My main complaint about playing Dominategame for fun is you have to deal with the large quantity of teamers and 2nd placers. Well, atleast teamers can be ban, but currently, there is no punishment for 2nd place.
SOLUTION FOR 2ND PLACE (and 2nd placers):
In all rated games, the player who ends up in 2nd place, must wait 5-10 minutes to play their next rated game.
- this will really help benefit players to want to try for 1st place. This suggestion comes from 1st person shooter type games, where when you respawn, you wait to re-enter the game. The price of death or 2nd place, must be made.
Also, on a smaller note, coders need to change the ruling on if people leave the game with-in the first turn, that game can't count towards playing "1" game. I've seen so many players abuse this ability just to get a high total # of games.
mongolian, this rule would penalise people who get 2nd place without aiming for it. That's people who go for first but don't quite manage it, and people who are handed 2nd rather than 3rd by a much more powerful winner killing the last two opponents in quick succession. In the latter case the 3rd placed player would get to start a new game straight away, but the 2nd placed one, who did better, is penalised. How would that make sense?
Why do people recieve 2nd place?
(1) They wanted to make the game end quick.
(2) The 2nd place player knew they could guarantee 2nd place vs 1st/3rd.
(3) When 3 players left, the other 1 player didn't help balance the game and stop 1st place.
(4) Player A&B were trying to killing each other, leaving player C with an easy 1st place.
(5) Normal. Either by process elimination, good/bad luck w dice+cards, 1st place played better, 1st place played smarter, 2nd place played too risky or not wise.
With virtually +80% of games from the above scenario's seem to be deemable that 2nd place should lose more then points. This will also help push players to want to try to win more often.
In today's risk world, rating points really don't mean all that much. In other words, the penalty for being a 2nd placer is not being enforced enough. Cheaters/teamers can get ban, but meanwhile, I play endless amount of games where 1 player messes up the balance of the game.
Risk is about balance. If the balance is broken, the scale tips towards 1 player winning the game. This 5 minute penalty for 2nd place will help enforce players to try for 1st place.
(note, I do realise in the case scenario of 3 people left, 3rd place could try to screw over the game for 2nd place, but this is far more unlikely then the current status of people going for 2nd)
I don't think it necessarily is like that at all. Sometimes you just get 2nd because the winner hands it you, whatever you were trying to do.
I agree, but more then 50% of games I am saying this is not the case. More so, it's about incentive for people to get 1st place and penalise those tho try for 2nd in a 3 player scenario. And when more then 50% of games this occurs from the 4 out of ht 5 listed scenarios above = some other action should be taken I believe.
Taken from Southpark: "Those damn Mongorians!"
mongolian, there is already a method of dealing with 2nd placers. It's called pen and paper. Just keep track of players that go for 2nd and deal with them accordingly if you happen to be in a future game with them.
And I agree with Spir_An. It would not make sense to not reward a player who has to fight for his life against a 2nd place player and beats him for 2nd.
And I don't agree with the balance gambit. If everyone plays to keep the game balanced all day and night, then it will never end.
You have to eventually weaken someone to get the game moving along.
Sure, attack the strongest. I always agree with that. And I won't mess with a player who is fighting someone else unless he is the stronger and will grab another continent in the process of killing the player he's fighting. It just depends. If I see he is building to just take over the world then yes I focus on him and I let him know it. But if he's just wanting to kill someone, then I let him do it. There is no sense in letting the attacked player build back up unless you know you need him to fight the strong player. But for example if europe is killing africa or sa or aussie and does not pose a threat to take over the world, then let him do it. Get the damn game moving along and be ready capitalize on the situation.
And I do not believe in letting a player build back up after he's been weakened to the point of extinction. If you let him build back up, then you're asking for 5 more hours of play and costing you a greater chance of winning.
EXCEPTION would be if you need him and you know for sure he's mad at the other player you will have to deal with in the end. But don't let him have all asia or sa&na or whatever. No sense in letting him build back up that fast.
And it's funny when you hear a player gripe at another about ruining their game when the said player ruined that other player's game to begin with. For example, africa attacks sa and gets both. The former sa player slowly moves into asia and builds back up, then later suicides on africa or sa. There is absolutley nothing wrong with that. It's called payback. And it's funny when the player who had africa&sa gripes about him ruining his game. So what. His game was ruined anyway. And I'm talking about when everyone else is already 10x stronger for example.
