New game type: Survivor (Updated 14 Sep 2013)

[OliverFA]

Concise description:
With the current score adjusting rule for standard games, the last standing player gets all the points. That rule is unfair and inaccurate, specially for games with lot of players. I propose a small rule change to solve this issue and, ultimately, to make the score system more accurate and fair. A new game type called "Survivor" that would complete the range of choices.

In survivor, as soon as a player is killed, points are transfered from the killed player to all the remaining players who are still alive. As game progreses, there are fewer alive players to divide the point bounty, so points share is higher. The winner continues to be the player who gets the most points, but the long lasting players also get a decent share.

Specific details:

• Each time a player is eliminated, score is adjusted. The just killed player transfers points to all the remaining alive players.
• The actual formula is:
  
  • Points substracted from eliminated player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score)
  • Points awarded to each remaining player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score) / (Number of remaining players)
  • Any remaining points resulting from a non-integer division are saved in the pool for the next kill.
• Clarification: players eliminated within a single turn count as being eliminated simultaneously. (Thanks to Donelladan for suggesting that fix to the original proposal)
  EXAMPLE: in an escalating non trench game, player A kills player B, cashes and then kills player C. Both players B and C count as being eliminated at once, so player C does not get any bounty from player B.
  EXAMPLE 2:If a game is won by holding an objective, the formula results in the "traditional" behaviour as all the remaining players are eliminated at once.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The rule change is more fair. The last killed player, who usually fights really hard and only loses to the winner, gets his/her rightful share of points.
• The score system becomes more accurate (despite this goes together with being fair is a completely different concept).
• The score system gets more updated and in real time, as points are updated with each kill and not just at the end.
• Score fluctuates in a softer way, avoiding the big score jumps that happen when an 8 players game is won.
• Games remain interesting for players who are not going to win. They can still try to last longer instead of suiciding to their most hated player to ensure that "you are not going to win either".
• Because games are still interesting for everybody, odd behaviours are not encouraged.
• I dare to say this is a must for the new 12 player games.

[TheForgivenOne]

Concise description:
With the current score adjusting rule for standard games, the last standing player gets all the points. That rule is unfair and inaccurate, specially for games with lot of players. I propose a small rule change to solve this issue and, ultimately, to make the score system more accurate and fair.

As soon as a player is killed, points are transfered from the killed player to all the remaining players who are still alive. As game progreses, there are fewer alive players to divide the point bounty, so points share is higher. The winner continues to be the player who gets the most points, but the long lasting players also get a decent share.

Specific details:

• Each time a player is eliminated, score is adjusted. The just killed player transfers points to all the remaining alive players.
• The actual formula is:
  
  • Points substracted from eliminated player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score)
  • Points awarded to each remaining player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score) / (Number of remaining players)
  • Any remaining points resulting from a non-integer division are saved in the pool for the next kill.
• Clarification: If a game is won by holding an objective, the formula results in the "traditional" behaviour as all the remaining players are eliminated at once.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The rule change is more fair. The last killed player, who usually fights really hard and only loses to the winner, gets his/her rightful share of points.
• The score system becomes more accurate (despite this goes together with being fair is a completely different concept).
• The score system gets more updated and in real time, as points are updated with each kill and not just at the end.
• Score fluctuates in a softer way, avoiding the big score jumps that happen when an 8 players game is won.
• Games remain interesting for players who are not going to win. They can still try to last longer instead of suiciding to their most hated player to ensure that "you are not going to win either".
• Because games are still interesting for everybody, odd behaviours are not encouraged.
• I dare to say this is a must for the new 12 player games.

What happens for a player with a really lower score in a BR? How are points going to be distributed to 51 different players if he has a score of, say, 80?

[OliverFA]

What happens for a player with a really lower score in a BR? How are points going to be distributed to 51 different players if he has a score of, say, 80?

Thanks for asking.

First, we need to know the average score of those 51 players. As an example, let's say that this average is 1,200. Then, if we apply the formula, 20 * 80 / 1,200 = 1.33. I don't know if it rounds to 1 or to 2, but in any case, as we can't divide 2 points among 51 players we just pool those 2 points for the next kill.

