Domination Game

Anyone else noticed how one player is gaining points playing quick games on his own? Perhaps there should be nil points awarded in games like this?

Score doesn't matter. I'm just enjoying the game, and testing strategy.
Only thing that counts: Can I win U in a fair game, or not.

You've beaten me playing as wy_mentat, but you pulled out of game 4

I once considered a method of having a game 'frozen' until a second player joins, but that would discourage 'sandbox-like' exploring by newbies.

Emma is worth to be number one player, no doubt.
btw lets start next monady fast game (i like 1minute to reinforce and 3 to 5 minute to advance) and see, who's really best of all.
I think game will be more interesting, if others join too.

I've played against Grin on his games,though without success
because I've joined to late, so how about taking Tikis' suggestion but allowing the first player to accummulate units and even committing units to advance, but not being able to conquer countries until a 2nd player joins?

Sorry to moan but something should be done to stop players from accummulating points by playing solo games (especially when I'm in a marathon slog in game 4!)

I agree with Emma - By playing against yourself in death matches and gaining easy points make a mockery of having a table of the top fifty players. I suggest that game win points are only awarded if more than one player has taken part.

Hi emma and cromwell,

Tiki has been working on this issue, and did get me to change the store awarded to the game winners... faster games (based on action and reinforcement delay), playing on maps with more territories, increases the amount of points awarded when the game is finished.

I am a little reluctant to restricting when points are awarded, or any other form of restrictions posed so far, as it will then become a battle against the cheats (who will always find a way to cheat).

For example, if we did setup Domination so that no points could be collected until a second member joins a game, then it would be trivial for someone (a cheat) to create a dud account, get it to join a game, then leave it there while their main account collects all the points.

Taking it to the next step, we could say that two or more players have to be active in a game for either to collect points (i.e. they have both performed an action within 24 hours)... but it wont take long for the cheats to figure that out... with the added down side that legitimate players have no idea why on one day they get points, but not on the next day (to them, the game appears broken).

So, sorry to seem pessimistic, but I cannot see how we can stop people cheating... unless we remove the scoreboard? that way members will get recognised by reputation, not by their position on the score board.

Maybe we could create a "member history" page... that way, instead of having a score board, you get to see all the games each member has won and lost, the speed of the game and who they were fighting with (allies) and against (enemies).

NOTE: At the moment I am not recording the game history, so if it gets put in place, it will start out with everyone appearing to be new members.

Yes, I rather like the idea of a history page - it would be more informative than just a simple scoreboard - it would also be useful in deciding on budding alliances etc. Yes go for it (presuming it isn't too problematical it setting up.

A history page sounds marvelous. It would be an honour to have your coming defeats recorded under my name, and to have my name penned in your epitaph.

The only cons to it seem that I could no longer brag of how many times I have made the top listings (I once had all of my six names in the top 10), and my work on the scoring function would be nullified. But that's not so bad now that I have contributed to other areas of the mathematics and grammar. (I strive to keep the honour of helping create parts of such a gem.)

Down to the technical aspects, a defeat should be labelled when your empire goes under (making rejoining a game for more forces a reputationally costly move) and your defeater would of course include he who made the final blow, perhaps as well as his allies. Basically having a list of who you've beaten in combat, who has beaten you in combat, how many times it's been done, and how many worlds you've conquered. Perhaps more specifically the speed range you've played in, or the maps you've played on, could be included in this history page. It's a big hassle, though, but one to be worth it.

...Any consideration, though, for EmpressCatalina's thought of a general halt of the capacity for advancing in a self-excluding-"empty" game? Do you, Krang, see that as too confusing for newbies or too easy to circumvent with a dud account to be further considered?

Ok ok, I'll stop talking so much...

But perhaps it could be recorded the average percentage of battalions lost in battle compared to your total battalions...or the percentage of forces you have moving at a time compared to your stationed forces(updated each time you send forces)...or the average number of allies you had when ending a game (leaving, dying, or winning).

And maybe an on-the-side notion of linking your accounts, allowing users to have integrated multi-accounting whilst not allowing one to join a game with a linked account in it. Perhaps even a fast-switch option between played games, or being able to play multiple games at once.

Bah, too much data... maybe the ally one would be worthy of considering, though.