Player Feedback requested - Victory Points

[tigersfan]

Ok, so, in this thread: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,13006.msg145536.html#msg145536 , Mick posted the idea of Victory Points.

Chris and I have been talking, and we like the idea, and wanted to know what you guys thought of it. I see it working something like this:  Use a really strong god token? 3 VPs! Get an enlightened city? 1 VP! Each additional town? 1VP! Lose a town to the bandits? -3VPs!

Then, in order to win, a player must 1.) Keep one side from wiping the other out. 2.) Do whatever actions the edicts for that game require and 3.) Obtain the requisite number of VPs.

If #2 and #3 are completed early, and neither side has wiped the other out, the game could end at that point. Or, perhaps players could keep playing to see how high of a VP score they could get, maybe.

Of course, this make the current set up with round length tricky, because obviously it will be easier to score x number of VPs in 40 turns/round than it would be in 20. So, the thought there was to limit the granularity a bit. Make it so that basically, players could choose to play only 30, 40 or 50 turns per round, then come up with appropriate VP goals for each.

This would do two things:

1.) Adds motivation to use powerful, balance killing god-tokens, which I think is going to be an issue otherwise.

2.) Adds a sense of "I played really well this game vs. I really squeaked by" that players (correctly) feel is missing with the scores now being gone.

Thoughts?

[Misery]

Honestly, I like it.   This sounds like a very good solution.   It also sounds like a more "complete" goal to me, instead of just "survive and do the edict".   All 3 together sound better, if that makes sense.


In order to keep one side simply mimicking the other (which is part of the current problem), maybe have it be "Have one side use a couple of god tokens this round, but the other side must use none".  Objectives along that line are distinct things to shoot for, but they accomplish the goal of tilting balance as well.   Or maybe have both:  The "use one god token" is easier and might be, say, 3 points.  The "use two but only on one side" is a good bit harder and might be worth, I dunno, 7.   Stuff like that.   Is my only suggestion here.



It's a bloody good idea either way though.   If the game is encouraging the player to use the crazy "holy crap the blue guys all shoot 5 times at once and can fly for no apparent reason" sorts of items, the ideas behind the game should work just fine.   Particularly considering how MANY crazy items there are like that.   I think there's lotsa cool things that could be done with this idea.

[nas1m]

I would definitely like this better than having no indicator at all of how I did in a given game (now that score seems to be gone for good). Also I feel there is definitely need for some extrinsic motivation to throw the game off-balance - it is way to easy to mirror what has been done for one faction with the other to create a balanced game atm imho. The VP system will definitely help with this. Whether it is sufficient to accomplish this completely I am unsure, though...

[Aquohn]

Excellent idea. Without this (or a similar system) in place, we could "win" through really cheesy/stupid methods that would have given us a discouragingly low score under the old system, e.g. diplomacy rush, having only one barracks, etc.

[chemical_art]

Don't like it.

I like the idea of judging game performance based on it, and maybe even tying leveling up to the highest VP you get in a game.

But I don't like it being the deciding factor of whether you win or not outright.

I prefer organic factors to encourage the dynamic rather then this arbitrary one.

It still fundamentally encourages the fight to the bottom of stability, except it just raises the bottom. It really doesn't change anything except make another box to "check" during a game.

And it still will have to go through several balance passes of what VP's are, and how to prevent cheese...

I fail to see how it really is much different then scoring, except scores were optional and this is not.

[Wingflier]

I like it, has potential.

[Hearteater]

I like VPs as well.  For some reason, possible as a result of Warmachine/40K, VPs make me think of scenarios which alter exactly how you score VPs.

To account for round length, you could have VPs needed to win equal to 1 per 5 turns/round (just picked a number for example purposes).  So in a 40 turn/round game, you need 8 to win, but only 4 in a 20 turn/round.

[tigersfan]

Don't like it.

I like the idea of judging game performance based on it, and maybe even tying leveling up to the highest VP you get in a game.

But I don't like it being the deciding factor of whether you win or not outright.

I prefer organic factors to encourage the dynamic rather then this arbitrary one.

It still fundamentally encourages the fight to the bottom of stability, except it just raises the bottom. It really doesn't change anything except make another box to "check" during a game.

And it still will have to go through several balance passes of what VP's are, and how to prevent cheese...

I fail to see how it really is much different then scoring, except scores were optional and this is not.

