Rule Change in Duel (Set-up)

Talk about the two player Standard WoK variant

Moderators: trewqh, korexus, Hannibal

Post Reply
User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Rule Change in Duel (Set-up)

Post by Hannibal » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:03 pm

Now that Duke is close to pressing "go" on a group stage involving 40 or 24 Duels, there's a rule-change that I want to make before it kicks off.

Don't worry, it's only to the set-up rules and engine, not to the playing-rules. And should happen behind-the-scenes and automatically, not something you have to remember at all, either as player or as GM.

I need to persuade Kor, and get him to give his valuable time to coding it ... and then de-bugging it P). So do join in and say you think it's a good idea, to persuade Kor!

It's this:
When the engine runs Turn 1 (only Turn 1, the first attacks in the game), it will check that: if any human went maximally for at least two sequential neutrals, and those neutrals were still neutral when the attack took place, then he must win two of them, though he may or may not win a third neutral; otherwise the engine cancels that run and re-runs until the rule is satisfied.

Why?

Well, I want to place Duels towards the skill-end of the luck-skill spectrum. Not in order to leave out the Fortunes of War that make it exciting, and possible for a long-shot to come off; but to remove the worst cases at the extremes.

Eg just the way that, in Duels, (maybe some didn't know this), the engine aborts any OOP that has all of YOUR colours going before all of your opponents, or vice versa, at least until one human colour is ripped.

It's bad, especially in Duels, to have an extremely unlucky Turn 1. You can't get out of it by diplomacy! And it can spoil the game for the rest of the turns. Eg. when a colour goes for his "standard" 3-neutrals-in-a-row, but bounces off the second neutral by very bad luck; it not only loses all his strong start-armies, but probably also screws up his transforms and moves. Disaster. By sheer freak luck.

You might say: if it's that freakish, it's rare, so why bother Kor with coding it? It's not that rare. It happened to Egbert in his first Duel, and to Hryll in his last Duel. Ie. in 2 of the last 5 or so Duels.

In one of them, the GM went to the pain of re-running Turn 1, for a fairer start for a better game. Not ideal. It's never great when a restart gives players two sets of spying results, not to mention worse battle results than they saw on the first run... Better if it were automated to void the run BEFORE it goes out to players, and the engine automatically rerun it in seconds?

Note that I'm not making it EASIER to take neutrals, eg by reducing their A or Def or Eff; that would change far too much for the rest of the game. I'm just cancelling any Turn 1's with extremely bad results, and re-running them.

Note also that it doesn't guarantee you THREE neutrals; you can still bounce off the third. It just voids you taking one and unluckily bouncing off the SECOND.

Nor does it interfere (mostly) with clever attack-orders on Turn 1 to take and hold a neutral for when the other guy attacks it; nor to retake a neutral prov that the other guy took. Note the wording. The rule does NOT apply if any of the provs you attack are no longer neutral at the time. Nor does it guarantee that you will END UP with those neutrals, if a player retakes them from you. Nor does it help if you choose to take just ONE neutral and stick.

It ONLY dodges the bad luck of a player going for two or three neutrals, uncontested, and getting severe bad luck at the second one. It's just re-run behind the scenes, so won't happen.

It needs careful coding. For example, I don't want it to be open to abuse, eg by sending 4A in 3 different directions, knowing that the engine will guarantee you at least 2 victories. Nor attacking your second and third neutrals with only ONE army, knowing that the engine will keep re-running until your ONE army took its second neutral!.. Hence the wording of SEQUENTIAL and MAXIMALLY. It is to cater for the standard situation of going 12A-each-attack at 3-neutrals-in-a-row. Of course, half the coding will be to avoid it applying inappropriately to other cases, right, Kor?! Tough to code? Tricky as to whether only 11A, or 5A, attacking on would count ... I'll leave you that. (I think the easiest is if you say: it applies if 12+ armies are ORDERED to a first neutral, and it is still neutral when attacked, then you cannot bounce off; AND, more relevantly, if 12+ armies are then ORDERED on from there, to a second neutral, which is still neutral when attacked, then you cannot bounce off; the turn is re-run. No coding needed re third attack.