[Metsfanmax]

What happens for a player with a really lower score in a BR? How are points going to be distributed to 51 different players if he has a score of, say, 80?

Thanks for asking.

First, we need to know the average score of those 51 players. As an example, let's say that this average is 1,200. Then, if we apply the formula, 20 * 80 / 1,200 = 1.33. I don't know if it rounds to 1 or to 2, but in any case, as we can't divide 2 points among 51 players we just pool those 2 points for the next kill.

Sure we can. There's nothing inherently wrong with fractional points. Most of the time, the number of points a player would earn according to the formula is not actually an integer, it's just rounded for display.

[clangfield]

Concise description:
With the current score adjusting rule for standard games, the last standing player gets all the points. That rule is unfair and inaccurate, specially for games with lot of players. I propose a small rule change to solve this issue and, ultimately, to make the score system more accurate and fair.

As soon as a player is killed, points are transfered from the killed player to all the remaining players who are still alive. As game progreses, there are fewer alive players to divide the point bounty, so points share is higher. The winner continues to be the player who gets the most points, but the long lasting players also get a decent share.

Specific details:

• Each time a player is eliminated, score is adjusted. The just killed player transfers points to all the remaining alive players.
• The actual formula is:
  
  • Points substracted from eliminated player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score)
  • Points awarded to each remaining player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score) / (Number of remaining players)
  • Any remaining points resulting from a non-integer division are saved in the pool for the next kill.
• Clarification: If a game is won by holding an objective, the formula results in the "traditional" behaviour as all the remaining players are eliminated at once.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The rule change is more fair. The last killed player, who usually fights really hard and only loses to the winner, gets his/her rightful share of points.
• The score system becomes more accurate (despite this goes together with being fair is a completely different concept).
• The score system gets more updated and in real time, as points are updated with each kill and not just at the end.
• Score fluctuates in a softer way, avoiding the big score jumps that happen when an 8 players game is won.
• Games remain interesting for players who are not going to win. They can still try to last longer instead of suiciding to their most hated player to ensure that "you are not going to win either".
• Because games are still interesting for everybody, odd behaviours are not encouraged.
• I dare to say this is a must for the new 12 player games.

Whilst I appreciate the sentiments behind the idea, this is after all Conquer Club.
It's interesting as an option but I wouldn't make it the default. Terminator games already exist as an opportunity to pick up points without winning; I just feel that this suggestion will lead to people trying to avoid an early exit rather than trying to win, as well as short term alliances that might infringe on the game-throwing rule (ie help me eliminate him, then I'll let you eliminate me).

[Dukasaur]

[*]Score fluctuates in a softer way, avoiding the big score jumps that happen when an 8 players game is won.

I must say, this is an argument against, rather than for, the proposal. I like the chance to gain 80 or 100 points in one shot. It's really the only reason for playing Standards at all, instead of just playing Terminator all the time.

I wouldn't be a fan of this setting, but I wouldn't oppose allowing the option for those who like it. The more options the better.

[OliverFA]

Sure we can. There's nothing inherently wrong with fractional points. Most of the time, the number of points a player would earn according to the formula is not actually an integer, it's just rounded for display.

We can, but currently CC doesn't do it. That's why I suggest just to save the points in a pool for the next kill

[OliverFA]

Whilst I appreciate the sentiments behind the idea, this is after all Conquer Club.

Would you be so kind to explain why it goes against all Conquer Club?

It's interesting as an option but I wouldn't make it the default. Terminator games already exist as an opportunity to pick up points without winning;

That's the problem with Terminator. It's the opportunity to pick up points without winning and without playing well. Just because you happen to be next to the last region of a player that does not makes you worth of getting that player's points. Most times that player has been defeated by a third player who happens not to be close to the last region, and that's really really unfair.

I just feel that this suggestion will lead to people trying to avoid an early exit rather than trying to win,

Or to people doing sometihng when they can't win instead of just giving up. When a player falls way behind the leading players, with this setting that player still has something to play for. And I bet that many players that play just to endure a bit longer can make for a very nice comeback.

as well as short term alliances that might infringe on the game-throwing rule (ie help me eliminate him, then I'll let you eliminate me).

