Regarding the thread "Playing SimCity":
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=30099
I was going to .. post a post stating that all of the mentioned things are possible with just one single exception: in PvPs, the sum of average win ratios of all parties can never be greater than 100%. For example, in a defender/attacker dichotomy, if the defender wins 75% of the times, the attacker can't win more than 25% of the times.
But then I thought - can't it, really!?
I started wondering about the possility of overlapping goals, so that both (or more) parties could still win. (if the goals are completely overlapping, they are just the same goal and it voids the whole thing, .., right?)
Example: a defending party and an attacking party. Except the defender defends against the computer, and the attacker attacks the computer.
Though these goals are almost completely overlapping, though it's still sounding me like I'd like to play it.
What about the attacker's goals being smash the computer but, to reach the computer, it must smash partly through the defender? The defender and the attacker would have conflicting goals and there would still be the possibility of both of them winning, leaving an overall sum of win ratios of more than 100%.
Does anyone have ideas of overlapping goals in an RTS setting?
Or at least any fresh game goals instead of the classical RTS goals?
Win/Loss ratios - theory
Moderator: Moderators
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Re: Win/Loss ratios - theory
In the attacker/defender dichotomy,
What about the defender's goals being survive up to minute X, and the attacker's goals being to conquer up to K up to minute X?
Both parties would have conflicting goals but both could still win.
Maybe a major victory of the defender if it doesn't loses any ground, a minor victory if it isn't wiped out completely.
What about a 3rd party that's a computer that only defends. And the attacker's goals is to conquer X, be it from the defending player be it from the defending computer?
What about the defender's goals being survive up to minute X, and the attacker's goals being to conquer up to K up to minute X?
Both parties would have conflicting goals but both could still win.
Maybe a major victory of the defender if it doesn't loses any ground, a minor victory if it isn't wiped out completely.
What about a 3rd party that's a computer that only defends. And the attacker's goals is to conquer X, be it from the defending player be it from the defending computer?
Re: Win/Loss ratios - theory
Make the goals too independent and the question becomes "why are we playing the same game?"
What's the point of PvP when they can achieve a mutual victory? Do you expect them to fight past their own victory just to spite the other guy? Do you count that as "not a real victory"? Then it's just a draw.
What's the point of PvP when they can achieve a mutual victory? Do you expect them to fight past their own victory just to spite the other guy? Do you count that as "not a real victory"? Then it's just a draw.