I would but I can’t even beat the ai on medium so I wouldn’t be much of a challenge for you guys.
I was thinking that the tourney would run Swiss-style, meaning that people who win their first game would more likely be matched against other such people – and so on. If that helps!
I seem to remember people up-thread talking about how even beating the medium AI is super tough. I imagine that patches have made it even tougher. I never play AIs so I couldn’t say.
p.s. @Otthegreat you want in?
Oh so this may mean I don’t suck as much as I thought I did!
Sorry if already asked above but can Android pay against iOS?
Yep, no issues between Android and iOS. Don’t know about cross-compatibility for the PC version.
Sure, I’m in!
I’m terrible at the game, even though I love it, so I look forward to watching you guys go at it. I hope you post some sort of account of your games here.
Here are the folks who said they’d play. If you’d rather not after all, just let me know soon!
Me
@Otthegreat
@justaguy2
@Chappers
@tomchick
@rho21
@RothdaTheTruculent
@porousnapkin
@Thraeg
I suggest we each play four games, one starting every two weeks so that overlap is minimal. Using the expansion! And I can write a little code that will mix us up at random.
I think that rather than going purely by wins and losses, I’d like to use a points system that combines placement (first through fourth) with points scored. Does anyone mind if we go with:
- First place earns 4, second 3, third 2, fourth 1
- Everyone earns their point total divided by 100
For example, if a game ends 184-146-143-102, then the players would (respectively) earn 5.84-4.46-3.43-2.02.
This helps give a reason to keep playing even if you’re probably not going to win (not that we really need it, but still). And if someone resigns from a game, they’d earn 1.00 no matter what their score.
I also think that this scoring might suppress military a bit, as everyone will know that they all benefit if they get higher culture tallies. But this could lead to some cool tragedy of the commons moments, too…
Any thoughts, or sound good?
two things:
-
I was making a Kelly Wand joke, but he’s not (afaik) gonna play this. But I am in!
-
Rather than futz around with how winners and losers are calculated, let’s trust the game designer. As you yourself grant, futzing around with that stuff will change how people play the game. I want to play the game the designer intended, please.
Dave, if you can squeeze me in, the please add me to the list.
I can squeeze any number in, with this format!
I was a little surprised that Kelly wanted to play! But happy. Ah well!
I welcome your thoughts and wonder how you’d score these. Just with the first option? If so, what keeps people who are getting beat down interested in continuing, so that they keep trying?
I’d just award points based on the ranking. 4-3-2-1. (Assuming that every game played has 4 players in it.)
As for encouraging people to keep playing after they want to stop playing, I’m not a life coach or a motivational speaker, and this is a game. If people decide they have better things to do than get their butt kicked in a computer version of a board game, life’s short, man.
I would suggest total victories being the primary decider, with tiebreaker being minor placings. But a tiebreaker probably won’t be necessary if you’re doing a Swiss tournament.
I’m perfectly happy for people to resign if they’re in a late game death spiral, incidentally. It’s not the best feature of the game, but it doesn’t happen all that often.
Oh, we should probably move this discussion to a new tournament thread and leave this thread for signups and actual discussion about the game.
I’d sent you a hand-written invitation by post, and was expecting that you would fill out the small card that was included!
I tried for about 150 seconds to figure out how to start a group for the game, but couldn’t figure it out, so I stopped trying. Do you know how?
There are groups? I’ve just used threads in the past.
Oh okay – how does one make a thread? Or is that just another word for posts in a Topic?
Yeah, topic was what I was meaning.