How is different that from "I will suicide against you so I will make sure you don't win either?" At least with the new setting the offended player can still hope to defeat the offending player by taking some points from him/her. Also, the current settings encourage the "Kill him instead of me because he is a low ranked player and you will lose a lot more points if he wins than if I do".

I think that anything who makes alliances meaningful is a good thing. Now when two players ally together they will really benefit from it in the form of points. Also, anything that prevents low ranked players from being arbitrary targets (so I make sure they don't win and I lose less points) is good too.

[OliverFA]

[*]Score fluctuates in a softer way, avoiding the big score jumps that happen when an 8 players game is won.

I must say, this is an argument against, rather than for, the proposal. I like the chance to gain 80 or 100 points in one shot. It's really the only reason for playing Standards at all, instead of just playing Terminator all the time.

I wouldn't be a fan of this setting, but I wouldn't oppose allowing the option for those who like it. The more options the better.

IMHO, the chance to gain 80 or 100 points is so appealing just because of the current setting. Right now players lose points with the majority of games and only gain points with a few of them. Players like to win 100 points in one shot because they need those points in order to afford all those lost games.

[Donelladan]

The rule change is more fair. The last killed player, who usually fights really hard and only loses to the winner, gets his/her rightful share of points.

I disagree with that. Being eliminated 1st or being eliminated last is exactly the same for me.
One guy is the winner, the one that is alone on the map at the end. Everyone else lost the game. They do not deserve points.
The last killed player might be even the one that deserve the less to gain points : I mean, he probably should have organized smthg with other players to stop the leader rather than being happy to be alone on his side or being happy to be 2nd biggest.

And if we speak of escalating game, your system is totally unfair. In escalating one guy kill everyone - not alway but often - that one deserve all point he made all the effort

I think it could be a new option beside standard/assassin/terminator. We could call it "survivor" ? Since the longer your survive the more you earn points.




Not really related but :

That's the problem with Terminator. It's the opportunity to pick up points without winning and without playing well. Just because you happen to be next to the last region of a player that does not makes you worth of getting that player's points. Most times that player has been defeated by a third player who happens not to be close to the last region, and that's really really unfair.

If you have opportunity to pick up points like that in terminator game, it is because someone else played bad. Not at all unfair. Terminator means points by killing someone, if you take everyone's region except one that you dont see then you made a mistake, you should have stop at least one regions earlier so that only you can grab the points.

[OliverFA]

I think it could be a new option beside standard/assassin/terminator. We could call it "survivor" ? Since the longer your survive the more you earn points.

Survivor sound cool! I like it

[DoomYoshi]

This makes the "stack until the bitter end" strategy more viable, even from a weaker position. Is there any way to ensure that the games don't get bogged down by non risk-taking players?

I mean this mostly for escalating games, where the normal strategy is to attempt kills. This removes almost any onus for me to want to stick my neck out when I can just stack and be the last one killed.

[OliverFA]

IMO non-risk taking players won't endure much, as without risking you can't grab bonus, and without bonus other players deploy a lot more and will kill those risk averse players very soon.

In an escalating game spoils dominate the whole game. If you stay safe players who do grab spoils have the real control of the game.

[AndyDufresne]

I kind of like the idea. How would Round Limits factor into things for this game type?


--Andy

[OliverFA]

I kind of like the idea. How would Round Limits factor into things for this game type?


--Andy

If a game finishes because of round limit, then the player with most troops wins (as per the rule) and the rest of surviving players all get eliminated at once. The winner gets the points from the "alive" players and they only get the points they could have received from previous turns.

This in fact would encourage players to attack as the limit round approached. Non-leading players would want to have their share by eliminating a weaker player before the end, and the leading player would have to do something if he did not want "his" points to be "stolen".

