, going to try to be more involved and throw my 2 cents in on topics like this.

Again, the point in Dip is that there is one winner, and everyone else has lost. If someone solos, and I have 15 SCs to my name, what difference does it make? Someone in the game achieved the victory criteria. In fact, if I'm on 15 SCs, why couldn't I have done more to prevent the solo? It could well be argued that it's more my fault that someone won the game!

Again, what if I do hang in there until 1915... and lose? I've still lost. Did I play better than the player eliminated in 1903? Possibly... but I didn't prevent the solo.

Try this: Objectives Other Than Winning by Allan Calhamer.


Also, you may have played it safe...and therefore got to survive...but also never really had a shot at a solo. But the person who went out in 1903...sure they lost...but they took the gamble to put themselves in the best position to solo. Also when points are divided up based on SC count at the end of a loss to a solo it actually hurts the ability to form an ALA because people would rather pick off a couple easy SC and be a "strong second" than actually put up a line to stop the solo
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.

Want to play fantasy football next season here...Reigning Champion
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 15936
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1366
All-game rating: 1535
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Possible variant

Postby TTBen » 04 Jan 2018, 19:47

asudevil wrote:
Nibbler wrote:
TTBen wrote:Have to agree with the previous posters that getting a solo for losing would be a tough sell. I’d be more in favor of a scoring option that allows you to still get SOME points even if another player solos. Something that can recognize being able to hang in until 1915 is different than going out in 1903, that having 16 centers at the end is different than having 1. I don’t think it is something that should be required in all games but it could certainly encourage longer term alliances like he is seeking for those that want to play that way.

I have been playing here almost a year now but really not posting, going to try to be more involved and throw my 2 cents in on topics like this.

Again, the point in Dip is that there is one winner, and everyone else has lost. If someone solos, and I have 15 SCs to my name, what difference does it make? Someone in the game achieved the victory criteria. In fact, if I'm on 15 SCs, why couldn't I have done more to prevent the solo? It could well be argued that it's more my fault that someone won the game!

Again, what if I do hang in there until 1915... and lose? I've still lost. Did I play better than the player eliminated in 1903? Possibly... but I didn't prevent the solo.

Try this: Objectives Other Than Winning by Allan Calhamer.


Also, you may have played it safe...and therefore got to survive...but also never really had a shot at a solo. But the person who went out in 1903...sure they lost...but they took the gamble to put themselves in the best position to solo. Also when points are divided up based on SC count at the end of a loss to a solo it actually hurts the ability to form an ALA because people would rather pick off a couple easy SC and be a "strong second" than actually put up a line to stop the solo


Certainly understand the shortfalls just saying I would be interested to see it as an option, definitely shouldn’t be mandatory. And there are plenty of games right now that people won’t stop attacking others to prevent a solo. If the game was easy though it wouldn’t be as much fun.....
TTBen
Premium Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 09 Feb 2017, 15:40
Location: Texas
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1012
All-game rating: 1632
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Possible variant

Postby asudevil » 04 Jan 2018, 20:18

TTBen wrote:Also, you may have played it safe...and therefore got to survive...but also never really had a shot at a solo. But the person who went out in 1903...sure they lost...but they took the gamble to put themselves in the best position to solo. Also when points are divided up based on SC count at the end of a loss to a solo it actually hurts the ability to form an ALA because people would rather pick off a couple easy SC and be a "strong second" than actually put up a line to stop the solo


Certainly understand the shortfalls just saying I would be interested to see it as an option, definitely shouldn’t be mandatory. And there are plenty of games right now that people won’t stop attacking others to prevent a solo. If the game was easy though it wouldn’t be as much fun.....[/quote]

More options =/= better. There is another suggestion already up that talks about how we have too MANY options and that hurts the site cause its harder to get games to fill
Captain FANG, forum team championships WINNER
Part of the surviving nations of WW4/Haven

Unless I am in the cheater's subforum. 99% of what I say is NOT as a mod.

Want to play fantasy football next season here...Reigning Champion
User avatar
asudevil
Premium Member
 
Posts: 15936
Joined: 18 Jul 2011, 02:20
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1366
All-game rating: 1535
Timezone: GMT-7

Re: Possible variant

Postby TTBen » 05 Jan 2018, 15:30

And I agree with their overall point of that post that there should be a basic vanilla game that is automatically set up and most people join, you would have to go to a separate page or something in order to choose advanced options. But I do not think it is such a bad thing to have more options and if I choose that I want to wait longer for a game that I specifically designed then I have that option rather than just saying it will take a long time to fill so we won’t even give you the choice.
TTBen
Premium Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: 09 Feb 2017, 15:40
Location: Texas
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1012
All-game rating: 1632
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Possible variant

Postby Nibbler » 05 Jan 2018, 19:54

As the game isn't about collecting SCs or trying to finish second, and as anyone who loses has lost, I personally don't see how this would fit into the site's scoring system. So putting this option up would mean games would have to be unranked or have a completely unrelated scoring system. As there doesn't seem to be a point to having them as no rank, it would mean coding another system and running that system alongside the current one, presumably drawing on more server resources.

Variants on the site, when they have the option of being ranked, use the same scoring system as the standard game, based on win, draw, lose. It could be argued that the this isn't a truly relevant system to score but, at least, it reflects the possible results of a game in a meaningful way. SC count is meaningless is Dip unless you win.

I'm also not sure it is a variant in the way the site recognises variants in that it is a scoring variant rather than a map variant.

Perhaps some people would be interested in playing this way, though. If so, it could be organised on the forum, played as friends games on the site, and records kept on the forum.
Respect neither opinions nor beliefs; only respect the person and the right to express them.
Play by the rules but be ferocious.
Across the Board
User avatar
Nibbler
Premium Member
 
Posts: 99
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 09:27
Location: Yorkshire
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (974)
All-game rating: (974)
Timezone: GMT

Previous

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest