Friday, May 04, 2012

Proposal: End Game Fix

Time out - passes 4-3—Clucky

Adminned at 06 May 2012 10:10:38 UTC

If the proposal “The Final Countdown” linked here: http://blognomic.com/archive/the_final_countdown3/ fails to pass, this proposal does nothing.

After “Then, if a single Player has more Power than every other player, that player has achieved victory.” add
“Otherwise, a Player will be chosen from the group of Players who are all tied for the most Power in the following manner and that chosen Player has achieved victory: The Player with the most Credits is chosen, if a tie remains choose the Player with the most Marines (from those tied for Power and Credits), and if a tie remains choose a Player with the most Councilmen (from those tied for Power, Marines and Credits), if a tie still the Net shall choose the Player (from tied for everything). In any of these cases, the Net should post to the blog announcing the choice.”

Currently if no one has the most power we just try again next cycle. This was fine until we’re putting a hard stop. If we’re tied at the end, no one will be able to win. Assuming I worded it right the tiebreakers are credits then marines then councilmen (as councilmen are already useful in determining who wins and we don’t want to encourage stockpiling marines). I thought about adding more stuff like “Whoever influenced the most institutions”, but honestly the chances of “tied for everything” are so unlikely that I’m perfectly fine letting SPC choose the winner if it occurs.

Comments

Murphy:

05-04-2012 03:18:10 UTC

for

southpointingchariot:

05-04-2012 03:30:34 UTC

for my next proposal: “the net doesn’t count as a player except maybe for one rule….” ;)

Josh: HE/HIM

05-04-2012 07:12:42 UTC

against

Kevan: HE/HIM

05-04-2012 08:25:44 UTC

for

Cpt_Koen:

05-04-2012 11:44:38 UTC

against I don’t see why Credits would suddenly turn into victory points…

Cpt_Koen:

05-04-2012 11:45:27 UTC

I would agree with something like “if no one wins, then one extra cycle begins”

Josh: HE/HIM

05-04-2012 12:55:29 UTC

Koen’s suggestion is much better, or even a sudden death round for the tied candidates.

Yonah:

05-04-2012 17:31:04 UTC

against

Clucky: HE/HIM

05-04-2012 19:12:20 UTC

first off, the idea that “power and only power is victory points” is silly. This is a nomic. The point of the game is that we define the rules as we go. Just because up until this point credits haven’t factored into the endgame conditions doesn’t mean they shouldn’t continue to.

Secondly, its certainly not an unheardof mechanic that money breaks ties. (see Puerto Rico)

Yonah:

05-04-2012 19:43:45 UTC

There’s nothing wrong with the mechanic per se, but quite a few of us are power rich and credit poor right now and would rather not have our goals suddenly change.

Clucky: HE/HIM

05-05-2012 00:27:41 UTC

your goals are not changing. you still want power. but if you wind up with the same amount of power, I’d rather reward the guy who still kept some credits than the gut who burnt everything.

southpointingchariot:

05-05-2012 02:03:54 UTC

arrow

Cpt_Koen:

05-05-2012 22:02:18 UTC

I’d argue that the guy who kept some credit was inefficient and should have got more power out of his credits, whereas someone who successfully burnt everything to have the more Power he can played well.
Besides, why would Credits be more valuable than Marines?

southpointingchariot:

05-05-2012 22:14:41 UTC

@Koen: A, There is not inherently good strategy - it’s based on how we want the game to work. I prefer to have a tiebreaker than an indefinite end.
B. Fair point.

Clucky: HE/HIM

05-06-2012 00:39:25 UTC

As I stated, councilmen are last because they are already used. Then marines, because I don’t want to encourage stockpiling marines.

“most credits” is clearly better than “least credits”. Doing least credits helps remove strategy - it encourages you to just spend everything and burn credits on other institution just to get them down.

Cpt_Koen:

05-06-2012 16:36:41 UTC

“it encourages you to just spend everything and burn credits on other institution just to get them down.”
Exactly - which is what they are and have always been for: being spent. How is that any less strategic than “I’ll just accumulate a lot of money and never use it”?

I struggled during the whole dynasty with very few credits and still manage to be first in Power. I don’t see why I should be punished for that. As I see it, Credits are long-term rewarding resources, whereas Power are immediate victory points. When the game comes to an end, if someone has failed to convert their Credits into Power, why should the remaining Credits still be worth points?

And why would stockpiling Marines be less useful than stockpiling Credits? All dynasty we have considered that Marines were better than Credits. Using Marines as a tiebreaker for Credits would punish someone who succeeded in Influencing the Legion or the Rebels late in the game, and reward those who failed.

Clucky: HE/HIM

05-06-2012 17:09:05 UTC

Because credits are the “base unit” of currency. you convert them into other stuff. Having the most credits means your most set to go forward. If someone gets the same amount of power while keeping more credits they clearly played better and would be all set to win if the dynasty continued.