Skip to Content
 

Preventing player elimination

8 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013

Most people do not like to be left out a game half way. With 2 player games, the game simply ends.
But in games like Risk or Monopoly, a defeated player simply can only watch. Now, what are the ways to prevent this? It is to keep players in the game even if they are defeated. Or the game ends once 1 player is defeated.

Although I know of people who like the taste of defeating multiple players. Thus the need arises to continue the game after 1 "casualty".

-------------------------------
Here is my approach.

In my war game (max 6 players), players have several tiers. In the first tier (tier 0), the basic tier, they have a normal army and normal resource gathering.

But once a player is wiped out or have given up. They can come back as a (often smaller) mercenary army, in tier 1. The units then are more powerful through a bonus of XP that units can spend on their statistics right away. Approximately + 16,7% for each tier. Thus 6 soldiers are as strong as 7. Further, they have a small base for production, but lack income. They need to receive money from other players.

And tier 0 players could hire them to do the fighting for them. When there is only one tier 0 player left, that player wins. The rest are simply ranked in the tiers they are in. Secondary rank is army size with gained XP.

Every one can keep playing. And in a way, there are multiple winners. Whereas the last player is the true winner, the last defeated player comes in second and the best mercenary comes in third.

Another approach
Is that there are 3 players and 3 mercenary from the start. Then once a player is defeated the game ends. All scores are added up to determine 2 winners. 1 winner in the player pool and 1 winner in the mercenary pool.
This also gives 2 worst players at the same time. So the biggest loser is never alone.

-------------------------------

Play test results:

A 3 player game. All 3 of us are players.
Whereas I was on the winning side. My 2 friends had trouble facing me. Already they teamed up. Yet I managed to destroy the base of one of them. I retreated to tend to my wounded.

He had no more income, he was only left with some defence structures. And his last remaining units where some slow and heavy damaged Infantry and Tanks. Simply a game over for him. However, I intended to keep him alive so he would not return as a mercenary. Unless he would admit defeat and give up. And then return as a mercenary.

But he decided otherwise. He simply asked my other friend to kill the remnants of him so that he would gain XP instead. He did not retaliate to being killed. And my other friend saved up money. Afterwards he himself returned as a mercenary. And got all the money that was saved up. Thus I now had to face 2 opponents. Both with extra XP.

I clearly lost that game afterwards. But all was fair and just according to the rules.

***

A 4 player game. 2 Players, 2 mercenary.
The 2 players where building up their bases and defences. Clearly not wanting to spend their resources on the mercenary. Thus I and my friend where just sitting there waiting. One of the players didn't even want to hire us. And this reminded me of a game Kings and Knights on Starcraft. Where the players sometimes simply ignore the knights presence.

Luckily the other player spend some remaining resources on us. Just enough for me to get a Mortar Jeep (Fast and sufficient Range). I started harassing towers and got my Jeep twice as strong before my opponent had the right defences.

My friend however spend the resources on some Grenadiers. And clearly took losses right away. He did not fret. And simply said, I give up. Thus he became tier 2. Then he said, I give up again. And again, etc.
He said, how about I become a god mercenary. Want to hire me now?

According to the rules, he has to wait 3 rounds between every tier. Thus having +100% takes 15 rounds for a starting mercenary. Even though I won as mercenary. I lost that game; my game.

-------------------------------

2 play tests, 1 success, 1 failure (in my eye's). And 1 failure means a complete failure.

I need to revise the rules? I can't let a player give up over and over again. So that he can return twice or tree times as strong. Even though it takes time according to the rules. And this player clearly lost in a way. It destroys the game play.

Suggestions for tackling that problem?
- One of my friends suggested having longer and longer times waiting times between each tier. 1 round often takes 5 to 10 minutes if actions are taken. Having 15 rounds means 75 to 150 minutes. If it is 3 rounds for tier 1, then something like 6 rounds for tier 2? 45 rounds sounds like an awful lot.

Zanril
Zanril's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/25/2014
Another objective perhaps?

Maybe you can have more than one victory condition such as get X amount of points, capture this objective and hold it for X turns. Strangely I think of mission risk when you ask this question.

If you really want to stick with a deathmatch I have no ideas at the moment.

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
Few people want to play

Few people want to play knowing they are limited to second particularly for an additional hour or more. Your friends may be being generous.

How I see it...
First principle: At all times, each player in the game should believe there is some possibility of them winning the whole game.
Second principle: Forced waits (i.e. losing turns) is not fun.

From those, I would map out what some fun/rewarding feeling paths to victory look like. Then find the mechanic that gets there, preserving the above principles.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Perhaps....

I scrapped missions since I was focusing on having FFA games. I might return to those later. But they require an adjustable map and an extra manual. Further designing AI is very hard with the game mechanics. And then we come to the fact that the game needs at least 2 players. I have no doubts in getting it balanced.

