Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject: Beta game finished (3901)
In the Shadow of the Emperor Game ID=3901 (game finished)
MaBi,
We just finished our first In the Shadow of the Emperor beta game. Other that finalizing the game play with the combination of the Gray Eminence (in a spiritual electorate) and the Church Influence action card, the game went smoothly. Excellent implementation.
(Although, I am sure it won't happen, it would be great if there was an option to play the game with closed scoring--like in the face-to-face game.)
Joined: Apr 18, 2006 Posts: 35 Location: Las Vegas
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject:
I prefer to play with open scoring online. Why? Someone with more time on their hands then me can go through the gamelog and calculate the score. Plus it's nearly impossible to kinda guess how many points each person has unlike when playing face to face.
My only current suggestion is the marriage proposal.
Accept Offer | Decline Offer
instead how about
Accept Offer from Player3 | Declline Offer
In other words make it more obvious who is offering to marry their daughter with one of your Barons. I know it says it in the actions of each player but it threw me for a loop initially.
I prefer to play with open scoring online. Why? Someone with more time on their hands then me can go through the gamelog and calculate the score. Plus it's nearly impossible to kinda guess how many points each person has unlike when playing face to face.
mrbass: I totally respect the fact that you (and many other gamers) prefer to play with open scoring. I never suggested that this online implementation of In the Shadow of the Emperor should be played only one way (or the other). I merely suggested that having the option to play with open or closed scoring (for example, choosing either method when the game is created) would be great. The game designer did originally intend that the game be played with closed scoring (in face-to-face games). I understand, however, that online games require a game log (and thus the potential to calculate the current scores for each player). That said, I play with a bunch of blokes who would never even think about adding up the scores from the game log, so our online games would nearly mimic a true face-to-face game.
I believe that displaying closed scores would be a relatively simple matter when outputting the scores to the web page. For example, each players' score could be replaced with a "??" (except your own score) until the end of the game, when all scores would be revealed. In open score games, this replacement routine would not be run.
MaBi: Do you think this might be a possibility for In the Shadow of the Emperor?
MaBi: Do you think this might be a possibility for In the Shadow of the Emperor?
To me hidden scoring in PBW doesn't make sense, but:
1) as you said, it would be easy to implement;
2) I know that some games are played in 'quasi-real-time' (your 4-player Shadow game was not really so but very quick!), and in this case it does make more sense.
So, yes, it's not high in my priority list, but I am considering this possibility (concealing scoring in the summary table only, not in the log).
Maybe I will try with one game and extend it to the others if I see there is some use.
I prefere the open scoring too. It's always possible to calculate each player points using the log... I know, it's very boring to invest your time in this way but this will give you quite an important advantage.
I prefer closed scoring to better simulate the decision making process that takes place when you play the physical game face-to-face.
After playing the game here with open scoring, I noticed a significant difference in the way I played the game. Voting was strongly influenced by comparing a 1 or 2 point difference in the current scores. Leader bashing was much more pronounced.
By having the scores open, the VP total for each player becomes a factor in turn by turn tactics. With closed scoring, VP totals only influence my decisions long-term because I only have a general feel on who has the most points so far.
Another problem I experienced in the online game with open scoring was that I knew without a doubt that I had lost the game a full turn before the game was over. I then had to look at my remaining actions as helpful to Frontrunner A or Frontrunner B. I was basically deciding who would go on to win. That kingmaking end-game was negative aspect that I hadn't felt so clearly in my six previous playings of the game face-to-face.
Before closed scoring is written off by those who prefer open scoring, I would like to know from those who have actually played with both open and closed scoring:
A) Did always knowing the exact score alter the way you play the game at a tactical level?
B) Honestly, would you actually read the log every turn to tally every player's score just to have perfect information on VP totals instead of a general estimation?
MaBi's Hansa implementation already has an optional "Fast Setup Variant". Why couldn't In the Shadow of the Emperor have a similar optional for open or closed scoring?
I prefer closed scoring to better simulate the decision making process that takes place when you play the physical game face-to-face.
I think that play-by-web is a fundamentally different gaming experience. I realize that you played that game quite fast, and I bet you were not playing other games at the same time. But consider that many people are playing 10, 20 or even more games at the same time (one user here has more than 50 games running at the moment, and he just created a dozen more, probably feeling that those were not enough). And each one of these games will go on for several days or weeks. In this case, how can you simulate the ftf decision making process? How can you keep a general feel on who has the most points so far?
In my case, I can't manage that many games, even two of the same kind are too much for me and I start getting confused. But I can play several different games at the same time (and I have discovered that 2-player versions are so different than multiplayer that I can treat them as different games), so I usually have a couple of each kind here, one Amun-Re, two Haciendas and two Tigris always running (and some others from time to time). There is no way I can keep a 'general feeling' and without open scoring (and money, hands and everything which is public information) I would have to play essentially blindly. Which I would hate, and avoid to play (actually this is one of the reasons why I don't play Reef Encounter on SBW).
Anyway, no need to argue. Everyone has their own playing style, and if (when) I will implement hidden scoring it will be optional, so everyone can play according to their preferences :).
Thank you for taking the time to write clear reasons for supporting open scoring. Far too often, closed versus open scoring is argued either "because I like it" or "because I can read the log". Those arguments do not focus on the effects on the metagame.
After reading your post, I would agree that open scoring is a must when you have many simultaneous games or long delays between moves. My opinion in support of closed scoring is based on relatively fast-paced games played with casual players.
Either way, I'm so glad you made this game available online for everyone. You did a fantastic job.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