[betiko]

I really hate this idea
1) promotes stalements and 0 risk taking (what s the name of the game again?)
2) promotes ganging up on higher ranked players even more than on terminator games.
3) this is about winning, not finishing second. Finishing second doesn t mean you were the second best on the board.
4) you can end up with filthy alliances. 2 players can agree on finishing first and second, the weaker player helping the stronger one to be even more dominant.
This game mode would favour higher ranked farming badly!

[OliverFA]

I really hate this idea

I love you too

1) promotes stalements and 0 risk taking (what s the name of the game again?)

Why? No offense, but affirming something is very different from demonstrating it.

2) promotes ganging up on higher ranked players even more than on terminator games.

Again, why?

3) this is about winning, not finishing second. Finishing second doesn t mean you were the second best on the board.

Can you explain me why finishing second does not always mean being the second best but finishing first always means being the best? I fail to see that logic. If the second player is not always the second best, then the last player is also not always the best, however he gets the points.

4) you can end up with filthy alliances. 2 players can agree on finishing first and second, the weaker player helping the stronger one to be even more dominant.

What is bad about that? Alliances are always about finishing the other players before your ally. And what happens when players agree to kill lower ranked players so the highest ranked player wins and they loss less points?

High ranked players farm can also happen with standard mode. Something like "We kill the higher ranked player so the one who finally wins gets all the points. Not to mention that we'd better kill him before he gets too dangerous".

This game mode would favour higher ranked farming badly!

Really? A lot of low ranked players killing a high ranked player for a very small part of the bounty? Sounds like a bad deal to me.

[TheForgivenOne]

This game mode would favour higher ranked farming badly!

Really? A lot of low ranked players killing a high ranked player for a very small part of the bounty? Sounds like a bad deal to me.[/quote]

Which would you prefer if you were a private? Killing off a cook for lesser points, or killing the Colonel for a heck of a lot more?

[greenoaks]

finishing 2nd means you may have had an inaccessable stack

[OliverFA]

finishing 2nd means you may have had an inaccessable stack

And finishing 1st means that the best player(s) may have been other(s) than you but they got sabotaged by someone else. An example is when the two leading players obliterate each other and a third player takes advantadge. Or when a player suicides just to avoid the leading player to win.

By the way, if the other players allow you to keep that single stack then they deserve you to be second, even if perhaps you don't deserve to be second yourself.

[OliverFA]

This game mode would favour higher ranked farming badly!

Really? A lot of low ranked players killing a high ranked player for a very small part of the bounty? Sounds like a bad deal to me.

Which would you prefer if you were a private? Killing off a cook for lesser points, or killing the Colonel for a heck of a lot more?

Perhaps that high ranked player does not really deserve to be so high ranked. IMO it looks more like an inacurate representation of score than a real high skilled player. Is like all those high ranked players avoiding to fight cooks.

[greenoaks]

this doesn't seem to have any support.

put up a poll.

[Donelladan]

I dont see this will encourage farming if indeed low rank gang up against high rank for points.
I mean it cannot be both at the same time.

Plus I support this idea, if support was needed. It is not like it will destroy anything we have. It is a new option. Might be we can modify the idea to make it better rather than just rejecting it?

[betiko]

I really hate this idea

I love you too

1) promotes stalements and 0 risk taking (what s the name of the game again?)

Why? No offense, but affirming something is very different from demonstrating it.

2) promotes ganging up on higher ranked players even more than on terminator games.

Again, why?

3) this is about winning, not finishing second. Finishing second doesn t mean you were the second best on the board.

Can you explain me why finishing second does not always mean being the second best but finishing first always means being the best? I fail to see that logic. If the second player is not always the second best, then the last player is also not always the best, however he gets the points.

4) you can end up with filthy alliances. 2 players can agree on finishing first and second, the weaker player helping the stronger one to be even more dominant.

What is bad about that? Alliances are always about finishing the other players before your ally. And what happens when players agree to kill lower ranked players so the highest ranked player wins and they loss less points?

High ranked players farm can also happen with standard mode. Something like "We kill the higher ranked player so the one who finally wins gets all the points. Not to mention that we'd better kill him before he gets too dangerous".

This game mode would favour higher ranked farming badly!