But if I see the former sa player only has a small amount to where I know he is going to die, I will kill him if I know it won't effect me too much and keep others from getting his cards. But if he's got a reasonable force left, and doesn't get too close to me, I won't mess with him. Let the aussie player deal with him in asia. If I'm the aussie player, I'll probably let him live to see if he's got revenge on his mind. But if he starts killing my armies that I purposely postioned in parts of asia, then I build to wipe him out.
What's the point of balance? Just kill him and have one less player to worry about.
We can argue all day long on this 2nd placing subject. It's there. It will probably never change. You will have to deal with it accordingly. And like someone once said in another thread on this matter, if not for 2nd placers, many games would probably never end.
Sure it pisses me off when I'm trying to break asia or sa&na and the other player sits on his ass and then attacks me. But there is nothing I can do about it except start playing his way and go for 2nd myself. And hopefully the strong player will have the honor of letting us fight.
And if I succeed in beating him for 2nd place, then you're damn right I should get rewared for it.
But there is no way to not reward him 2nd place points if he is the 2nd placer to begin with. I have no idea how that could be programmed. But there again, if players know that they won't be rewared 2nd place points if somehow the system determines that he attacked the weakest, then the game will go on forever. Or there would be no use in playing the game. There would be no goal. Of course the goal is to win. But you have to admit, those games will never end if all 5-6 players play the balance game all day and night and no one has to go to work or go to school or all of their internet connections are great AND they have someone in the house that can play while they have to use the toilet.
In some games with three players left, there is already a winner decided. For example aussie has asia after everyone else beat the crap out of each other. And he has so much that it is IMPOSSIBLE to break him and he controls the borders of na, europe and africa with ease. So the other two have no choice but to battle each other. May the best man win in that situation and whoever wins should be rewarded the 2nd place points.
But here is something I found out and you may have seen me post this in a another thread a while back:
I GO FOR 3rd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because I read where someone found out he can get points for finishing 3rd. (smiles) (if the first and second place players have a high enough rating)
FUNNY STORY but TRUE.
Here is a good example of why I do not totally agree with the "balance" game:
Some of you are not going to agree with me on this, but I think it's best to let a player kill another. Don't go attacking the stronger of the two unless they are too strong and you know you have to keep him from gaining too much power. Let him do his thing and monitor the situation and be prepared to deal with the winner of the two. It's one less player to worry about.
And the name of the game is to kill people anyway. How are you going to win if no one gets killed? What are your chances of winning a game if no one gets killed and you jump in to balance the two players that are fighting? Why balance them and let one or both build back up?
THE STORY BEGINS:
I was in game where balance was the goal of of one of the players. I have sa. And I keep alaska open and nothing threatening on nwt. Just enough to get cards if aussie or a nomad is there on alaska to help me get cards. I finally break europe. And I have enough to eventually kill the guy in europe and keep sa at same time. Then here comes this (balance) player. He ownd africa. He slams me. And kills my armies on iceland. And kills my 8-12 armies for cards on nwt and pushes me all the way back to mexico. And allows the former europe player to get europe back. And all this time I posed no threat to taking na. Nor did I pose a threat to africa (the balance player). And the aussie player was in check while still only getting 5 men per turn.
I jump in chat cursing him. And asked "wtf was that for? And why are letting him have europe back with nothing but 1's and a few armies here and there like 10 or so while you have 80 armies all around him?"
His response was, "I'm just trying to balance the game. You were about to kill him. And he needed help. And he needs to have europe back so he can build back up so he won't die."
The other players jumped in chat and we all started arguing with him. But he would not listen. So I said ok fine. You deal with him when he gets built back up.
After a while the aussie player decided he didn't want to see europe building back up so he slams into europe and breaks him easy. I was still dealing with a nomad in na plus trying to make sure I had enough to counter africa. The nomad also had armies in asia.
The guy in europe was getting weak again. The nomad comes into europe with some armies. And here comes the (balance) africa player. He cleans the nomad and aussie player out of europe. He protects the former europe player and let's him get europe back while surrounding europe with armies on ural, afghanistan and greenland.
He says in chat; "Guys, we have to keep this balanced. He was almost going to die."
