Subject: Re: Re: Scoring for Board Games
Newsgroups: gmane.games.spielfrieks
Date: 2004-05-08 03:02:57 GMT (5 years, 8 weeks, 1 day, 14 hours and 42 minutes ago)
--- Mary Dimercurio Prasad <mdprasad@...> wrote: > Anyone else? I'll put on the curmudgeon hat and naysay away (hey, that rhymes). 1) You will have to make sure that you have the "right" games if you are going to weight the points on a percentage of the winning score. I don't believe that all games are designed to have an identical ratio. Some games will tend to have closer scores due to the design, whereas others tend to have a bigger spread. Giving the ratio equal weight for both games doesn't really measure the relative skill in each game. 2) In many cases you may find players playing for points, rather than to win. If relative points is the scoring, it could often be the "best" play to try and increase score rather than to make a riskier play that could win the game if successful. If you want to construct the metagame this way, of course it's up to you. You just want to realize that is what is going to happen. 3) You might as well just outlaw two player games. It won't pay the players to participate in them. If you can earn piddling points to win a 2-player game, but are almost guaranteed to get at least that many points for finishing in middling place in a multi-player, there is little point to engaging in the two-player. If there are going to be prizes awarded, perhaps instead of ranking the players, you could award chances at a drawing. After all, whatever criteria you come up with to set the rankings are going to end up being fairly subjective and arbitrary. So, why not just make the winning have a random element that is somewhat offset by a ranking? Perhaps award 5 chances to the winner of a game and give bonus chances for participating in particular games based on number of players, length, and/or difficulty of the game. This way, everyone would be trying to win (which would just be favoring a different perspective than your current proposal) and 2-player games would still mean something. However, there would also be an incentive to play other games. There would be a decision to make in the metagame. Is it worth going for the 5 chances in a 2-player game (where I could still end up with nothing) or should I take the guranteed 2 chances in that longer multiplayer game that has the possibility of getting me a total of 7? Just some observations and ideas. Paul Sauberer __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70 http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/grQolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe: spielfrieks-unsubscribe@... To email the moderators: spielfrieks-owner@... Spielfrieks on the web -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spielfrieks Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spielfrieks/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: spielfrieks-unsubscribe@... <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/