New game

Post by **korexus** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:46 am

I tend to fight on, not to gain the respect of other people playing (although if you do manage to cripple someone it can help you with diplomacy in the future) but because you (I) often miss-judge an opponent's strength. It's easy to see how your stuff is out of place and the other player could easily kill you, but his stuff may be out of place too.

Players have occasionally sent that sort of email, and I have to admit I read it more as a bluff. "It looks like we're stronger, maybe we can convince him to give up before he realises how weak we really are". Whilst I will concede if I'm sure I'm going to lose (and there are no other players I can help with a suicide run), if I was undecided this sort of email would convince me to play on a bit longer. But then I am exceptionally bloody-minded...

korexus.

Post by **trewqh** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:07 am

In this particular case I think a player might want to drag out in hope of getting points for 3rd place instead of sharing with other players?

And it's not me.

In general, Bjorn's idea puts too much faith in the currently used in-game scoring method, if you ask me...

Post by **Hannibal** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 12:51 pm

korexus wrote:I tend to fight on, not to gain the respect of other people playing (although if you do manage to cripple someone it can help you with diplomacy in the future) but because you (I) often miss-judge an opponent's strength. It's easy to see how your stuff is out of place and the other player could easily kill you, but his stuff may be out of place too.

Players have occasionally sent that sort of email, and I have to admit I read it more as a bluff. "It looks like we're stronger, maybe we can convince him to give up before he realises how weak we really are". Whilst I will concede if I'm sure I'm going to lose (and there are no other players I can help with a suicide run), if I was undecided this sort of email would convince me to play on a bit longer. But then I am exceptionally bloody-minded...

korexus.

I agree! And that falls squarely into the category of "I think I might still win". So by all means play on.

Note that I said:
....Respect to you even if you concede now. IF you disagree, think you can still win, or really want to make a stand, then fine, fight on".

I was suggesting for cases where EVERYBODY knows that it is just playing it out. Pointing out that it is honourable and less time-wasting to just concede then rather than fight to the end, which is boring for the victors.

If you think you have a chance, if you think they are bluffing, feel free to fight on! But my suggested mail would save everybody time 7 times out of 10. And remember, my start-point was suggesting it would NOT be worth Korexus coding up some kind of weighted voting to help finish games that were being needlessly strung out. I was trying to save you hassle, Kor!

H

Post by **korexus** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:19 pm

hannibal wrote: If you think you have a chance, if you think they are bluffing, feel free to fight on! But my suggested mail would save everybody time 7 times out of 10. And remember, my start-point was suggesting it would NOT be worth Korexus coding up some kind of weighted voting to help finish games that were being needlessly strung out. I was trying to save you hassle, Kor!

H

But I don't think I have ever been in a game when that was the case. Sure people play on when they won't win, but not because they think it's expected of them. If it were, why would there be a vote to end the game?
This is why I was against the same idea in Duels. I tend to find that people concede to readily, so we don't need any more ideas to encourage them.
As trewqh suggests, the players in this game who don't want the vote to pass still feel they have something to play for. Why make a player who thinks that feel uncomfortable about playing on, by saying that the "norm" is to give up now?

And I wouldn't have coded it anyway. Even if the score formula were reliable, Bjorn's suggestion would fall squarely into the area of GM Houserule.

Chris.

Bjorn · Post by **Bjorn** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:32 pm

korexus wrote:I tend to find that people concede to readily, so we don't need any more ideas to encourage them.
Chris.

The flip side of the coin. I don't really mind playing out games where the end is obvious, but I defer to the opponents wishes. What I really don't like is someone quitting or resigning a game where they still have a chance, but they don't want to put any more time into it. You look forward to the big battle to decide the game and are denied that event.

That is why I would only go for something like this if the point differential were huge, at least 80%, maybe more. If either side wants to play it out, then play it out.

I admit I'm not sure how the current vote mechanic works. Are you assumed to vote YES if you propose a vote, otherwise NO?

Post by **korexus** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:49 pm

Current system is:
Player A proposes a vote, player A is listed as agreeing, everyong else as not.
Other players can vote yes. Every time they do this, the engine checks to see if everyone has done so.
If all people agree, the game ends.

M-1 and M-2 votes do count.
You can't have two votes in one turn (by definition, at least one person agrees with each vote)

Robos always agree with any vote which is proposed.

Chris.