Quite a conundrum and hassle to code, I'd think! But worth it. Removes some extreme luck from Turn 1, saves the GM from intervening to re-run, saves players thinking they were doomed after bad luck on Turn 1, and keeps Duels higher on the luck-skill spectrum, just obviating the worst cases of luck.

I definitely want, request, that it apply to all Full Duels, Duel-Lites, and Trinity. Fortunately, being only about Turn 1, instigating it will have zero effect on Duels and Trinities already running.

Phew. Any comments? Did I overlook a problem? Feel free ...

Cheers,
Han
Last edited by Hannibal on Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:32 pm

*runs screaming into the woods.*
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Egbert
Commander
Commander
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Scholars' Library (dusty section)
Contact:

Post by Egbert » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:34 pm

I think it's a good idea. I don't see any drawback to it.
"Fairy tales can come true,
They can happen to you,
If you're young at heart."

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:43 pm

Thanks, Eg. That probably counts as three in favour ...

Kor, welcome back from the woods when you get back. Nice screams.

This will either help simplify, or seriously annoy you into disagreeing! :

Personally, I don't think you need to go the trouble of making this engine-change specific only to Duels (and to Trinities, which are part-Standard and part-Duel?) You could simply make it a rule for ALL games!! Or, (I don't know Advanced WoK 5 very well), to all Standard/Duel/Trinity/Q/S games, leaving out Advanced if need be.

That might make it easier as to where in the engine it gets applied?

Because: I didn't want to say it in the first post, but I think the thought applies almost as much for all STANDARD games...

In a standard, 10-player game, it happens occasionally that one of the 10 players gets a bum Turn 1, and fails on his second, or even first, neutral. We go to all that trouble explaining to a newbie that he can, indeed, order sequential attacks, not only attacks on provs currently-adjacent ... and then he goes and gets himself bounced from his second neutral...

Or worse: In my second game, a Penta, newbie, Father Of Blood, had a disastrous first attack; 12A, but he bounced off his FIRST neutral. He gamely played on... but never played again...

So, especially thinking of newbies and retention, I think we should extend this to ALL Standard games (up to you whether applies to Advanced etc.) For any traditionalists who don't like change, tell me, what is the UPSIDE of ever allowing that a player bounce off his first or second neutral? Compared to the downside if it should happen.

So, Kor, you might want to put your foot down when I suggest it apply to Standard as well, but I'd love you to apply it to at least Duels and Trinities.

I already said I can see it would be hard work. Once from you, saving hassle for many later. Hey (teasing), you could always pass the coding task on ... diagonally?!... to Mull? I'd be happy to try and persuade Mull it was worth it.

Hey-ho! :D :)

Cheers,
Han
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:27 pm

OK, I've left it nearly two weeks to see whether it lives or dies.

So I'd better revive it. Before I can go on to the next suggestions. I DO realise that Kor also has his Secret Project as a priority, plus trouble-shooting. I'm not complaining; I'm reminding and keeping it on the agenda ...!

12 days ago, see above post, Kor ran screaming into the woods. No problem. I'd like to try and help towards a solution, and thus attract Kor back from the woods ... Here, Kor, here, girl, hip, hip, here Kor ... (just teasing).

More seriously, it might help more if I offer an idea on how to code it? Might be easier than the nightmare it first sounded? Might bring Kor out of those woods?

Right, I'm not a programmer or systems analyst, just logical.

I'm guessing that the first qualm would be the implication that the coding would therefore have to look at BOTH TR-results AND TR-orders from the "previous" turn. Could be hard to code, if it has to look at and compare both ...

As an amateur, I offer that it might be much easier than that to code?

I reckon the engine might get away with ONLY checking the TR-results from T-1, if we're smart, no need to check orders?

My idea is this (might be flawed):

Engine runs Turn-1.

It checks: Purely from TR, not from Orders:

1) Did any player, human or Robo, have a first attack-order of 12+ armies attacking a legal prov that was neutral at the time of attack? If yes, if the attack failed, void the turn and re-run; if the attack succeeded, continue.

