@trojanrabbit Do you have a more generic formula, for games with 5, 6, ... 10 players?
Maybe something like K = K * 3 / (N + 1), where N is the number of players? That would give the winner a global K of K * 3 * (N - 1) / (N + 1), tending towards a max of 3 times the elo gain. (It fits with your example: 60 for 2p -> 45 for 3p -> 36 for 4p).
Yes, that is the formula I use. It's a pretty good fit up to 5 players. Haven't done experiments with more than that.
@ariallito only began playing this game about 6 months ago live, and a couple months now on this app, but I think Gleens can be pretty good and relatively easy to play, just under relatively narrow circumstances. You need at least two of three: gia round bonus 3, 4, or end game gia bonus. Also necessary that the 3pt gia card isn’t stuck in a bad spot, and there are a good number of desert and gia planets within two jumps of each other. When those conditions are met, I’d say maybe 1/4 of the time(?), you can pretty easily get 175+ pts in 3-4 player games. 5pts per gia with 8-9 pts per a couple rounds is pretty strong!
Yeah that's what I thought at first, but then again, Coyotte is right when he says that you just have to pass each round and won't be losing elo anyways.
That is fair towards people who still want to continue playing even when somebody has dropped. I agree with you that, for me, a game is over as soon as a player drop, but many users here like to keep on playing. And after all it is just a minor nuisance having to click the "pass" button 3 or 4 times...
I know some players would like to play real-time games, which is hypothetically not even impossible - however not enforceable - with the current settings on the site. Even with the strictest settings what all we can hope for is other players' willingness to play real-time, which hardly leads to the desired outcome, so games stuck, get frustrating and last several days as opposed to ~2 hrs.
Hi there, this is my furst post so bare with me
I will make this suggestion for the auction mode "choose while bidding"
So this works only with 4 players.
My point is when u do this auction the last player has somewhat good advantage over rest of the players since he has all the information he needs for his pick so after he picks his chosen race the rest of the players could make a vote each gets one vote with y/n ,y=he keeps his race , n=this race is banned and since they are 3 players u cant have a draw its eather that race is banned or he will play it.Idk if that will help but thats what i come up with.
There can be added option to last player to pay 5 victory points for each "n" he gets, to keep his race so about -15 points at most but i am not sure about this :)
To be entirely fair there are actually situations of which you'd want more buildings in your federation than necessary which is the 'Buildings in federations' final scoring... But given how situational that is i'd say rather assist players in making an optimal federation instead.
Personally i don't see any issues with the satelites FS. For me it only offers another level of planning since you want your last federation to be as 'long' as possible, which forces you to focus more on getting additional power tokens and even expanding further away. These just adds to the variability of the game since you now need to approach the game another way to score optimally.
Q: The path with the fewest satellites to link my chosen planets will touch a planet that I did not wish to include in my federation, can I choose the shortest path that skips this planet?
A: No, If the "extra" planet cluster is not already a part of a federation, then you must choose the path with the fewest satellites to link your planets, even if it includes extra planets
Understood, this supports the implementation exactly.
Whether this set of rules is ideal is another discussion