New Format: 1st Cutthroat

[unclemike]

It's possible to eliminate players but should the status point table be revamped to consider other factors as well?

For example, the current status point table provides too many points for agent/wizard development, how about something more inline for military kingdoms? Like rewarding points for the number of battles that a leader went through and even more points for successfully won battles (both of which are listed for leaders in the kingdom report). Number of encounters investigated by leaders should also be granted points.

Also, a greater breakdown of military strength values instead of just the single award for very large groups. Really should have a ladder for different troops sizes and combat values because there's more value for a military kingdom to spread out their forces among 4+ groups than combine everything during gameplay. Also higher training levels for brigades should have points so the number of veteran/elite brigades may contribute as well.

For political kingdoms, award points for higher emissary ranks. For esoteric kingdoms like the Pirates or Atlantians, award points for number of intercepted sea patrols/trading merchant ships, ...etc.

So before moving ahead, I would suggest to revamp the status point table and correct the above problems before eliminating a player based upon status points.

[Wookie Panz]

Game creation cauldron is stirring, with visiting sorcerers here: too many sorcerers slow the process.  Should be coming soon.

Game has been created.  Good hunting!

Just to clarify, you are not eliminating players in this game , right?  But plan on doing it in future games.

Yes.  That's why it is called Cutthroat, like in the pool game.  Not happening in this game 538, and Mike would have to review the complexity of eliminating a player on status point update, but I would like opinions on the concept.  So low status point player is eliminated at end of Turn 6, then lowest status point active player is eliminated on T12, etc.  The owned population centers of those eliminated kingdoms become Human controlled.  So seems to call for new strategies.  I think it could be pretty cool.  Definitely should create a sense of urgency, without necessarily dictating attacking a kingdom, so a new breed of concept.  (All trademarked.)

One down side to the player elimination could be that it is decidedly newbie unfriendly.  Having only one game behind me I enjoyed a scenario where I could be less aggressive and learn the game for quite a few turns.  In cutthroat  if somebody has to leave it is most likely to be the new guy so maybe you would want to steer the newbies away from it so they don't leave after their first Alamaze experience?

[IMPERIAL_TARK]

Plus, I'm not sure that first person is going to enjoy paying that all in fee just to be done in 6 turns

[Hawk_]

One idea for status points could be in destroying things.

Destroying villages and towns and cities of a declared enemy could be be worth points.

Destroying artifacts could be as well.


I am sure it would be complicated but it would be nice if the locations of PC's listed destroyed locations as "ruins".

Maybe there could even be an expensive order to rebuild ruins to start a village back up producing 2000 food per turn.

Just a thought.

[Ry Vor]

I think all valid points, but it was intended just to be a Primeval variant rather than a side project.  I agree, not for newbs.  But we have this contingent of the player base that is all about winning, so this seems to amp up the competitiveness.  Yes, if you are first out you paid about $6.00 a turn.  If you are third out, you pay about $1.90 a turn.  That's supposed to be part of the allure, kind of like if you finish last in fantasy football, its not like coming in first or second.  Anyway, its not an imperative.  If players want it, we can make adjustments to status points, but otherwise we can skip the eliminate a player component.

[Avantar]

I would definitely skip the eliminate player part of the game. Besides, with the game being fully paid for then some Kingdom on the edge of defeat just might hang around to be a small thorn in the side of the one who hurt him most. Revenge doesn't necessarily meaning winning. Sometimes it means helping determine who that winner will be.

[Wookie Panz]

I would definitely skip the eliminate player part of the game. Besides, with the game being fully paid for then some Kingdom on the edge of defeat just might hang around to be a small thorn in the side of the one who hurt him most. Revenge doesn't necessarily meaning winning. Sometimes it means helping determine who that winner will be.

I have to agree with Avantar on the elimination.  I would not pay $35 knowing I could be eliminated after turn 5 just for being on the bottom with status points.  It's not like the money went into your subscription and you can just sign on for another game, it's gone.  I don't see that helping the customer base.  There is also the potential that elimination creates a snowball effect for the leader and after a couple of eliminations the game is decided way too early and you have several unhappy players out a big setup fee.

[Ry Vor]

I should have written that for Primeval games we offer the choice of a flat $35 and no slot, or a $10 setup and a slot.  So for Cutthroat, players could opt for the $10 setup and a slot, so really only $10 is at risk as the game slot becomes available again upon elimination.

I think the elimination aspect increases the tension and changes the strategy.  Might be more keen on getting artifacts and possibly less interested in rushing an opponent.

Mike has also built a format where the victory condition is who has the most artifacts, or points from artifacts, that we haven't tried yet.  This would certainly lead to different strategy, preferred kingdoms and likely more artifact thefts.

[Hawk_]

We did play a private primeval game where the declared winner was the player with the most artifact.  I thought that was pretty entertaining also.