Seriously fleece we even tried out your template cause you wanted us to. We watched a game you played on it before. Should we say "thank you so much player x" eerytime we finished reviewing a template. Ok that would be possible but you was spamming on chat. You was insulting us (or at least the other commentators) and sze still decided to go over your template even closer. You should be greatful.

Wct i can see your points and i agree that it is strategic in a way. But in a competitive way (the goal of this contest imo) it won't work well cause there is the point, where both got no delay cards left and stay at the same amount of cards. At that point order delay moves might be game deciding. For me there is no enjoyment tomake 100 delay moves every turn.

The "try out" was about 6 turns, they didn't even touch. That's why I'm so frustrated. The insults were accurate, I don't like to point out people whom have lower intelligence, but I only do it when confronted by arrogance.

Saying "thank you so much player x" 10 times, for the 10 templates that were treated like garbage? Yes, yes I think you should.

And as for spamming chat for the most part I was the only one talking, no-one was talking or reading chat for long periods of time, I can't help that I at least tried to keep people interested, normally chat is vibrant, but I suppose when it's only full of self-righteous circle-jerkers, what can you expect I suppose?

Are you implying it's impossible to understand your template which has no luck, symmetrical starts, and army cap without playing it all the way through? The point still stands that you can literally count and calculate the most optimal strategy, and eventually once everyone figures out that optimal strategy they will end up in a draw. That's the entire reason why we avoid symmetrical maps with no luck. You don't seem to understand that, and are calling the people who do understand that unintelligent.

where both got no delay cards left and stay at the same amount of cards. At that point order delay moves might be game deciding. For me there is no enjoyment tomake 100 delay moves every turn.

I appreciate your taking the time to actually check out the points being made. But again, I don't think this has been validated by actually checking to see how often this happens in practice. You are again simply declaring that it will be a common occurrence. Yet when players get a delay card every turn, it will not be often that there is a shortage of delay cards. Nor will it be often that you know how many cards your opponent has, if he has kept some in reserve or not. Also, which I haven't mentioned previously, there is often the option to simply hold-off on attacking for one turn, letting your opponent use delay cards while you hold some in reserve for the next turn when you will play your big attack.

The actual rate at which these Delay Move Doomsday scenarios you guys are so afraid of occur *has not actually been tested* to see if it's as frequent as you think it will be. It is not enough to go by your intuition on this. I myself was surprised when I played many games and *not once* (not even with sze) did the circumstances *require* me to play an extraordinary number of delay moves. I always had other options.

And finally, as I said in the chat, the number of possible delay moves is not limited only by armies but also by how many connections you have access to. Since this number of connections will usually be significantly less than the actual number of armies available to move in this template, the number of such moves is naturally more limited than many people would otherwise think.

Basically, at this point, I've heard only objections that I've already considered long ago and found them to be lacking when I actually tested the template. Really the only thing that will be persuasive is either a fresh argument to explain why these Delay Doomsday scenarios are actually going to be common (which addresses the reasons I brought up arguing the opposite), or, better yet (much better), some actual testing of the template to show that, yes, indeed, it really is a common occurrence when played by more skilled players such as yourself. Again (and again and again), this is why actually trying out the templates is so much more useful than merely speculating about them.

It's kinda like science. Yeah, it certainly does appear that the Sun orbits the Earth; but no, actually, it doesn't. You have to test the idea to see if it's actually right or not.

You know, it reminds me of something I just saw a few hours ago on one of ps's streams. I think it was the stream using the multi-attack template on a map by Chaos, and one of the commentators insisted that you can attack from a territory multiple times using the same armies (after they had been rebounded on a previous attack). I didn't believe it. I thought he was clearly mis-remembering something, since it's well known that once an army is used for one thing, it's 'used up' and can't be used for another thing. And ps and the other commentators didn't believe him either. But he kept insisting.

You know how they resolved that dispute? They actually opened up a game where this had supposedly occurred and ... whaddayaknow, it actually works!

Without that crucial step of checking it out to test if it's actually true or not, regardless of what our intuitions are, these kinds of disputes can go on forever pointlessly. So, basically, at this point, my attitude is this: I disagree with your assumptions, based on my experience which contradicts what you're telling me. If you want to convince me otherwise, the most effective way to do so would be to show me, not just tell me.

When good players play it it's fairly easy to find out if they played a card or not.

I got a suggestion to improve your template so delay wars seem less likely! Give every player 2 delay cards every turn. They can chose then if they want to use none, 1 or 2 cards. This makes room for more options. You don't believe me, but on the actual system you'd get a big advantage from delay moves despite of delay cards

Are you implying it's impossible to understand your template which has no luck, symmetrical starts, and army cap without playing it all the way through? The point still stands that you can literally count and calculate the most optimal strategy, and eventually once everyone figures out that optimal strategy they will end up in a draw. That's the entire reason why we avoid symmetrical maps with no luck. You don't seem to understand that, and are calling the people who do understand that unintelligent.

Wait, are you talking about chess?

[NB: I haven't even looked at the template in question. Perhaps it is just as simple and easy to analyze to find the optimal solution as you say. But perhaps it isn't, as chess isn't. On the face of it, I hope you can see by analogy with chess why your argument isn't a good one in the general case.]

[Edit: After having watched the sample game and checking the settings, in my opinion it is premature to say that there is necessarily one dominant strategy, and that an AI would easily be able to figure it out. There are choices that the other player can make that probably cannot be perfectly predicted and countered every time. I.e. there may be multiple ways to win, and you may have to respond to your opponent's choices by trying to predict which path he is going to take, and to plan ahead to outsmart him. Plus there is random move order. I don't know this for sure, but I think it's premature to tell. Running a tournament would be a good way of collecting data to get a better idea.]

