- Players bid for gladiators. Gladiators under a tie are split into twins and each player can use one of the twins as if he had won the bid. Then, players bid for tiles on the fighting area (by placing a gladiator, or no gladiator to reserve an empty tile, and some points). Tiles under a tie are not used and gladiators are placed at random.
- Players bid for gladiator-tile couples (I pay X to put gladiator A on tile B). Gladiators under a tie are split as above. Tiles under a tile are not used and gladiators are placed at random. You can still play to put no gladiator on a tile.
- The tileboard is split into black and white tiles (like a chess board), player one can only use white tiles, player two only black tiles. Players then bid for gladiator-tile couples, with splitting as above.
Poll - browser-based game
Author
I am currently working on a game design for one of my courses. The course will deal with the implementation of the actual game (databases course) so I have complete freedom over what the game will be.
The basic idea behind the game is that a (tiled) fighting area is randomly generated, and a random set of gladiators is provided as well. The players then bid to choose a gladiator and place it somewhere in the area. Once all soldiers are placed they duke it out on their own in a deterministic and predictable way. The goal is to accumulate more points than your opponent: when you kill an enemy gladiator, you get as many points as your enemy has spent (in his bid) to choose and play it. (both players get the same amount of points to bid with, and they must spend it all in bids).
For instance, if I play 20 on gladiator A, and my enemy plays 30, he gets to use A and I don't. If I kill A with my own gladiators, I'll get 30 points.
Now, the bidding and choice process is what's still troubling me. Here are the possibilities I'm considering:
How about just not splitting?
First come, first served. (first to place a bid)
From,
Nice coder
First come, first served. (first to place a bid)
From,
Nice coder
Author
Each player can create a new game or join an existing game. When you create a game, you can start placing bids. When you join a game, the creator has placed his bids hours, if not days, before you joined it.
This would lead to everyone creating games, and nobody joining any. Besides, I'd like the game to only depend on the strategy used, regardless of who plays when.
Also, I forgot to mention: bids are simultaneous, the other player doesn't see what bids you place until the session is over and you each collect your prizes.
This would lead to everyone creating games, and nobody joining any. Besides, I'd like the game to only depend on the strategy used, regardless of who plays when.
Also, I forgot to mention: bids are simultaneous, the other player doesn't see what bids you place until the session is over and you each collect your prizes.
Quote:Also, I forgot to mention: bids are simultaneous, the other player doesn't see what bids you place until the session is over and you each collect your prizes.
What happens to those who bid too low? skip a round?
Author
Since you are forced to bid your entire starting cash, you can be sure that you'll get at least one piece (and that it'll be a fairly costly one too since you put most of your points on it), so there's no skipping involved.
I think the system works well, but I rocommend against the splitting. It could quickly become a convention of the game that players will always bid identically so that they both get the full selection of gladiators, for an epic matchup. Find some other way to break a tie. For instance:
All bids are placed blindly, and each player has exhausted his pool of bidding points. The system checks to see who got what, and a tie is detected. BEFORE the system reports specific results, it informs the tied players of the problem ("Attention: your bid for Clovus has been matched"). Then they get to reassign some or all of their points. Another check, and the game begins. Depending on the resolution of the points (I recommend like a thousand points to be bid, to reduce the risk of coincidence), this will be highly unlikely, and the odds of it happening twice are virtually nil.
A bigger concern for me is getting totally boned on the first run of bidding. If there are ten gladiators to be bid on, you each have 55 points, and your bids are as follows:
Gladiator Player 1 Player 2
1 1 2
2 2 3
3 3 4
4 4 5
5 5 6
6 6 7
7 7 8
8 8 9
9 9 10
10 10 1
Then Player 1 only gets one guy, to Player 2's nine men. That's the end of the game right there. Instead, why not limit a player to a share of the gladiators, so that each gets the first five that they win?
Better yet, replace the bidding system with a hierarchy system, so each player arranges the gladiators in order of preference. That way, you're guaranteed to get your #1 pick (unless there's a tie) and you'll just get the five highest on your list that aren't higher on the other guy's list. You might get your first choice and the 7-8-9-10 on your list, but that is as bad as it can possibly get.