What sorts of things do you recommend?

[Mick]

I think you can tie in the VP concept with the concept for faction-specific round-start edicts. Fulfilling the "event" edicts could provide a solid number of victory points, but they would not be a requirement for a game victory, just an attractive path that provides a large number of them.

That way, if the round mission/edict/quest/event/whatever isn't very attractive to you because of how you've built up that faction at that point, you can choose to achieve your VPs through alternates means instead.

Have you ever played the game Andorid? I think it's a similar concept here. The player has many alternate paths to achieve the highest number of VPs they can, but you don't have to chase after them all at once. The "best" way to play is to basically get the VPs that are the most efficient to get, but which those are is a determination you have to make as the game goes on, not something you decide from the very first turn (although at the first turn you might choose a general direction you want to try to head).

So I really like the concept, the game could have a huge number of "victory paths", and the player gets to choose how many of those paths to persue and how far down to go on each, to reach the overall objective. I bring up Civilization far too much, but it seems to me I wish that game had a similar concept, instead of distinct and mutually exclusive victory conditions.

[chemical_art]

What sorts of things do you recommend?

For a start, if we are going to work within this structure, is to have not all the VP's be avialable every game, and each side would get different VP's.

This would force different strategies on each side, and inherently prevent mirroring and intentionally cause an inbalance.


That is working within the structure, and this I would like better.

[Mick]

I like VPs as well.  For some reason, possible as a result of Warmachine/40K, VPs make me think of scenarios which alter exactly how you score VPs.

To account for round length, you could have VPs needed to win equal to 1 per 5 turns/round (just picked a number for example purposes).  So in a 40 turn/round game, you need 8 to win, but only 4 in a 20 turn/round.

I like the general idea. I don't think it should be completely linear though. I could see in such a situation the shortest game being the most difficult. More rounds give you a bit more slack to reach your objectives, so perhaps the VP goal should scale quadratically instead.

[Misery]

Don't like it.

I like the idea of judging game performance based on it, and maybe even tying leveling up to the highest VP you get in a game.

But I don't like it being the deciding factor of whether you win or not outright.

I prefer organic factors to encourage the dynamic rather then this arbitrary one.

It still fundamentally encourages the fight to the bottom of stability, except it just raises the bottom. It really doesn't change anything except make another box to "check" during a game.

And it still will have to go through several balance passes of what VP's are, and how to prevent cheese...

I fail to see how it really is much different then scoring, except scores were optional and this is not.

Hm, I think I see what you're saying here.

Like... encouraging the player to try for as many VPs as they can.... is a good thing, but if it's something like "just hit 40 VPs" alot of players will do exactly that number (the bottom).... and then simply stop accumulating or trying for them, and taking less risks.

[Mick]

Don't like it.

I like the idea of judging game performance based on it, and maybe even tying leveling up to the highest VP you get in a game.

But I don't like it being the deciding factor of whether you win or not outright.

I prefer organic factors to encourage the dynamic rather then this arbitrary one.

It still fundamentally encourages the fight to the bottom of stability, except it just raises the bottom. It really doesn't change anything except make another box to "check" during a game.

And it still will have to go through several balance passes of what VP's are, and how to prevent cheese...

I fail to see how it really is much different then scoring, except scores were optional and this is not.

Hm, I think I see what you're saying here.

Like... encouraging the player to try for as many VPs as they can.... is a good thing, but if it's something like "just hit 40 VPs" alot of players will do exactly that number (the bottom).... and then simply stop accumulating or trying for them, and taking less risks.

==Game Setup==

Select game difficulty:

Very Easy - 50 VP
Easy - 75 VP
Normal (default) - 100 VP
Hard - 110 VP
Very Hard - 120 VP
...

[chemical_art]

Hm, I think I see what you're saying here.

Like... encouraging the player to try for as many VPs as they can.... is a good thing, but if it's something like "just hit 40 VPs" alot of players will do exactly that number (the bottom).... and then simply stop accumulating or trying for them, and taking less risks.

Yeah, and my first idea doesn't change that fact really.

It still doesn't address the race to the bottom. That would require more along the lines of game mechanics itself, which sadly since I haven't it enough can't really describe.

[Faulty Logic]

I definitely approve of this idea. I wouldn't worry too much about the "Do what ever to win, then stop" attitude, either. If folks want to play that way, don't waste effort stopping them.