The winning conditions for the future games

[wieder]

The future games will include the previously used ranking system, but that doesn't rule out other ways to rank the players.

It's easy to divide the players to 3 different classes. Those who won, those who survived and those who did not win or survive. The current ranking system is based on at least 2 of these. The winners can be cased on score or something else.

We can also add an additional system where the winners are calculated on some other way. The limit for this is that it should not require coding or examining the save files. This is simply too complicated. It should also be visible to everyone playing the game. For example having 20+ cities for more than 3 turns is not something everyone can verify.

A score based winners list is one option. Or placing the players on categories, based on score, like the game does when it gives us a listing of the most happy nations in the world.

We can also decide that there are no winners based on the ranking system X. This however can't prevent from ranking system Y giving the players rankings.

Suggestions?

[Corbeau]

I'm curious, in the chat you said that introducing survivors category didn't quite work. What did you mean by that?

As for different kinds of scoring in the same game, I think it wouldn't really go smooth because the type of scoring dictates how people play and we would have people playing two different games at the same time. But on the other hand, it may be an interesting experiment.

So, I do have a different system in mind and it is based on final in-game score or, more accurately, on the player's game rank/position (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.)

I still need to work out the details, but the essence would be something like this:

Best player receives, say, 100 points. Second best receives 95, third gets 90. The 4th gets 86, then 82, then 78, 75, 72, 69, 66, 64, 62, 60, 59, 58 etc. etc.

These numbers are just an example, I have a more solid equation in mind, but the idea is that best players receive more points and that the difference between best players is bigger than the difference between middle or worst players. This would stimulate more competition between top players and reduce the tendency for the best ones to ally against the weaker ones. After all, they are competing against each other for the best position.

What needs to be resolved are disbalances: best in a 10-player game shouldn't have the same points as the best in a 50-player game. But, on the other hand, the former shouldn' receive only 5 times fewer points than the latter, that would also be unfair. I'm thinking about a square root or soething.

Ther would be consequences for the gameplay. For example, once you've defeated someone and took a few of his cities, you don't have to kill him off completely because you don't really care what's happening below you on the scoring table, you now want to pay attention to those immediately above you (and make sure those below you don't overtake you).

The only game-mechanical thing to take care of is that whoever is present at the official Endgame notes the scores of all individual players.

Basically, I can keep track of everything and publish the results here.

So, technically, there would be no "winners and losers" in an individual game, but it would be clear who beat whom?

[wieder]

The survivors effectively became 2nd rank winners.

One problem is that in the end game only the scores and stats for the winning players are listed.

We could of course introduce something very simple for calculate the in-game scores. One simple way for doing this would be the following:

Everyone alive will get one score point for every 10 turns they are not killed. If player A is RIP in T23, he/she will receive 2 points. Alive until the end of the game and you get 18 points if the game ends in T183.

In the end 1st player based on score will get 10 points, the 2nd 9 points, etc...

This would be doable. However the problem would be that some players will want to make sure only the "winners" will survive. No matter if there are official winners or not.

This would require listing the alive players every 10 turns and also listing the final scores.

[Corbeau]

Actually, what I had in mind was that if you're killed off first, you take the last place. If you're killed off second, you are second last etc.

But are you sure about the dead players? Elpodiablo is officially R.I.P. and I see his 42 points. I had an embassy witht him, though. Can anyone verify the endgame score? Any saved images anywhere?

[wieder]

Maybe it was a 2.3 feature or having the Atlantic wonder affects this. I had the Atlantic when that screenshot was taken.

http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?id=645

In any case, I guess the scores could be extracted from the save file. If someone volunteers to do that

[wieder]

Yeah, with LT34 we only saw the alive players in the end. No Atlantic wonder there.

http://forum.longturn.org/viewtopic.php?id=537

[Corbeau]

Ok, for me, no problem with keeping track who dies when.