A new way to determine a Winner - Page 2

-Jrabbit · April 10, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Or... create 5 different victory conditions...

Like first to 5 wonders...
First to take out somebodies capital...
First to invention...
First to take 4 opposition cities...
First to 20 cities...

And let the players race to whichever one makes the most sense based on their situation..

Multiple victory conditions make much more sense than point systems. Within a month or so, you would likely have a pretty solid list.

The best thing about this approach is that it will eliminate some of the incessant whining about no-trade-special starts and free people to concentrate on finding the most attainable path to victory.

Then the only question will be -- who's the winner when War4 blows a fuse...

DrSpike · April 10, 2003, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit

Then the only question will be -- who's the winner when War4 blows a fuse...

Literally or metaphorically?

Ming · April 10, 2003, 15:10

Literally... He has to change the wiring in his house

War4ever · April 10, 2003, 16:06

NO, i need to buy a new house...

can you believe it , two fuses to run the whole place....

heck when this place was built , man hadn't even been to the moon yet

-Jrabbit · April 10, 2003, 16:16

WE'VE BEEN TO THE MOON ??????????

rah · April 10, 2003, 16:21

TWO CIRCUITS FOR THE WHOLE HOUSE

When we put the can lights in our family room we had to upgrad our fuse box from 16 slots to 32. They had doubled up on a few of the old ones. This let us spread some of the more heavily used ones across different circuits. I even had him put the computer on it's own circuit. I only had to do a little dry wall to cover the hole they made to put in the new box and pull the wires.

It wasn't THAT expensive

.

RAH
It's nice to have friends that are electricians.

Ming · April 10, 2003, 17:14

Since we built our house... we put EVERY outlet on it's own circuit. After our last place where the entire basement (INCLUDING THE AIR CONDITIONER) was on a single circuit... we thought it was the best way to go

But let's get back on topic...

War4ever · April 10, 2003, 18:07

well i don't OWN this place, so no way i am making changes to it for someone else

as for electricians, YES, my gf's step dad is one...no doubt when we buy a place, he will do the rewiring.....

on topic, i hope to discuss some ideas with you rich on the weekend

Hydey · April 10, 2003, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
TWO CIRCUITS FOR THE WHOLE HOUSE

My house has 3 fuses
1 for the lights, 1 for power and 1 for the hotwater.

never had a problem

Chris 62 · April 11, 2003, 03:52

I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but here goes...

There are 7 wonders per epoch, so each player secretly records 4 in each, and sends this as a PM to his opponent. The PMs are left unviewed (easy to varify using message tracking) till they want to quit.

The player who has the most of his SELECTED wonders wins, the higher level wonders being the tie-breaker.

The idea is, you may have to build wonders NOT on your list, to play "keep away" from the other guy.

ravagon · April 11, 2003, 04:21

One primary problem with some of the more esoteric scoring systems lies in the fact that many of the variables mentioned aren't readily available to all players in-game.
ie: Do players want a scoring system whereby they will not necessarily be able to accurately evaluate their own position (relative to all other players) before the game ends and all sit down to pour over the final tally?
For example, if War4 happened to beat rah (sorry rah

) by 2 points in the final tally and rah then figured out he could have easily picked up another 5 (at only a small risk perhaps) if only he'd known he needed them he might feel a little ... aggrieved.
A new system would only last as long as those playing were prepared to use it.

deity · April 11, 2003, 07:03

As I said before, what's wrong with the civ scoring system, ie the civilisation score at the end showing measurements of known values?
Wonders, pop, achievements etc...

deity · April 11, 2003, 07:04

I think you're trying to work out something that's already been worked out based on the basic impulses of civilisation that's built into the games design...

-Jrabbit · April 11, 2003, 07:47

Maybe an examination of Civscores without population points would be revealing...

rah · April 11, 2003, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon
For example, if War4 happened to beat rah (sorry rah

) by 2 points in the final tally and rah then figured out he could have easily picked up another 5 (at only a small risk perhaps) if only he'd known he needed them he might feel a little ... aggrieved.

Not aggrieved at all. If we were only two points apart, I'm sure whoever was ahead by the two wouldn't be hooting and hollering about winning. We'd think of it as another close game.

RAH

And yes if there was a way to deemphasize the pop portion of the scoring, then it would be better. But even with that, people always have a feel on how they did. I've had many games were I was way ahead on the PG, but felt I was really behind.

War4ever · April 11, 2003, 15:32

yeah pop scoring is a pain for short games, its certainly does not indicate the winner, just who is leading...

especially if some people dont' WTLCD in the first session

or dont' pick up pyramids...

pg wins are lame, we all get them, and like rah said, many times i am smaller than him in pop but i have a lethal army and i just take cities...

and of course, he has been known to do the same thing

rah · April 11, 2003, 16:06

Well, that's the difference, I try not to claim PG cheap wins anymore, I look at the positions to judge how I did. Which makes me think we don't really need a new scoring system, even though some goal oriented games could be interesting.

War4ever · April 11, 2003, 18:42

Yeah i agree...i just want more out of my 4-6 hour games....it feels empty after awhile...god where have i heard that expression before

its rare to find it balanced after one session unless the land dictates the same sh!t to every one...

DrSpike · April 11, 2003, 19:04

Hehe War wants commitment, but all Rah can offer is one night stands.

Ben Kenobi · April 12, 2003, 20:19

Ming:

You can rotate the Barb wonder cities.

That's one way to improve playability for one particular map.

Hydey · April 13, 2003, 19:31

Why do we need to determine a winner?

Shyte I am happy to have time to play a game , don't care if I win or lose.

Alexander's Horse · April 21, 2003, 07:36

I'd be happy just to see Hydey play a game.

He doesn't care who wins or loses because the games he's in NEVER GET FINISHED.