Really? A lot of low ranked players killing a high ranked player for a very small part of the bounty? Sounds like a bad deal to me.

1) because you know that if you have small chances of winning, you just stack andhope that others will attack. you just stall there, do nothing and try not to be the next target. If you are leading, it's not in your interest to attack too much either, basically a waste of troops. Hell, in an escalating game you can choose from the start to never attack and only stack; that way you never hold a single card and no one will ever go after you!

2) do you really need a picture? if you join a terminator with your swords vs only stripers tell me what happens. they all go after you for your points! even if it means they'll get killed after killing you, they get a net point gain from it. In this case, as TFO points out, it's even worse cause everyone gets a bounty from your death and the highest bounty possible as you are the highest ranked.

3) as greenoaks points out; sometimes you might have one of the most unaccessible stacks; or maybe you're just as good as dead but you hold no cards so a player with more cards and more armies can get killed before because he will make the attacker cash/double cash. Not to mention playing with friends and killing them last to give them max points even if they didn't deserve it.

4) how can you possibly not see this as wrong? this is cheating! basically if you join one of those games, you are very likely to find players that know each other with pre-made alliances that others don't know about, ergo secret diplomacy. This can inflate dramatically some bad player's score as there is no skill required in cheating. It is completely wrong that a player could find benefit finishing second by doing everything to let another player win. mostly now that you have 12 player games!! this is completely fucked up. So dominant player gets 2 minions pre-game (preferably low rankers), he protects some of their territories and they do all the dirty job for him. they finish 1,2,3 and they all win like 50 points each. you really don't have a problem with that?

this idea isn't bad; it's terrible!

[clangfield]

Whilst I appreciate the sentiments behind the idea, this is after all Conquer Club.

Would you be so kind to explain why it goes against all Conquer Club?

It may clarify if I punctuate: this is, after all, Conquer Club.
My point being that it's about Conquering, rather that stacking up points for outlasting.

It's interesting as an option but I wouldn't make it the default. Terminator games already exist as an opportunity to pick up points without winning;

That's the problem with Terminator. It's the opportunity to pick up points without winning and without playing well. Just because you happen to be next to the last region of a player that does not makes you worth of getting that player's points. Most times that player has been defeated by a third player who happens not to be close to the last region, and that's really really unfair.

I don't agree completely. One can of course get lucky due to another's bad play/dice, but I think there is a skill in positoning oneself to eliminate a player, and avoiding the situation where another can eliminate a player after one's hard work. One knows the rules when selecting the game type.

I just feel that this suggestion will lead to people trying to avoid an early exit rather than trying to win,

Or to people doing sometihng when they can't win instead of just giving up. When a player falls way behind the leading players, with this setting that player still has something to play for. And I bet that many players that play just to endure a bit longer can make for a very nice comeback.

Always a possibility; impossible to tell which strategy will dominate. On the maps where bombarding the same neutral can garner spoils (which I've debated elsewhere as I believe it to be wrong), I don't see anyone leaving their home territory.
I think it's a bit rose-tinted to expect everyone to play "normally" until the last few rounds then try to hang on.

as well as short term alliances that might infringe on the game-throwing rule (ie help me eliminate him, then I'll let you eliminate me).

How is different that from "I will suicide against you so I will make sure you don't win either?" At least with the new setting the offended player can still hope to defeat the offending player by taking some points from him/her. Also, the current settings encourage the "Kill him instead of me because he is a low ranked player and you will lose a lot more points if he wins than if I do".

I think that anything who makes alliances meaningful is a good thing. Now when two players ally together they will really benefit from it in the form of points. Also, anything that prevents low ranked players from being arbitrary targets (so I make sure they don't win and I lose less points) is good too.

Neither is acceptable. Right now we have one bad thing; I see this as introducing another opportunity for bad behaviour.I can also see people trying to eliminate the low-ranked players with these rules, in order to get a share of a higher points kitty.
Personally I consider minimising one's point loss to be sensible strategy, since the object of the game is to gain points over time. I am aware that others disagree on the ethics, but such is life...