New game type: Survivor (Updated 14 Sep 2013)

[OliverFA]

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?

Thanks Donelladan. That's exactly what I was saying.

[Donelladan]

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.

Hum. I disagree with that point. The number of points being divided among surviving player. It is in your interest to survive and to eliminate player that worth a lot towards end of the game. Then you are less people dividing a lot amount of points. It is more a problem in terminator than in survivor.

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?

Yes and no.

Yes it is a problem if the alliance is made before the game start. And they repeat the same plan several times.
No it is not a problem if it is just one game and only because the way the game happens they both found making alliance will be favorable.
Plus, maybe a bigger part of the points for the winner will reduce this kind of behaviour. Maybe one third of the whole points of the game goes to the winner, and all points are divided according to order of elimination after that.

[betiko]

I guarantee that if such game mode is ever implemented, the mods would be all day dealing with C&A reports. After all you can go ahead and try and see how the system is severly abused. I doubt this would stand a month.
The ballanced thing of a truce, is that both players know it will have to be broken at the right moment. In this case, a truce can work all game and both players can find benefits. The game woldn't be about winning anymore, but about being first or second loser.
You have enough situations of stallements; round limit was implemented to prevent that, people are trying to suggest new things to prevent it even more (exponential escalating spoils ect). This suggestion encourages campers and cheaters.

[DoomYoshi]

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.

You can stay safe and still get spoils.

[OliverFA]

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!

That's not 0 risk taking, because when someone eventually kills you, you will lose points anyway. So the risk is not 0 at all.

2) do you really need a picture?

As I said, I love you too.

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.

I don't use to join Terminator games because I find them unfair, not because of my high ranking. If you check my games you will see that I have plenty of games with low ranked players, so I am not afraid of playing against low ranked players. And as a I said, if you can't play low ranked players, do you really deserve that high rank?

But as Donelladan points, killing a high player first would mean sharing the reward between more players, so it would be a choice between killing skilled players first before they get too big or waiting with the hope of getting more points from them.

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.

Again, it makes no sense to affirm that the second player can be second just to luck bet the first player is first just to skill. If luck has influence, it has influence for all players.

As some other players have said, escalating games (which seem yout only concern) are not clear almost until the end. cashing so many armies it is possible to make a come back. If you choose not to get cards then you are at the expense of the other players. They can not attack you, or you might happen to be in the way to their cards so you are killed anyway.

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?

The behaviour you describe is cheating with any option. With the standard scoring rule you could join lots of games with friends and then just share the victories. It is no more cheating with Survivor. Again, you are describing an existing problem and pretending it would be a new problem under the new option.

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

I love your constructive criticisms, based on a partial way of looking at the game, and bringing problems that already exist as if they were new

[OliverFA]

I guarantee that if such game mode is ever implemented, the mods would be all day dealing with C&A reports. After all you can go ahead and try and see how the system is severly abused. I doubt this would stand a month.
The ballanced thing of a truce, is that both players know it will have to be broken at the right moment. In this case, a truce can work all game and both players can find benefits. The game woldn't be about winning anymore, but about being first or second loser.
You have enough situations of stallements; round limit was implemented to prevent that, people are trying to suggest new things to prevent it even more (exponential escalating spoils ect). This suggestion encourages campers and cheaters.

People who would "cheat" with tis option are exactly the same people who cheat with the existing options. As I said, now you join a lot of games with a friend and split victories. As someone would say, that's not a bad explanation. It's an horrible explanation

Did I say I love your nice attitude?

[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.

You can stay safe and still get spoils.

That's not what Betiko said. He explicitily said players not getting cards so they don't become a target.

And if you stay safe and get spoils in an escalating game, then IMO you are playing VERY WELL.

[padsta]

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?

The behaviour you describe is cheating with any option. With the standard scoring rule you could join lots of games with friends and then just share the victories. It is no more cheating with Survivor. Again, you are describing an existing problem and pretending it would be a new problem under the new option.

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

I love your constructive criticisms, based on a partial way of looking at the game, and bringing problems that already exist as if they were new

It is how much this new suggestion actively encourages it that is the problem, I dont think anyone is pretending it is a new problem, It is just how much more of a problem it would become if this was implemented
I have to agree with betiko, i dont like this at all

[OliverFA]

It is how much this new suggestion actively encourages it that is the problem, I dont think anyone is pretending it is a new problem, It is just how much more of a problem it would become if this was implemented
I have to agree with betiko, i dont like this at all

At least you have the right attitude in explaining the possible issues of the suggestion, and this time I am completely serious when talking about attitude. So your point is that it seems like it could encourage some cheating behaviours by making them easier. Well, at least now I know what the possible problem is. Thanks for your feedback, will think about it.

[betiko]

I don't see what's wrong about my "attitude" here oliver. Your problem with my posts is that I'm probably the one being the most hard core against it for all the reasons explained. Since it's your baby, you take those remarks personally or something. But all what I said made total sense and there was no bashing there. You seem not to even consider my arguments because you are too angry that I go against your idea.

