Suggestions

[wiggin]

Quadradius is obviously a great game. The major problem is that the games are too drawn out. Even worse, a huge portion of the playing time is spent playing games that are almost certainly already decided. This is because the game keeps on going with one player controlling most of the board, having most of the powers, but no fast way to eliminate the rest of the opponents pieces. Meanwhile, the opponent plays on, hoping for a big stroke of luck. This part is quite boring for both players.

It is not clear how to solve this problem. One good solution is making the board a little smaller, like you attempt with the 9*9 board. However that board has a different large flaw: The height. The 8 height ensures a dynamic first line on the 4th and 5ht rows. If the board is 9 high, one player will get the 4th row, one player will get the 6th row, with the 5th row between them. They then both have plenty of space to walk around in and get orbs, which means that the game is mostly decided by the powers you get here. The simple solution is to make a 9*8 or 8*8 board.

Other than that I have some loose ideas for things that can stop games that are almost certainly already decided. There could by a counter, that counts some sort of value, including some combination of number of powers, number of pieces, and number of squares your pieces can move to. When one player reaches 80% of the total in this score, the opponent has one move to revert the balance, or he loses the game. The percentage should be set high enough that it virtually never ends games where the loser still has a good chance, but also low enough to actually end some games. I expect that this is not problematic.

Also another thing that seems minor, but actually plays a large factor in drawing the games out is invisibility. If the opponent is moving around with an invisible piece, the player will often try to get it using powers that have no effect unless the invisible piece is in range. If he has two such powers, each round requires 4 actions instead of two, plus it takes some time for the graphics to show. This takes way too long. Either you should not be able to activate the powers if they have no visible effect, or there should be some way to automate this.

[wiggin]

Or there could be a pop-up box that says "It appears to have no effect, are you sure you want to use that power?" And if you click yes, you actually use it whether it affects the invisible piece or not.

[driven2sin]

we talked about invisi radar just using up powers but that also has a draw back where you could drain a lot of your powers in ways that would be beneficial. As is, ridding your self of some lousy inhibit rows so you can keep teaching smart bombs forever to avoid the overheat.

Or draining powers since you may be scared of getting recruited or swaped.. or clearing out one of two swaps on a piece before you swap.

When I talked about avoiding that during the NPT days, it lead jimmi to come up with bankruptcy which fits in perfectly in the opposite way discussed.

The other things you talked about are pretty craptastic. Most games that seem to go on forever is because players are too scared to finish a game unless they have zero risk and rather hope their opponent quits while they wait for triple quad snakes

[wiggin]

Not necessarily forever, just too damn long for a game that's 95% + decided. It's not a question of waiting for quadradius power or whatever, its a question of it being difficult to force the exhange of the last pieces.

You are right about my last idea of powers and invisibility is problematic. However, some solution should be found, as the time waste is also very problematic.

[T. S. Eliot]

It is 95% decided for you. Get better and Atropos won't know where to cut the string.

[OncoByte]

A high brow reference and a player who still has enough interest in the game to post an idea. I love it. Maybe there is a spark left in this thing after all.

[wiggin]

It is 95% decided for you. Get better and Atropos won't know where to cut the string.

And then the game will be 95%+ decided at some other point. (Sooner if I am on the winning side, and later if I am on the losing side) The point is that if we take two players at arbitrary skill level, and look at the point in the game where it is 95% decided, it still might take a long time before the game is finished. The 5% player will play on, because he still has a chance (5% by definition, with a given skill level of the two players), and the winning player might have no easy way to force a conclusion.

You could argue that there is still a lot of strategy at that juncture, with the winning player trying to minimize the risk of losing, and the losing player trying to maximize the chances of being lucky. But still, it's not as interesting as a game that has more even chances. There is an easy way to convince yourself of this. If you are playing two games with an opponent, and you get a choice to play to even games, or two games where the players take turns starting with a huge advantage, you would choose the two even games. Therefore, the lesser portion of the games spend playing a case equivalent to the inbalanced case, the better.

[Orblivion]

As for the 95% thing - one of the things we all love about QR is how volatile it can be. Despite a game appearing to be over, there's always a chance you, or your opponent, can make a big comeback. I've seen it happen many times. Even with only one or two pieces left and just the right powers picked up anything can happen.

[driven2sin]

what's really 'even' ? that has been debated forever - someone who gobbles up 10 orbs and the other player uses their one swap correctly is what? lucky?

QR has never been about being fair..

and ending games is not really a problem.. just send in your lower tiles to soak up your opponents dwindling powers so they can't accumulate into uber

[wiggin]

What are you replying to? I don't know which post talked about things being even?

You don't seem to understand what my problem is with the endgame of a mostly decided game. It is not about how to secure a win, or that I don't think I can be sure enough. It is that it takes too long time, in a way that is bad for gameplay.

[driven2sin]

if you dont even read your own posts i guess i should stop too

[wiggin]

So I guess its me you think is talking about things being "even" or "fair". This is not a correct understanding of what I am talking about. I don't think there is any need to be snarky, I am trying to communicate as clearly as I can.

[driven2sin]

You made your points with examples of 'even' games. That doesn't really exist in QR. It is all about adapting and making the most of what you got while trying to waste what your opponent has.

If you really are winning a 95% sure thing you should be able to close it out in a few moves or you either aren't really winning by that much or too scared to seal the deal

[wiggin]

You are wrong. It can often take as many moves to finish a game as it took to acquire the favorable position.


A better idea than my initial one is to have both players have an option to raise the stakes of the game, like in backgammon. If player A chooses this and B accepts, then he will win 2 points (instead of 1) if he wins, and lose 4 points if he loses. If player A chooses this option and B rejects, player A wins immediately.



I can't think of any solution to the invisible problem. So I say it has to go. And we could remove the boring lower tile at the same time, keeping a similar power average.

[driven2sin]

You are wrong. It can often take as many moves to finish a game as it took to acquire the favorable position.

Unless you are talking about things like early teach row inhibit column then you aren't making much sense.. if someone can still move and get orbs for as long as you imply, they have more of a chance than you think

A better idea than my initial one is to have both players have an option to raise the stakes of the game, like in backgammon. If player A chooses this and B accepts, then he will win 2 points (instead of 1) if he wins, and lose 4 points if he loses. If player A chooses this option and B rejects, player A wins immediately.

Agreed, but I am the only person who reminds people that QR unfolds very much like backgammon. More players should realize this. There would have to be match play added of course

I can't think of any solution to the invisible problem. So I say it has to go. And we could remove the boring lower tile at the same time, keeping a similar power average.

these points have been discussed to a much higher degree in the past.. you're not going to garner much respect for your game design ideas with this non-effort