2) More importantly, and more difficult, for second attack:
The engine checks that:
a) the second attack order is FROM the prov that appeared as target in the first attack order,
- AND that that first attack order was with 12+ armies,
b) it attacks this second prov with all, or more-than-all, armies that are currently in the attacking prov...
c) if the target prov was a legal and still-neutral prov at the time of attack, then proceed to (d)
d) if the attack failed, then void the turn and re-run; if the attack succeeded, at the time of attack, then accept the run.

I THINK that's a way of coding with only reference cto the TR's being generated? Without having to link also to Orders from the SAOF? Should work? Easier than it sounded? Are you back from screaming in the woods?

I don't know whether you were screaming at the implied complexity, or disagreeing with the intention in principle? Or sticking to your rule of wanting 3 in favour before it's worth answering? Want me to get a third?

Or just busy. I guess that.

Anyway, it's been 12 days or so, and I'm balancing it between giving you time and yet trying to get it in place before Duke kicks off 40 Duels in his tournament ... Oh, and so that I can squeeze in two more requests for you to consider before Duke's Tourney kiclks off soon ...!

Han
Last edited by Hannibal on Wed Nov 21, 2007 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:52 pm

Actually, complexity of programming isn't an issue. All it would require is a logic check for (turn = 1 AND armies > 11 AND attackorder < 3) when the attack order is sent to the engine and then another for (armies = 1) when the order is being run. - Instead of repeatedly running the turn until it works, I could just set the PDEF to 0 if the player is about to lose...

The screaming was and is all about the idea...

Firstly it's another exception. Exceptions are messy, tricky for people to remember and even harder for new people to learn. This is the main issue I have with things like dissalowing some OOPs, adding 0.2 DEF after a successful attack, giving home provinces the same starting amounts and probably a bunch of other stuff.

Secondly the idea that because it's happened twice recently means it's not rare. Random samples do that, it's called random grouping. The statistician in me insists that you count up how many times it's happened over the 300 or so games we have in the Lobby before you start claiming it's not rare. (Or at least a sample large enough to be significant...)

Thirdly, the idea that this is good for newbie retention. If this does happen, it's more likely to happen to an established player than a newbie (there are more of them in pretty much every game). The unlucky start for a good player would then work in favour of any new players in the game as there would be one less person around to beat on them.

Thirdly (part b) I'd like to challenge your story about Father of Blood being driven away by an unlucky first turn in his first game. He was around before the automation of WoK, so I can't check what games he's played in, but he was (is) listed as the WSC member for DoW which suggests a fair bit of enthusiasm at some point. If he'd been so dissapointed by his very first turn as to never play again, I don't think that would be the case...


That'll do, otherwise this will turn into a rant.

Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:43 pm

I just knew you'd come back with no, no, no and no! :shock:

Do you want me to reply publicly or privately?

Han
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2827
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Fri Nov 09, 2007 6:29 pm

I spent a fortnight in the woods, communing with my inner killjoy; it was good. :)

Reply as you like, but *pulls out gauntlet* if you don't reply here, people might think you don't have an answer! :twisted:

Of course, it might be that people don't want to listen to us arguing, but so long as we stay polite, I'm sure that they can cope...


Chris.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Tinker
Veteran
Veteran
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:00 am
Location: Canadian Scholar

Post by Tinker » Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:34 pm

I'm going to step into the fire and offer my 2 cents. (Then I'm going to run for cover again.)

As we all know, WOK starts with 1 province for each player. If you boil Hannibal's statement down to its essentials, he is basically saying that he would like to see a start position of 3 provinces per player. To my mind, that changes the game more than a bit. I know that's a slight oversimplification because it doesn't take player/player bouncing into consideration, but the fact remains that Hannibal is advocating that we change the start conditions of the game. That's not a minor tweak, that's a big change.

Luck plays a huge part of this game, like it or not. Missiles hit or miss (or they all hit but target spies. I hate that.) Your turn in the OOP comes up before or after the guy who is racing you for a Robo-RIP. Sometimes your armies trip over their own combat boots and mess up what should be a guaranteed attack. Bottom line: That's the game. If we try to eliminate the random element, then we're playing something else, not WOK.

In other words, I vote for the status quo.
Tinker
"Trust me, of course I'm on your side..."

Post Reply