[SiriusCowKing]

I like the idea and would be interesting. But with the way the points are awarded in your suggestion, noobs can have free points very easily:
Points awarded to each remaining player: 20 * (Just killed player score) / (Average of remaining players score) / (Number of remaining players)

This mean that everyone alive gets the same number of points. Let say that a noob got 1 unit left on his last territory and someone is killing everyone in 1 turn as in every good escalating game. The last territory is behind someone else so the killer finishes another player first. The noob will receive the same number of points as the killer. What if he gets killed last, he will get the same number of points except maybe 15 that the killer will get from the noob. This enables noob to throw the game and still make points because they will not be the first one to be killed when throwing the game. In fact, they usually throw the game by killing a big stack of someone else, so someone else get killed first.

You need to work on your idea and it could be a good one, but right now it just enables people to make points by doing nothing.

[Donelladan]

Then, let's say that if two people are elimination during the same round, they count at being eliminating at the same time.
So in escalating game, if someone eliminate everyone at once, he got all the point. And if 2 or more people are elimainated at the same round, none of them get any points.

[OliverFA]

Then, let's say that if two people are elimination during the same round, they count at being eliminating at the same time.
So in escalating game, if someone eliminate everyone at once, he got all the point. And if 2 or more people are elimainated at the same round, none of them get any points.

Good idea! Thanks Donelladan. And thanks SiriusCowKing for pointing the issue.

[DoomYoshi]

The more I think of this idea, the more I warm to it. I am aware of the usage/time coding axis though, and I feel this may be the most major stumbling block.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

I really like this idea, and I really like how it would discourage the underlined behavior.

[BigBallinStalin]

I guarantee that if such game mode is ever implemented, the mods would be all day dealing with C&A reports. After all you can go ahead and try and see how the system is severly abused. I doubt this would stand a month.
The ballanced thing of a truce, is that both players know it will have to be broken at the right moment. In this case, a truce can work all game and both players can find benefits. The game woldn't be about winning anymore, but about being first or second loser.
You have enough situations of stallements; round limit was implemented to prevent that, people are trying to suggest new things to prevent it even more (exponential escalating spoils ect). This suggestion encourages campers and cheaters.

What? How? People would be induced to make alliances? That's part of the game....

The incentive to cheat still remains even without this game mode...

The game would still be about winning, but it's more intelligent because it rewards 'relative winning'. People coming in 2nd and 3rd get incrementally rewarded, which is a great for encouraging more calculating, long-term planning.

[betiko]

I guarantee that if such game mode is ever implemented, the mods would be all day dealing with C&A reports. After all you can go ahead and try and see how the system is severly abused. I doubt this would stand a month.
The ballanced thing of a truce, is that both players know it will have to be broken at the right moment. In this case, a truce can work all game and both players can find benefits. The game woldn't be about winning anymore, but about being first or second loser.
You have enough situations of stallements; round limit was implemented to prevent that, people are trying to suggest new things to prevent it even more (exponential escalating spoils ect). This suggestion encourages campers and cheaters.

What? How? People would be induced to make alliances? That's part of the game....

The incentive to cheat still remains even without this game mode...

The game would still be about winning, but it's more intelligent because it rewards 'relative winning'. People coming in 2nd and 3rd get incrementally rewarded, which is a great for encouraging more calculating, long-term planning.

I don't agree. As I said before, with this game mode you can go for a full game alliance. If you're really in a bad shape, you go for an alliance with the big guy such as this: "I make you win and you eliminate me last". You still end up with positive points while you just throw the game, which is against the rules.

[OliverFA]

I guarantee that if such game mode is ever implemented, the mods would be all day dealing with C&A reports. After all you can go ahead and try and see how the system is severly abused. I doubt this would stand a month.
The ballanced thing of a truce, is that both players know it will have to be broken at the right moment. In this case, a truce can work all game and both players can find benefits. The game woldn't be about winning anymore, but about being first or second loser.
You have enough situations of stallements; round limit was implemented to prevent that, people are trying to suggest new things to prevent it even more (exponential escalating spoils ect). This suggestion encourages campers and cheaters.

What? How? People would be induced to make alliances? That's part of the game....

The incentive to cheat still remains even without this game mode...

The game would still be about winning, but it's more intelligent because it rewards 'relative winning'. People coming in 2nd and 3rd get incrementally rewarded, which is a great for encouraging more calculating, long-term planning.

I don't agree. As I said before, with this game mode you can go for a full game alliance. If you're really in a bad shape, you go for an alliance with the big guy such as this: "I make you win and you eliminate me last". You still end up with positive points while you just throw the game, which is against the rules.

Isn't that diplomacy? Now alliances in very similar lines form, such as "we don't attack each other until we are the only players left" or "you don't attack me and I make sure that third player does not win". I even found a player that got angry with someone and joined a lot of games with that someone just to piss him.

It is presumable that the rest of the players will react to an alliance, like they already do.

[OliverFA]

Added Donelladan's suggestion to the original proposal

[chapcrap]

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!

I would have to agree with betiko on this. This is ostensibly terminator with sharing the points. I'm definitely against.

[OliverFA]

Why is it terminator with sharing the points? If you get points for SURVIVING instead of TERMINATING how can it be the same?

Terminator with sharing the points would be dividing the points of the victims among the killers. That's not the same at all.

[Lord Arioch]

I think u have some intresting pint s here, would be fun to try it out!

[hyperquantum]

I like this suggestion of Survivor games. I hope it will be implemented.