Another option could be the high-school method of flipping a coin and then taking turns picking guys from the bench, until somebody gets stuck with the guy who can't run, throw or hit. I was that guy. *sniff* You could even have a more sophisticated way to choose who picks first. Base it on win records or a pinochle-style "I'll get at least 40 points if I get to pick first" type of bidding.
All bids are placed blindly, and each player has exhausted his pool of bidding points. The system checks to see who got what, and a tie is detected. BEFORE the system reports specific results, it informs the tied players of the problem ("Attention: your bid for Clovus has been matched"). Then they get to reassign some or all of their points. Another check, and the game begins. Depending on the resolution of the points (I recommend like a thousand points to be bid, to reduce the risk of coincidence), this will be highly unlikely, and the odds of it happening twice are virtually nil.
A bigger concern for me is getting totally boned on the first run of bidding. If there are ten gladiators to be bid on, you each have 55 points, and your bids are as follows:
Gladiator Player 1 Player 2
1 1 2
2 2 3
3 3 4
4 4 5
5 5 6
6 6 7
7 7 8
8 8 9
9 9 10
10 10 1
Then Player 1 only gets one guy, to Player 2's nine men. That's the end of the game right there. Instead, why not limit a player to a share of the gladiators, so that each gets the first five that they win?
Better yet, replace the bidding system with a hierarchy system, so each player arranges the gladiators in order of preference. That way, you're guaranteed to get your #1 pick (unless there's a tie) and you'll just get the five highest on your list that aren't higher on the other guy's list. You might get your first choice and the 7-8-9-10 on your list, but that is as bad as it can possibly get.
Another option could be the high-school method of flipping a coin and then taking turns picking guys from the bench, until somebody gets stuck with the guy who can't run, throw or hit. I was that guy. *sniff* You could even have a more sophisticated way to choose who picks first. Base it on win records or a pinochle-style "I'll get at least 40 points if I get to pick first" type of bidding.
Quote:Since you are forced to bid your entire starting cash, you can be sure that you'll get at least one piece (and that it'll be a fairly costly one too since you put most of your points on it),This is not logical. Possible outcome:
Players A, B, C
Gladiator1 A2 B4 C0
Gladiator2 A2 B4 C2
Gladiator3 A2 B0 C3
Galdiator4 A2 B0 C3
B gets Gladiator1 and 2
C gets Gladiator3 and 4
A gets no one.
Quote:All bids are placed blindly, and each player has exhausted his pool of bidding points. The system checks to see who got what, and a tie is detected. BEFORE the system reports specific results, it informs the tied players of the problem ("Attention: your bid for Clovus has been matched").
But after the server detected the tie, it would take hours or days before the players go back to change it. And that would make the 'scheduled' time of match not accurate at all.
What are the properties of tiles? Initially there is nothing on the tiles. Why is it meaningful to bid on the tiles?
Author
Quote:Original post by Estok
Players A, B, C
There are only two players in each game. I guess this was not obvious in my first post.
Quote:
What are the properties of tiles? Initially there is nothing on the tiles. Why is it meaningful to bid on the tiles?
Tiles have no property of their own. Consider the case of the chess Queen in a corner. If you put the queen at position Q and block tiles marked with an X, you'll increase the deadliness of the queen by forcing any gladiator within two tiles of it to be in its swiping range.
.X.|X..|..Q|---+
Author
Quote:Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
I think the system works well, but I rocommend against the splitting. It could quickly become a convention of the game that players will always bid identically so that they both get the full selection of gladiators, for an epic matchup.
Actually, no. Players have no means of communicating with each other, and since gladiators are randomly generated it's hard to both think of the same strategy and give each gladiator the same value.
Quote:
Then Player 1 only gets one guy, to Player 2's nine men. That's the end of the game right there.
Yes, that's the end of the game, but Player1 is almost surely a winner because he has 45 unspent points, as opposed to player 2's 1 unspent point. That's either 44 additional points of upgrades that make the gladiator much stronger, or 22 "victory points" he gets, which ends up in an instant-win since player 2 can rack in 10 points tops from killing the gladiator.
How big is the board? how many gladiators? how do the gladiators acutually fight? what are the movement rules?
Can the gladiators really move like the queen in chess? Or do they still have to move tile by tile?
Can the gladiators really move like the queen in chess? Or do they still have to move tile by tile?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
