Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#521 Victory Condition
#11
Well, look at it from the professional sports or Olympics point of view. If two runners in the 100-meter dash both cross the finish line at exactly the same time, are both awarded the Gold medal? Same principle here. If two kingdoms declare Rex victory at same time, both should share the top prize and be on the podium together. It has nothing to do with status points. Status points only comes into play for Lion's Share determination at the end of the game. About Rex overriding Usurper, that's due to the level of importance of a Rex victory over a Usurper and has nothing to do about status points or assuring a 1st-2nd-3rd place order.
Reply
#12
The Olympics do not give an edge(bonus) to first time athletes. If we look at fantasy sports since this is a fantasy game. Both Yahoo and ESPN have tie breaker after tie breaker to determine the true winner. If I remember correctly ESPN goes 12 tie breakers deep and then has it the flip of coin.
Make up any rule you guys like as long as they are documented.
Reply
#13
You do realize he is proposing how to handle future games. This game had 2 winners. Period. Now that that is clear lets talk about the right solution going forward. Which could be the same result or one clearly defined winner.
Reply
#14
(11-12-2016, 02:39 AM)Atuan Wrote: You do realize he is proposing how to handle future games....  

Such rudeness. Really, I was only using the Olympics as an example. Not something or someone that I was ignoring and certainly not deserving of your retort. This is your second warning Atuan. You really need to get off my back.

Jumpingfist, I understand your point about this being a fantasy game but shouldn't we also consider that Alamaze is a war game as well? In other words, there are no 2nd or 3rd place finishers in a tabletop war game is there? Only the victor that conquered the realm. So should Alamaze reflect that fact or should we switch to something else that's based entirely upon points for a 1st-2nd-3rd place ranking and remove the concept of a victory declaration (if you're a purist at heart)?

Ry Vor really needs to chime in here but I believe the original intent and purpose of a victory declaration was that there is a defined winner of the contest. That's why there's no "real" 2nd or 3rd place finishers in the game. I believe that was introduced to help make the game more "player-friendly" instead of accurately reflecting a war game like scenario where there's a clear victor that conquered the realm.
Reply
#15
I think 1st 2nd 3rd is actually very good for the game. It allows more players to share in a part of winning or coming close to winning and being reconized thru Valhalla for coming close. Having only a 1st place could cause more drops and less enjoyment. But also I do not like seeing a war game end in a tie.

To me Rex is saying I dominated this particular game. If someone else has also declared REX then obviously this is not true and the game need to continue to be fought or the 1 true REX of this game need to be figured out. REX used to be 5 regions remember

The trouble I would see with a dual REX going forward is others are going to now want to get it as well. So players will ally together and dominate a game and then drag the game on to get to this goal. This will likely make the game less enjoyable for the others playing.
Reply
#16
I understand but there's a bigger problem if we just go by status points in order to attain 1st/2nd/3rd place or to handle ties. We've already encountered several issues with players going for points rather than actually playing their kingdoms as they should (or what is normally expected of them if they're attacked or go on the offensive).

It's a catch-22 situation, some players will like finishing by points and not have a conqueror involved while others will dislike that approach and prefer a war game-like finish. Didn't we lose Wulfgar, Sancus, and others because Alamaze wasn't enough of a war game?

So whatever Ry Vor does about ties and such moving forward, some will like it and others will dislike it. Personally, I don't care either way because I play just to have some fun but others are more competitive and only participate in order to become the victor or conqueror (with no wimpy 2nd/3rd place finishers).

From a programmer's point of view, I say keep it as is because the developer's time is more important and better spent to work on the next scenario (tentatively called Malestorm) which hopefully will bring in more players. And we need more players or Alamaze may not survive...
Reply
#17
What if it were amended so if two players declare and are eligible for Rex no one wins that turn? Game continues until only one players declares and is eligible for Rex.
-This Khal Drogo, it's said he has a hundred thousand men in his horde
Reply
#18
(11-12-2016, 10:16 AM)Drogo Wrote: What if it were amended so if two players declare and are eligible for Rex no one wins that turn?  Game continues until only one players declares and is eligible for Rex.

How would you handle ties in status points for Lion's Share? The game can't continue until one player wins out because the game is at the max turn and has to end. If you allow two 1st place finishers in Lion's Share then why not the same case for victory declarations like Rex or Usurper? Wouldn't it be better to be consistent in that regard? Like I said, I really don't care either way but would prefer a consistent way of handling the situation.
Reply
#19
(11-12-2016, 07:55 AM)unclemike Wrote:
(11-12-2016, 02:39 AM)Atuan Wrote: You do realize he is proposing how to handle future games....  

Such rudeness. Really, I was only using the Olympics as an example. Not something or someone that I was ignoring and certainly not deserving of your retort. This is your second warning Atuan. You really need to get off my back.

Jumpingfist, I understand your point about this being a fantasy game but shouldn't we also consider that Alamaze is a war game as well? In other words, there are no 2nd or 3rd place finishers in a tabletop war game is there? Only the victor that conquered the realm. So should Alamaze reflect that fact or should we switch to something else that's based entirely upon points for a 1st-2nd-3rd place ranking and remove the concept of a victory declaration (if you're a purist at heart)?

Ry Vor really needs to chime in here but I believe the original intent and purpose of a victory declaration was that there is a defined winner of the contest. That's why there's no "real" 2nd or 3rd place finishers in the game. I believe that was introduced to help make the game more "player-friendly" instead of accurately reflecting a war game like scenario where there's a clear victor that conquered the realm.

UM my response was to the now deleted post by vbm stating something to the effect of a bunch of whining by people not even in the game. I guess a warning is what I get for not quoting someone and allowing my comm not to be taken out of context by the incorrect party. I will say you seem easily upset by any response I give. In what ways can I fix that situation or am I on a downward spiral with you?
Reply
#20
Please don't misquote me. Try respect instead of rudeness.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)