I decided right then and there who we needed to get rid of. And I did not care if it seemed like teaming or not. I had enough of his bullsh-t. We all slammed europe to the point of wasteland. But we kept him alive to nomad in asia to keep the (balance) africa guy happy. We let the original nomad venture into europe. The (balance) africa player did not let the original nomad player own europe until he thought it was time. (for balance purposes haha).
I started noticing the frustration with the aussie player. I had a gut feeling he was thinking the same thing I was.
So now the (balance) africa player finally lets him keep europe. After a while the aussie player hits middle east. The former nomad (who now owns europe) also hits middle east. when i saw that, I started nibbling at north africa. But they only sent enough to weaken middle east.
He starts crying in chat; "Are you guys teaming me?"
We all said "No. We are just balancing the game. You have been too strong the whole game".
After a few more turns, the aussie player hits him again with about 40 against his 60. Then europe kills the remaining middle east army to make him come out with his east africa army or at least split it.
Now I am absoultely sure that both the aussie player and the former nomad (who now owns europe) are both thinking exactly what I'm thinking.
They keep killing his middle east army. And in the chat they all said "We are trying to balnce the game. You are stronger than the blue player (former europe player).
Then after a while he was getting so weak, I killed north africa. He got pushed out of africa into asia.
He was so mad lol. Crying teaming. We all said, "No, we are not teaming. We are just trying to balance the game. You have had africa for too long. Let blue (former europe player) have africa for a while so he can build up enough to catch up with you so it will be balanced."
He was crying "Why let him build up to catch up with me?" We all laughed (lol). We all said "So he will be balanced with you."
He said "ok". Then after a while the aussie player starts hitting him in asia. Then europe followed. Then I followed. He cries in chat, "This is not the way to balance the game."
The aussie player says, "Who gives a f--k about balance. This game is about killing. If no one dies, then there will never be a winner. So STFU!!!!!!!!!!!"
And here's the funniest part of the whole game: He got beat down to nothing and we kept him at only 10 or so armies. Then the former europe player (that he protected at first) went and killed him.
He cries in chat, "Why did you kill me?" The former europe player says, "I wanted your cards."
He started ranting and raving about how stupid that was and the he is clueless about how to balance the game.
The aussie player replies, "He does know something you don't know. He knows there's one less player to worry about and it increases HIS odds of winning this game. So buzz off you balanced S.O.B. Go F--k yourself and get your brain balanced."
That was the most memorable game I ever played. I laughed and laughed for a month about that game. LOL!
STOP DOUBLE POSTING BLK. people will find your posts.
Instead of making a 5 min join game feature, why not the following:
If you don't finish in 1st place, you must wait an additional 60-100 seconds to restart your next game.
Essentially, punishing people to not try for 1st. This hits a lot of target demographics of players who need to not just try for 2nd vs. figuring out how to win. People just don't care about rating points = people aren't goign to change being 2nd placers or suiciders.
Oh my dear Lord...............
LOOK, there is not a man alive (or a woman dead, for that matter) who does not go into a game with the intention of VICTORY.
Victory = Winning = 1st place.
IF 1st place is clearly unattainable, players will attempt to place as high as possible, be it 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 5th place.
Ironically, if a weaker player DOES decide to attack a much stronger opponent and actually defeats him due to pure luck, then he is accused of "suiciding."
Just play your best, enjoy, and concentrate on eliminating the REAL game spoilers - teamers, racists, etc.
Peace on Earth, and now let's get back to killing each other in a civil manner.
I agree Dom Threat. :) Nice story blk. That 'balancer' was a bit of an idiot. Actually I do believe in a kind of balance principle - I call it Balance So I Can Win! Haha! Come on let's keep the balance guys - oh thanks that lets me get ahead and start killing you off, LOL.
Re delays for not-first as deterrent against not aiming for first. It's BS, firstly there just will have to be 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. places however hard people have fought; secondly 60-100 seconds is just time to go to the toilet or get a drink. This delay principle assumes people want to start a new game straight away.
"secondly 60-100 seconds is just time to go to the toilet"
NOT if it's for a #2 :)
Sure, what I'm saying is that that sort of hiatus will not be such a problem for people, they will just use the time for something that takes a short time, like a slash (#1) or getting a drink.
Mongorian, you might be busy every moment of the day attacking Chinese, and to consider not doing anything for 1 minute might result in death, but for most of us, a minute or even five minutes won't kill anyone and it'll make no impact on placing.
