Ribannah
Fighter Druid
Moonsinger,
You are missing the point. The rabbit played poorly and never crossed the finish line.
Let me try to clarify my thoughts.
Player A and player B choose different paths to victory, both intending to continually make progress towards that goal to the best of their ability. The only difference is that player A emphasizes speed, while player B emphasizes the state of the empire.
Case 1. A and B both play great. A finishes earlier, and B has the most impressive empire. IMHO, they should get equal scores.
Case 2. A and B both play a mediocre game til the moment A finishes. After that, B improves and plays an excellent final part. Here, player B should score higher.
Case 3. B fares a little better than A. A still finishes earlier, but after that B suddenly does badly in the remaining part. There should be a chance that B scores lower.
Case 4. A fares a little better than B, and finishes quite a bit earlier. For the rest of the game, B continues to play at the same level. Player A should have the higher score.
My estimate at this point is that the Jason score still favours player B's approach to a point that player A tends to lose in case 1 and 3, and even in case 4. The favouritism is way less than before, to a point that exceptions are possible, but still very present.
But that's after only one month. I could be wrong. We should get a lot of info from this month's game.
The question I'm asking is how we want it to be.
Do we want to give only special awards for the speed games but reserve the medals for games that balance speed and empire - or even focus on empire only, as before - or do we want all approaches to have an equal shot at the medals, if played well?
From your last post it seems that, like me, you'd want all approaches compete without favouritism, but your earlier posts sounded more like you'd prefer to give extra points for the player who emphasizes the empire, because the (in your opinion, I don't agree) extra effort should be awarded.
You are missing the point. The rabbit played poorly and never crossed the finish line.
Let me try to clarify my thoughts.
Player A and player B choose different paths to victory, both intending to continually make progress towards that goal to the best of their ability. The only difference is that player A emphasizes speed, while player B emphasizes the state of the empire.
Case 1. A and B both play great. A finishes earlier, and B has the most impressive empire. IMHO, they should get equal scores.
Case 2. A and B both play a mediocre game til the moment A finishes. After that, B improves and plays an excellent final part. Here, player B should score higher.
Case 3. B fares a little better than A. A still finishes earlier, but after that B suddenly does badly in the remaining part. There should be a chance that B scores lower.
Case 4. A fares a little better than B, and finishes quite a bit earlier. For the rest of the game, B continues to play at the same level. Player A should have the higher score.
My estimate at this point is that the Jason score still favours player B's approach to a point that player A tends to lose in case 1 and 3, and even in case 4. The favouritism is way less than before, to a point that exceptions are possible, but still very present.
But that's after only one month. I could be wrong. We should get a lot of info from this month's game.
The question I'm asking is how we want it to be.
Do we want to give only special awards for the speed games but reserve the medals for games that balance speed and empire - or even focus on empire only, as before - or do we want all approaches to have an equal shot at the medals, if played well?
From your last post it seems that, like me, you'd want all approaches compete without favouritism, but your earlier posts sounded more like you'd prefer to give extra points for the player who emphasizes the empire, because the (in your opinion, I don't agree) extra effort should be awarded.