"Second place" deals are spoiling games - this need not be so

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 10/12/2007 00:41:46

I'm seeing an increasing number people making deals where, when one player is in the lead, another promises not to attack them in exchange for coming second.

I expect many people have seen this happen now, and have also experienced the boredom and frustration that comes with seeing what was an interesting and enjoyable game dehydrated into a dry, point scoring exercise.

Though I've occasionally expressed my frustrations with players on the tables, I'd like to describe the situation more neutrally here: as the current ranking system goes, these deals are understandable alliances for players to make, because they confer definite ranking advantages.

My suggestion, then, is that the ranking system is redefined in such a way that this common, tiresome strategy, which many of us have seen sapping the life and fun from our games, garners no advantage. It seems to me there is a tension in the system between strategic play and playing for the sake of enjoying the game; I believe that with a little tweaking of the point distribution, this need not be the case.

I would very much like to hear other people's thoughts on how these deals have affected your games, how the system might be changed to make them untenable, and whether you also think this would be in the overall best interests of the game.

I'm not sure you could do away with this practice even if you tried. How can you deduct points for a verbal agreement?
Besides, alliances are all about the map situation at hand at the instance an alliance is offered. Because they are so short term and spontaneous, I don't think they are a threat to the game. It may be a problem for the other players right then, but they are free to alliance between themselves to offset the first alliance. In the end, the map will be restarted in 10 mins and the situations and alliances will be changed as well. I don't think this is an unbalancing problem for the game. And if you find a pair of players always ganging up, you don't have to play with them.

I agree, the point system needs some tweeking. I don't know how it is calculated currently, but it would make sense to base it off armies killed, armies gained, and the rank of the opponents in addition to finishing place. That way even if a person finishes second, they could still increase in rank less than the 3rd or even 4th place.

Hmm I still don't agree, but for the sake of exploring possibilities, how would you specifically set up the scoring system?

If you want to see a change, make some concrete suggestions that would incorporate the changes you want. Right now the admins have a scoring system that works fairly well. You need to give them a reason to change(as you have) and a possible path for that changes to follow(only vaguely at this time). That makes it easier for them to consider changing something that already works reasonably well. They wouldn't have to put as much effort into it.

I'd like to just keep it simple, but I would like to see what you guys (oggz and tradwolley- and anyone else) would suggest for an alternate scoring system.

Don't forget that changing the scoring system would toss out all ranks people currently have. Not sure if people would be happy with that. Of course they would have to work for their rank again and thats the fun part for me anyways...

OK, now you guys have got me thinking about an alternate scoring system. I'd like to toss an idea into the ring with tradwolley's suggested ideas about the scoring.

Decaying rank- over time if a player doesn't play any games, decay their rank a certain percentage. Maybe 1-3% each day. Thats not a huge drop, but it would encourage people to come in and play a little every so often... and it would work with my next suggestion..

Limited rank slots - At the lower ranks, up to say master sergeant let unlimited number of players have the rank. Once you get above that, allow only a limited number of each rank,decreasing the number as the ranks go higher. Tie that back to the decaying rank and your leader board will stay an active leader board, earning and keeping their rank. Those bars and leaves will really start to mean something then. And every one of them will have a big target on his back from the lesser ranks. But thats as it should be. They have to earn their rank every time they play.

Might have to limit points lost by high rank when going out first to an alliance of lesser ranks so they will not be afraid to play with players with a much lesser rank.

Concrete suggestions can be useful, but I prefer to continue exploring the issue for now and wouldn't like to foreclose on a solution, hence asking for other people's opinions.

I find it interesting that we're presenting alternate points of view. Looking from your position for a moment, although players are free to refuse these deals, I find it disheartening how rarely that happens. Why do you think this is? It indicates to me that rank, for all I enjoy it, and I really do, is also detracting from the game by being something of a fool's gold.

Perhaps if the points systems were to remain unchanged there could be a way of recording that certain players do frequently band together. Or even a second ranking, awarded to from each player to each other at the end of a game, of how enjoyable it was to play with that person. I'm painting with wide brush strokes again and leaving the details to find their own way into the conversation.