Corsaire,
You might be right about my friends being generous.
They loved RTS so much. They started playing my board game without question.

The first reason why I applied Mercenary was to allow more players. It also appealed to my friends of having just a production base and then have stronger units.
Second reason was to allow players to continieu playing after dying once. However they do know they have "lost". Perhaps removing that some way?

When "dead" players are on pause, they can observe the game progress. But this can be done even during their last moments. Thus the pause in unnececary.

***
Solution???

No more players that start as mercenary.
No more mercenary at all.

How about letting players come back completely?
Not just a base, but also the basic resource gathering on their own.
Still allowing them to have a little XP bonus. Perhaps even a focus of this XP bonus on 1 unit if they produce a group of units. Since they died once, they get a helping hand. Which also should discorage other players to attack them right away.

The player who made the kill gets 1 point.
Has to retreat ASAP. But there is still a pause for the dead player. Once this pause is over. A fun thing happens. They can rebuild instantly a base and army just as big as the current weakest player. From then on they too can expand again.
This rebuild happens in the exact same territory where they started. However, if there is an enemy present. They could simply wipe those units of the terrain. Since a base has a diameter of 5, 3 rounds is needed.

The only way to get a point is completely killing someone.
The only way to get a respawn is to be completely dead.
If the dying player "suicides". Then the last player that had a hit gets the kills.
Evil dying players might run towards a friend instead ;).

I forgot to mention that resources will run out after a while. Untill now we have seen tier 3 being completed before the first pool was emptied. I don't know what happens with the new rules.

Any good?

Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
I like the new approach; I

I like the new approach; I think you can find balance that keeps it fun for all.

baberahamlincoln
Offline
Joined: 08/28/2012
Capitulation

In some of the Civ games, there was the possibility that when you had proven your dominance over another civilization, that they would capitulate - effectively becoming a vassal of your Civ, and working for you (they'd have to give you some of their money, research, resources, and their units would be friendly and help fight your wars). However, if this vassal was able to gain enough strength, they might be able to break away again, and be their own independent civ again.

Perhaps players could have the opportunity to capitulate instead of being destroyed. The bonus would be that they would get to stay in the game, but would not be able to attack the person they surrendered to, and may need to give some percentage of their income / production / units etc to them as well. However, if this player became stronger than the one they surrendered to, they could break this allegiance.

tuism
tuism's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2013
The way I like to see games

The way I like to see games go is by hiding progress: Games that doesn't blatantly shout at each player who's winning makes it possible for everyone to be a winner:

Thunderstone & deckbuilders - victory points are in each players' piles so that they don't know who has more - each player has an idea if they counted, but who does?

Then there's Munchkins, which while not the best game ever ever in terms of strategic depth, is basically balanced by cutthroat, and deals with player elimination by being one-winner-wins-all.

Then there're games that deal with it by having limited rounds, and counting up score when those rounds are over or certain conditions are met. Mystery Rummy Jack the Ripper is one of my favourite in that setup :)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
@ baberahamlincoln When

@ baberahamlincoln
When playing board games. It is better to see things from a player point of view.
- Capitulating is no fun.
- Having your sweet revenge >>> being submisive. That is why I previously had mercenaries instead of surrendering. The player could choose their master.
- It takes about 10 rounds in my game before a player is back in action at full force regarding the right targets. If it was a capitulation the boss player will take action long before. If it is revenge, the "victim" will have some protection from other players. A mutual understanding if you will.

@ Tuism
Good suggestion. Hiding the progress. But my game actually benefits from having a good view of who has the most VP. After all, it is all about backstabbing each other when the need truly arises. The weaker have to team up against the strong.

Limited rounds will never work if you copy (R-)TS. Besides, there are only clear VP by killing an entire army. Having "sub points" will not work with the chaos on the board.

***

I need to do some more guidence with rules though.
Some new rules:
- Players determine how much VP a player needs to win the game. With a maximum of 5. Or players minus 1.

OR

The game ends when 1 player dies. The biggest player wins.
Score = Units worth + XP/6 + Money.
This could encourage players to protect the little ones and feed these little ones untill they are big enough themselves for winning the game. Eventually it could become a bunny hunter game. Besides, godlike units are possible by proper training.

I think I will settle with the last one since the game progresses exponentially slower in time with more players. The more players, the more balance there is.

tuism
tuism's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/14/2013
Well it's not like players

Well it's not like players don't have any memory - often people gang up to prevent the perceived player in the lead anyway. Hidden information just makes it more tense - people aren't SURE how far someone is ahead - it creates the sense of I COULD WIN instead of "there's just no way, I give up".

But yes having a definite condition and ending the game earlier than later is good - and also gives strategic depth to someone sneaking in a win or protecting the game over condition as you said.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut