New 32 player games - endgame too soon


#1

Ive come back to NP in my usual return cycle (ie play a few games and then take a hiatus for 6-9 months) and have been in a few 32 player games. I like the idea, quicker than a 64, but im wondering if there is a problem with them. In all the games I’ve been in there hasnt been any win through outright victory, with victory achieved after all others resign. Also the games seem to foster an early game alliance that isnt able to be countered by the remainder of the teams who in smaller alliances seem to fall down quickly. Also there looks to be a fair bit of Concede Defeat used in the mid stage as people realise that they are not going to be in a position to win at all. Unlike the 64s where a mid ranked player could achieve the win through the mystery of the game.

I think that the win conditions might need adjustment. Exactly what I am not sure but perhaps dropping it to one third of stars will keep people interested? Alternatively perhaps 32 player is too small - maybe 48 player should be tested to see if something similar happens?


#2

IDK. I am just tossing in ideas for consideration.

What if game was changed to 33 % victory 32 stars ? Starting distance might need a small adjustment ?

Would expensive WG make any difference ?


#3

I do not know whether there are any 48 player maps hiding somewhere in this forum.
I know that I can take my Three Neighbors map 64L , remove one loop branch, and it would become a 46 players map with two loops.

The current 32 player Dysp octo-squares map could add 4 more squares, or something.


#4

I think the 33% victory condition might work. it will make victory more attainable and give players a reason to stay in. Im not sure how the rest of the mechanics might work so cant comment on starting distance