| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
freduk
Joined: 18 Jan 06
Posts: 433
Location: Bristol, UK
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Lets try another analogy.
If we play a Chess match through to a draw, but I haven't moved one of my knights, would you concede that I'd won?
I've reached the draw by using fewer resources.
In Tikal, if you've scored the same number of points as me, but brought fewer men into play, then as far as I'm concerned, that's still a draw. Could you have scored more points by bringing in more men? If so, then you should have done that and scored the win properly. Failing to do that does not constitute "more skillful play". In fact, it could be argued that you failed to take the win and so are less skilful. If however, you couldn't have scored any more points no matter what you did, then I believe I am still worth the draw.
My final argument against the tiebreaker is that it is not in the rules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stargate
Joined: 09 Dec 04
Posts: 603
Location: North Attleboro, Ma USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will be a Kiss-Butt here
I agree with freduk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I started to post the following:
| Quote: | But workers can go on and off the board. If I cap a temple, then I suddenly get X number of workers back, and suddenly I look more efficient than someone who either (a) never caps a temple or (b) caps a temple using fewer workers; but I don't think I necessarily am more efficient. So now when comparing the number of workers left, you also have to figure out if one of the tying players capped a temple, how many workers he used to do so, etc. I suppose that's easy enough to account for on SbW -- you just have the system increment a counter every time a worker goes on the board, with no "take-backs" when workers come off the board.
But what about camps? Do you count if someone has used one or both camps as part of the tiebreaker? |
But I got called away before posting. When I came back to post it, I got the following error message:
| Quote: | | Mistake! There was an attempt of an automatic insert of the message in a forum. Your message is sent to hell. Try still times who knows - can it will turn out? Still probably, that you too long wrote the message - then pass to page back, copy the text, update page, insert the copied text and press button "Send". |
Wow. Just...wow. I love it. I want this error message on a t-shirt.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm with freduk, and I love the chess analogy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HappyProle
SBW Developer
Joined: 28 Oct 05
Posts: 409
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks for the Chess analogy. Very apt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gische
Joined: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 186
Location: San Carlos, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Golux, Maybe the forum software recognized that you were misinterpreting the rules?
(You do not get back any of the workers when you cap a temple.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HappyProle
SBW Developer
Joined: 28 Oct 05
Posts: 409
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I love that error message. For what it's worth, it would be a piece of cake to implement the tiebreaker that was suggested if I thought it was correct or appropriate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gische wrote: | Golux, Maybe the forum software recognized that you were misinterpreting the rules?
(You do not get back any of the workers when you cap a temple.) |
Ah, you're right, you don't. My error.
But still. I want my t-shirt.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shrapnel
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| freduk wrote: | Lets try another analogy.
If we play a Chess match through to a draw, but I haven't moved one of my knights, would you concede that I'd won? |
That's awesome, I was going to use the chess analogy to support my side, right down to not playing with the knights.
If you chose to play a game of chess without the use of your knights and still managed to end the game in a draw, you've probably outplayed the other player. Unfortunately, chess has rules for a draw.
I think we just disagree on this one. =) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shrapnel
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Golux13 wrote: | | If I cap a temple, then I suddenly get X number of workers back |
The workers you lose when you cap a temple are lost and gone forever. They don't go back into your stockpile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
umfpt
Joined: 04 Feb 06
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shrapnel wrote: | | HappyProle wrote: | | Why have you outplayed me? I still don't follow that logic. We both had the same number of action points to spend. You can spend the points on any number of things, only one of which is bringing more explorers onto the board. |
I think it comes down to valuation of resources. Action points are only one of the limited resources we have over the course of the game. We've also got a limited number of leaders, workers, base camps, and opportunities to guard temples. Action points aside, each of these resources allow us some sort of in-game advantage at any given instant. You can't score your first point if you don't bring any workers into play.
If we all had the same number of action points for the game, and I spent fewer workers during the course of the game to earn more points than another player, I'd say I've outplayed that person. I've earned more points with fewer on-board advantages.
Wouldn't you say that one person outplayed another if he or she won without bringing the leader into play? Or if only 10 workers were used to win when another player used all 30? If not, why not?
I have to agree with the others who like this idea for a tiebreaker. |
No I wouldn't say that one person outplayed the other in that situation. If you get to a temple first I have to use one more worker than you to claim those points.
You haven't outplayed your opponent simply because you had better tiles to play. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
borisumi
Joined: 16 Jun 06
Posts: 85
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 2:29 am Post subject: Same score or not? |
|
|
In game http://www.spielbyweb.com/game.php?games_id=14042 two players have the same high score but... game is game, two winners 
Last move is for last player - fightoff --- Tie game or victory?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bogey
Joined: 18 Sep 06
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
As I seemed to have started a bit of controversy let me add that only in a tournament situation does one need a tie breaker and the number of workers unused seems to be at least reasonable. If not that then what? Rolling a die, rock paper sissors?
So if one doesn't like the tie breaker, don't enter the tournament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheCat
Joined: 15 Feb 05
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Only if you're hosting a single elimination tournament. I don't think I'd design a Tikal tournament that way. Instead, I'd probably make it a round robin and do something with a scoring comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Golux13
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 209
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, you could give 2 points for a victory, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss. Add up points at the end of the round robin, and voila! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Your Games
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
