Domination Game

some thoughts.
I would like system, where I have only one account in domination, but its possible to join different games with one character.
Is it workable?
positive:
- we can actually ban multiplaying with different accounts
- owning different accounts are not essential anymore
- also, it should trim our scoreboard problem - I think, that 50 accounts in scoreboard now, actually belongs to 20 - 25 people.

If it's workable, then I think, we should also reset our scoreboard.

more about scoreboard problem. I have a proposal.
what about adding rule, that in games, where delays are less than an hour, there are no score colletcing.

proposing score rule

x=(w*((a/4)+r))/n

where
x: score
w: map winning value
a: action delay
r: reinforcements delay
n: number of allies

examples:
x: score    3000
w: map winning value    100
a: action delay    24
r: reinforcements delay    24
n: number of allies    1

x: score    125
w: map winning value    100
a: action delay    1
r: reinforcements delay    1
n: number of allies    1

x: score    637,5
w: map winning value    100
a: action delay    23
r: reinforcements delay    7
n: number of allies    2

+ possibility to gain score from different games at same time

If scoring rule is accepted, there are no more possible to gain points through playing quick games.
for example:
If game action delay is set to 10 minutes (0,167h)
and reinforcements delay set to 5 minutes (0,083h)
your max score would appear something like 1,04

I have to agree with wy, just 1 player able to play different games (even if he is picking on me in game 1!).
But some players like playing quick games and like to have their name on the scoreboard, so how about 2 or 3 leagues based on duration (either action delay or reinforcement delay) of games? Whatever happens, I think we should keep the game as simple as possible - not all of us have studied maths or nuclear physics!

Well thanks for both of your comments, I do like the idea of having a score board for the slow games, and 'empresscatalina' makes a good point about having multiple score boards.

It might be the case that each user has multiple scores, which I think would work quite well... although we have to be careful not to complicate things, as I feel that even now, allot of potential new members give up because they get confused on how the game works.

As to making these changes (along with the members history feature tiki/emma is playing with), I think Domination might need a bit of a re-write... so version 4 (I think) will need to come into existence, ideally with the ability to join multiple games with one account (sorry tiki).

Although I do have a little problem... at the moment I have a full time job, and I'm doing freelance work in the evening (shhh), so free time is a little on the slim side... however, I will be leaving my full time job on 30th March 2007, so hopefully my evenings will become free for the "fun stuff"... I do realise that is quite a wait, so I will try to get most of this stuff in place before then.

mistakes again. correction: score would be 12,5 in this case
If scoring rule is accepted, there are no more possible to gain points through playing quick games.
for example:
If game action delay is set to 10 minutes (0,167h)
and reinforcements delay set to 5 minutes (0,083h)
your max score would appear something like 12,5

If scoring stays and multiple accounts do not, there must be a score-processing thread in which multiple accounts are singled to one score... Then we shall see who you are sorry for. :-P

?

And lets add to version 4 option, that U can see your ally battalions movements and get his reports.
ok, I'm repeating myself.

That's almost related to what I once mentioned (getting reports for ally movements into your territory by using (10) instead of [10] brackets/parentheses). I like that idea, the only thing it needs is "where to access" that information.

...Meaning I like Grin's idea, but only needs to be thought up where to view your ally's movements.

Keep it simple and only receive information on your allies movements when they affect your territory. I think there is a danger of adding complications to the game. Good allies can and do inform each other of various movements and enemy actions, and I for one know who to trust.

It's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of information sharing speed and it gives chance to help your ally.

Personally I like the isolation with the current alliance setup, it means that if there are two alliances, then the one which communicates often and well will have a better chance of winning.

If we went into providing battle reports to everyone in an alliance, then we just get a load of players effectively working by them selfs, and never really forming any trust or talking with the other players.

Sorry, you will have to do better than that before you convince me that this is no more than a lack of trust.

:-)

to the contrary, it needs a lot of trust to confirm an alliance, if your ally can see all your movements. I dont think, that action planning amongst allies, will fade anywhere

I kinda like the trust required to have your ally need to report their movements, but also feel it necessary to extend the right to know what goes on with your borders. Any more information would be overwhelming, and make one wonder why the enemy's information is so difficult to gather in comparison.

It's also nice to have the option of hiding battalions-in-transit from your "ally" in event of...um...better opportunities.