Experimental "serious" FFA-games

Do you have suggestions or ideas for improvement, post them here and we will them out.

Re: Experimental "serious" FFA-games

Postby smursh » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:23 pm

Luck always should be a factor in games, otherwise it becomes stale with better players automatically beating weaker players. And even if one or two players get an advantage because the player next to them resigns or has a horrible start there is nothing preventing the rest of the field from allying against them. In short FFA tends to be won by the player who most skillfully sets up alliances to give themselves an edge.
smursh
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:05 am

Re: Experimental "serious" FFA-games

Postby KGB » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:02 pm

smursh wrote:Luck always should be a factor in games, otherwise it becomes stale with better players automatically beating weaker players. And even if one or two players get an advantage because the player next to them resigns or has a horrible start there is nothing preventing the rest of the field from allying against them. In short FFA tends to be won by the player who most skillfully sets up alliances to give themselves an edge.


Except the most important bit of luck in FFA games tends to be who is next to someone who resigns. I've been in 8 player games where 2 players resign and one player happens to be next to both of them so they get a double benefit.

Also ganging up on other players is only possible in non-ladder FFA games. In ladder games there is no way to know who managed to benefit because all stats are hidden (never understood why that was implemented) so it's all but impossible to organize an alliance until it's far too late.

If everyone is against doubling or tripling the number of starting units then another option is to change the resign feature so that the AI takes control of the side rather than all cities/armies changing to neutral. The AI may not be great but at least it will prevent easy claiming of neutrals.

KGB
KGB
 
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:06 am

Re: Experimental "serious" FFA-games

Postby Qube » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:02 pm

smursh wrote:Luck always should be a factor in games, otherwise it becomes stale with better players automatically beating weaker players.


Beefing up the starting units will not remove all luck from this game. Battle results, hero offers, ruin contents, the game has layer upon layer of RNG.
Qube
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:22 pm

Re: Experimental "serious" FFA-games

Postby smursh » Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:25 pm

KGB wrote:Except the most important bit of luck in FFA games tends to be who is next to someone who resigns. I've been in 8 player games where 2 players resign and one player happens to be next to both of them so they get a double benefit.

Also ganging up on other players is only possible in non-ladder FFA games. In ladder games there is no way to know who managed to benefit because all stats are hidden (never understood why that was implemented) so it's all but impossible to organize an alliance until it's far too late.



KGB


Might make more sense in FFA ladder to have city stat function available. I would still have units and gold hidden but at least you will see if somebody has benefited from players quitting early by how many cities they have. Maybe this lasts for first 15-20 turns.
smursh
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 4:05 am

Previous

Return to Wish list

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron
Not able to open ./cache/data_global.php