Now, if you looked at my rating formula, without taking into consideration some adjustments per player rating relative to others in game that would offset the folowing a little, you'd have something like:
In a 3-plr gamefor example
looking at the point differential from coming in second versus third is not that big of deal. to lock in second by not fighting for first offers little incentive. Going for first, though perhaps difficult, has a big pay-off.
As I said in another forum area here, the dynamics of the endgame may change in some situations so simply locking in second place won't be done as frequently.
however, I see nothing wrong with locking in second if you see there's no point in trying for first....why waste your 30 armies against someone with 100 when your other opponent has only 10 armies? You tell me what you'd do in that situation.
that's a nice formula for a 3 player game weakling. I like the distribution. Would also be interesting to see not the net gain/loss justified too. As in if rating is dramatically higher, you gain less. I'm sure this is something used concurrently. But the addition, or main change is seeing the bulk of the places 2-4th in 6 player game points go unchanged. I think with these medium places gaining points or losing points doesn't help justify rating as much vs 1st.
the simple numbers i agve above are untempered, that is before an adjustment is made to account for your rating versus the avg rating of the players involved so you gain more/lose less if lower rated and gain less/lose more if higher rated.
Much of how you say regarding medium places i take into consideration as the negative points going to them are small, but you have to win in order to increase your standing...if all you do is place second your rating will keep slipping SLOWLY until which time you are several hundred points below the other players in which case your rating won't change to go much lower on second placing (maybe rating goes to 1000-1200 depending on opponents).
If you are a good player relative to others and you win 45% of the time in a 3-player game for instance and take 2nd 30% and 3rd 25% of the time, your rating would be increasing as
.45*6 -(.30*(-2)+ .25*(-4))=1.1 which means you'd be gaining 1.1 points on average per game. Mind you, I put a magnitude factor in the rating formula to effect larger/smaller swings in numbers for rating depending on who's administering it. I purposely enabled larger swings for newbies to get their ratings a bit closer to their true rating in a short period of tiem.
i meant a plus sign after .45*6. I was thinking of just subtracting the absolute values of the rating attributes of placing 2nd and 3rd then changed my mind in the process of writing.
Maybe idea to reward 2nd and 3th place with same amount of points
That's it Lompe! :) Make them the same, change nothing else, that might sort out 2nd-placing.
Women who become 2nd place are forced to suck my cock.
All other places same idea.....
Searching for your cock would already be enough punishment for them, it might certainly take several days.
but at the end it will be worth it :-)
They might accidentally bite it off, Magic. And I bet it won't give them much protein.
Well luckily for me the game of love dont excist too much outof the protein amount.
Bet I can make u shiver for many many hours without that.
Ill need my magic stick though :p
So if 3 (higher rated) players are playing caps they will have to wait for 10 minutes for the one who got in 2nd to be able to join again?
Or wait for another person to join in
You know as well as i do that there aren't many higher players online at the same time.
dont get second place :E
If you were not aware, regular games must last game time 10 minutes to become rated. Capitol games are the only exception where they have no time limit to count for rated. A similiar logic would be applied here as 2nd placing in cap games would be unaffected by a wait.
Sounds like a stupid idea to me... If I had to wait 5-10 min to play a new game, I would log out and go find something else to do.
The problem with distinguishing genuine second placers from those who just want the points is that there currently exists no quantitative measure of the state of a game (you could probably hash some quantity together though).
If there was a real measure of performance within one game then you could easily identify if someone really benefited from eliminating another player from the game (a genuine elimination) or whether by eliminating another player the agressor confined themselves to defeat (i.e. to second place).
It would be interesting (from an abstract point of view) if such a quantity (i.e. a "strenght indicator") could be formulated.
U say teamers can be banned..... Why are u not doing that at this moment then.... look at the nr of complaints that are not dealed with properly....
Trying to catch teamers and understand the root the problem are 2 totally different THINGS!!!!
Again, I believe there is not enough incentive to come in 1st place vs. 2nd place. I take back my idea of waiting 10 min, but having a majority of the % of points going to 1st place and the rest through 2nd-4th place seems fair.
General idea of 6 player game
- 1st = +60%
- 2nd = +20%
- 3rd = +10%
- 4th = -10%
- 5th = -30%
- 6th = -50%
Reply to this discussion