In most games, I like to fight to the finish and also hope my opponents do as well. In some games like Diplomacy, I've seen someone pushed down to two depots mid-game and come back to win. It's very disappointing to me when someone gives up just because it appears the deck doesn't favour their domination.
Not all games are like that however. Viktory II is an example to me. Barring some terrible move, once one player has a solid majority, it's only a matter of time. It would still suck not to conquer that final city for the win and I tip my hat to those who take the time to see the game through. It is one game though that I recognize a resignation could be reasonable.
Games like Acquire are difficult because, while you may have fallen out of the running for first place, your moves still impact the game for the other players. I guess that's why any ranking system should still value places other than first.
Spitballing Ratings:
Diplomacy really needs a convoluted ratings system but essentially I'd rather just keep track of what place each person gets as well as which countries status. Wins, first out, etc... There aren't enough of us to really worry about ratings too much. I'm more interested in statistics.
Axis & Allies, not sure.
Acquire has the money system already and might as well incorporate that with a large bonus to the winner. A game like that should show that as long as you ended with more money than you started, it's stiull some sort of victory.
Viktory II - It really is about ruling it all by one person. It seems harsh to get nothing for second place, but like Risk, it's really all about winning. Should it be the same number of points regardless of the number of opponents?
Risk is all about the winner. Same question as Viktory II.
Not all games are like that however. Viktory II is an example to me. Barring some terrible move, once one player has a solid majority, it's only a matter of time. It would still suck not to conquer that final city for the win and I tip my hat to those who take the time to see the game through. It is one game though that I recognize a resignation could be reasonable.
Games like Acquire are difficult because, while you may have fallen out of the running for first place, your moves still impact the game for the other players. I guess that's why any ranking system should still value places other than first.
Spitballing Ratings:
Diplomacy really needs a convoluted ratings system but essentially I'd rather just keep track of what place each person gets as well as which countries status. Wins, first out, etc... There aren't enough of us to really worry about ratings too much. I'm more interested in statistics.
Axis & Allies, not sure.
Acquire has the money system already and might as well incorporate that with a large bonus to the winner. A game like that should show that as long as you ended with more money than you started, it's stiull some sort of victory.
Viktory II - It really is about ruling it all by one person. It seems harsh to get nothing for second place, but like Risk, it's really all about winning. Should it be the same number of points regardless of the number of opponents?
Risk is all about the winner. Same question as Viktory II.
"Save inches for the bathroom; we're using feet here." ~ Rob Kuntz (2014)
--brought to you by TOLHosting, the service without the site--
--brought to you by TOLHosting, the service without the site--