A Discussion on kingmaking and community standards.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

If I give my last VP(s), I lose. My game is over.

And likewise, if I give someone the VPs necessary for them to win, the game is over, that person wins. I can't comeback to win (nor can anyone else).

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by thejeff

Am I missing something? Giving someone the last VP he needs to win is obviously game ending, but giving away your last VP doesn't change anything for you, does it? Many VP games start with one in each capital, but some don't. In that case the game starts with no one having any VPs.
I'd assumed through out this discussion that talk of giving away your last VP was really just bad phrasing for giving the last VP needed to win. Was it not?

Yeah, I worded that badly. To my knowledge, you don't lose w/o victory points.

[zlefin]

It seems to me that a fair portion of these problems stems from a lack of second place. In the game as written, it's winner take all, everyone else loses, period, no second place. This creates the conundrum what to do when you cannot win.

Some people of course place value on how long they lasted; and may value being second, or third, or any increase in their place.
With VPs and other such win conditions, many nations may be alive at the end, making it positions determined by the win condition measured. Without VPs, positions would most likely be determined by order of death (i.e. staying alive the longest) though in case of concession the ordering would be somewhat unclear.


Proposed test: start a game with VP win condition, with the additional specification that all nations alive at the end receive places of value in the pantheon based on the numbers of VPs they have. (and people alive but with no VPs still get a little something). This may cut down on kingmaking since your own position becomes relevant; or maybe it won't, that's what testing is for.

Would playing as if the game were pantheistic, and ranking matter, cut down on the more objectionable kinds of kingmaking?
Zlefin

[WraithLord]

I like your idea. Quite a lot actually

It will also reward ppl for their endurance and avoid situations where it's all or nothing after many hard months of work. In addition it creates a more continuous reward system.

Nice insight.

[chrispedersen]

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.

[Gandalf Parker]

As an RPGer Id also love to see how a pantheon (hierarchy of gods) lays out at the end. Not just 1st, 2nd, 3rd but what god and his titles is the chief god, what god and titles is second, what god and titles is third. It would be interesting to see a god of air, god of water, god of death in 1/2/3 as that would be fairly standard. But the variations would be fun to see also.

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.

Interesting, but it would be like putting a bounty of their head - every game they would be even more likely to get ganged up on. Still not a bad thing since that is probably the strategically correct thing to do anyway.

[Hoplosternum]

I agree - and with one of Gandalf's earlier points - much of the problem stems from the winner takes all condition most mp games organised here have.

By late game there are often perfectly viable powers who have no realistic chance of victory. Nearly everyone wants these people to not only keep playing, but to keep playing in their own interests and not simply King make. Maybe it is time to try and add some incentive / reward for doing so?

You can use the Pantheon system - which I must say I like the sound of

Or have more games that allow allied victories. Or vassals.

Or we could all revisit the idea of scoring games/creating a league as was suggested a few months ago? That would reward people who stay in or hold VPs at the end. Obviously depending on the complexity of the scoring method used. If part of the aim of the league was to encourage/reward people to both stay in and fight to the end then the idea might get more support than it gathered last time.

[WraithLord]

AoW had a nice ladder system. Something similar to their rules can be applied here.
Boy but would Tyrant have his hands full if that gets adopted

[vfb]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I think the hugest motivation (expecially for vets) is the hall of fame.

It would be interesting if we could adapt a Nascar like device - total points.

I'd probably give a few points for starting - and then 1rst place would be 1/2 of the point total of all the participants.

2nd would be good for 1/4, third for 1/8.

this would make a victory against micah, dr.P, atul, and wriathlord worth *a lot* more than a victory against anon noob 1,
anon noob 2, anon noob 3.

IANAV, but I couldn't give a rat's arse about the HoF.