On a more concrete note, and building on one of the points you raise, I would prefer to see any changes made to the system done a way that doesn't delete the current ranks we've earned. This is how changes to the mechanics are generally done in MMORPGS, and I like the general understanding in those communities that the game is evolving while it is being played.

This is a good discussion. To let you all know, as we are in active development, we are amenable to changing the mechanics of the game -- and both myself and riser agree that there is something to be done in this area. Please continue discussing, I haven't formed any concrete opinions here yet, and honestly, you guys are helping me do so

Kdice attempts to solve this problem with the introduction of domination points, which are calculated as a placed rank (in each game), based on your average size through the game relative to others. I'm not sure this is the best solution; but certainly deserves mention. The effect of this system is to reward players who obtained, and then maintained a large 'empire' in the game. I think this is less applicable to the system here because of the freely available land, though who knows.

I think a good solution would be an official alliance function in game. Those players share first and the next player receives second. you can split up the points of first based on how many armies each player in the alliance holds. And if the single player defeats the Alliance the people in the alliance would tie for third and he would recieve points for first and second. Just a thought

As rnd points out, we are open to changes that people would like to see.

One thing I'd like to point out is that I view the in game scoring (alliances, domination points, etc.) as a separate issue from the overall rank and leaderboard presence (as commented on by sittingDuck).

If there is interest in discussing both, I'd suggest a separate thread for the overall ranking.

ooh nice thought Blue. I like the idea of an official alliance providing a share of the placement. I don't think that would keep the original issue of second place alliances from happening, but its an interesting idea.

This would lead more players to alliance if they were losing to a single strong player. Alliance could be enforced so that allies could not attack each other until the alliance was called off. Alliance attack restriction would not end until after the alliance breaking player had their turn. This would make a disadvantage to ask out of an alliance.

Oh, another thought... maybe think about allowing alliance squares to count as joining squares for players with disjointed squares. They don't get to count their ally's squares for extra armies, but the ally squares could connect their own spread out squares.

Perhaps also consider allowing allies to pass armies to one another. Maybe at the map transfer percentages, maybe only half that.

Perhaps make allies permanent. No leaving an alliance except feet first.

Just listing some ideas that came to mind. none of which will really solve the second place issue with a single player in a dominant position just picking out his second place preference.

OK, I'm starting to come around to the idea that changing the scoring system could effect the changes that oggz is concerned about. Thinking through the general scoring changes suggested by tradwally makes me think it could make that practice have less effect (and thus limit it). It would be a fine balancing act to come up with a scoring system that would take all these possibilities into account and return a fair score tho.

I think we could work up a trial scoring system, just to see if it would work. Might need the admins to implement it alongside the regular one and report both for a while to see how the results turn out. Its their game... we're just along for the ride...

riser and rnd - is it ok if we try to work on some actual formulae for a new scoring system? I don't want to step on toes or think we're taking over the game. Id rather leave things be than overstep.

What would really help would be if you could post all of the game results in machine-readable format so that people can analyze them. Then we can have hard data instead of conjectures.

sittingDuck,
I see no issue with suggestion, including concrete formulas, being made. The point is to improve the game and make it enjoyable to everyone.

jss,
As far as machine readable format, I'd like to know what information you are interested in. If it makes sense, we could make a page that is accessible to all users containing it.

*urg* Not sure I'm ready to go data diving just yet.. Id rather work up some formulae first and then maybe apply past or current data to it to see what the results would be. Trying to pull a reasonable solution out of data seems difficult to me.

I experienced this today, we were playing a 4 person match with no AI. I was as fortunate to have a decent starting position a few good turns. All things were going well, i was slowly taking over until.. 3v1 alliance. It just seems a bit unfair for something like this to happen.

I think at the very least we should be able to configure teams before hand. And if it is a FFA there should be some statistical analysis done with the scoring at the end of the game.

Points could be adjusted depending if the system determines that it was unbalanced (it's pretty easy to figure out if people were teaming up on one player for the majority of a game).

Thoughts?