ID:194255
 Jun 25 2001, 12:24 pm
|
|
When more than two players are logged in, but only two are active, the first player to enter a definition can't lose the round. This could be fixed by stopping the game as if less than three players were logged in, when only two players make a definition and those two players are the only ones who vote.
| |
On 6/25/01 3:24 pm Pmikell wrote:
When more than two players are logged in, but only two are active, the first player to enter a definition can't lose the round. This could be fixed by stopping the game as if less than three players were logged in, when only two players make a definition and those two players are the only ones who vote. The first player to enter a definition is only going to win if the other person is silly enough to vote for them. The game should stop if less than three players are active... but due to requests I made it so client-less mobs hang around for a while just in case someone was having a bad connection. That'd be defeated if I ended the game when they became inactive. What I could do though, now that I think about it, is put the game on hold for the 5 minutes I wait to see if someone's coming back. I'll put that on the list of Lexiconomy features to add next time I work on it. Z | |
On 6/25/01 8:36 pm Zilal wrote:
On 6/25/01 3:24 pm Pmikell wrote: But if the first player to enter a definition votes and the other player doesn't, won't the first player get one point for voting for the winner, and the other player get zero points for not voting? The game should stop if less than three players are active... but due to requests I made it so client-less mobs hang around for a while just in case someone was having a bad connection. That'd be defeated if I ended the game when they became inactive. Another solution would be to declare the current round void if only two players make definitions, and those two players are the only ones who vote. [EDIT] I just thought of another degenerate strategy. If you know that only one other player is active, don't make a definition at all. If the other player makes a definiton, it will be the only one. Vote for it and score one point for voting for the winner. The other player will score zero points for not voting because he can't vote for his own definition. This could be fixed by eliminating the "didn't vote" penalty in cases where there is only one definition. | |
This could be fixed by eliminating the "didn't vote" penalty in cases where there is only one definition. Or making it so that only those who contribute a definition can vote/score. | |
On 6/26/01 12:59 am Pmikell wrote:
But if the first player to enter a definition votes and the other player doesn't, won't the first player get one point for voting for the winner, and the other player get zero points for not voting? Well, that's true. With two definitions only the game turns into a game of luck based on who was first and whether the other person voted, which could be fun, it being sort of reminiscent of Guy's Conflict, but isn't really what Lexiconomy is about. I think the idea of voiding the round if there were fewer than three definitions is probably the best. Z | |
...and this strikes you as being what's "degenerate" about Lexiconomy? HELLOOOOOOOOOOO? Have you READ any of those definitions?
Anyways, you could simply ignore the game until more people log on. It's not much of a game even with 3 active players.