Edited 12/5/2015 09:13:28

If I was alive at this time, I would have submitted a template and got angry when it wasn't afrorded the anticipated adulation it rightfully deserved.

Thankfully, it isn't too late to join the mob: I blame Szeweningen for all this. My templates deserved more.

I got a suggestion to improve your template so delay wars seem less likely! Give every player 2 delay cards every turn.

*sarcasm alert* Sorry MoD, I've been informed by Timinator, Sze, and others that OD cards *cannot* solve the problem at all. I have it on their word(!) that it is impossible. So your idea to use even more OD cards is just foolish. Listen to the experts, silly man. In fact, according to the illustrious Timinator, adding more OD cards actually makes the problem *worse*, not better.

[/sarcsam]

I agree that adding more cards might very well do exactly as you say. And making such a tweak to the template would literally take 2 minutes. Do you see why having such a template which might only require a small tweak being discounted as 'a joke' entry is perhaps just a little bit insulting?

Your tweak may be necessary. On the other hand, it may not. Perhaps having 2 cards per turn is just overkill. I don't know. The fact remains that it simply has not been fully tested to make that decision clear. Without trying the template more fully, it would not make sense (IMO) to jump to any particular conclusion. That's my point.

@wct, your template wasn't a joke - that's a bit harsh - but I am having trouble understanding what you're trying to prove with it. Obviously the more armies you use the less variability there will be, and as you approach infinity you'll approximate no luck. We all know that. So what benefit does this offer over just playing a game at 20% luck (which you said it approximates in the game with szew)? People keep saying that the delay aspect is a drawback, and maybe you're right that is not. But what do we gain, besides being able to say we're playing with 100% luck? I think that's what you have to demonstrate for any of this discussion to be relevant.

Edited 12/2/2015 12:33:09

@Beren,
I got the template idea when I saw comments like this (see the beginning of the thread):

You may want to establish some ground rules on what is strategic. Like maybe no luck > %16 WR.

And I decided to actually make this exact template when I saw comments like this:

You never wanna play with that much luck. 100% luck, I don't believe that can be considered in any bit strategic, I mean there is no risk management, since you really don't know what is going to happen after an attack.

Edit: sorry, I didn't mean you don't want to play with luck, just not with that much involved. Yes Sultan, you're right :(.

...

calculating risk to attack with 3 or 4 is risk calculation. With 100% luck it is possible to fail a 10vs1 attack. How is that strategic in any way? It would be easier to just make a game on the duel map cause both are lotteries but duel is way quicker

...

Well like Ollie said, 100% luck is kindof purely nonsense :P. Managing risk is possible with a little luck involved but when there is so much, management is simply impossible. 100% has probabilities yes, but failing a 10vs1 should not be considered normal by any means. So unless you are playing with persons who are used to playing with that much luck, and consider their attacks following it, then yes, 100% can be considered strategic :/.

But seeing that 90% of the players play with SR, I think 100% luck would just be horrible for about everyone. Well that's the thing, with 100% you can never really know the outcome of a move, unless you have about 10 times more income than your opponent ( might be an exaggeration).

...

Ottoman saying luck in general is bad is blasphemy. I agree on everything higher than 16% luck. Bit below it just requires more skill to win despite of bad luck.

And here is how I introduced the template:

It's an attempt at a proof-of-concept that 100% luck WR could theoretically still be usable in a strategic way. I upped all the armies by 10 times, so that should reduce the standard deviation quite a bit. You may get a few odd results, but it's much less likely than if you were playing with the standard income and distribution settings. (10 armies might occasionally fail to take a 1, but 100 armies will almost surely take a 10.)
...
Gameplay is very similar to the standard 1v1, just with a bit more variety. Also, you can pretty much delay as much as you want. I'm thinking of adding in more delay card pieces to reduce the impulse to use delay moves. Instead, you'll have to decide how many delay cards to use or to save for later.

So, there you have it.

So, what am I trying to prove with it? That, despite many people's intuitions, 100% luck can indeed be strategic.

What do we gain? A better understanding of probability, perhaps? An "Ah ha!" moment (I like those, and I suspect lots of people do, too), perhaps? A chance to double-check our own presuppositions (I like those, too), maybe? Finally, an option to make strategic templates that are not limited to small amounts of luck (i.e. a proof-of-concept, as I stated initially), perhaps?

Have I "demonstrate[d] for any of this discussion to be relevant" to this thread, to your satisfaction?

Edited 12/4/2015 02:54:53

I think you misunderstood me. I understand that you're trying to prove that you can play a strategic game on 100% luck settings. My point is merely that if you're trying to create a strategic template, it should bring something new to the table that other templates don't have. I don't think that attempting to duplicate the standard Strat 1v1 template using 100% luck really meets that bar. It seems more like a stunt. What is the benefit to playing your template over playing strat 1v1 with 20% luck and normal army counts? I don't think using a setting for the sake of using it qualifies as a reason to use it. I hope I've made my question clear.

MoD (or Sze) - would you agree to play one game with me on my 1v1? We don't have to play it to the end of course (just first 6-8 turns I suppose). This way I would get the chance to discuss it and further develop it. I'd really appreciate it If you could lend me some of your time and experience.










??

Edited 12/4/2015 23:28:30

wct, what were you aiming for in the contest? If you were going to try to win the contest, making a much more tedious version of Strategic 1v1 Weighted Random is not going to do it.

If your goal was to show that 100% luck can indeed be used in a strategic template, I think you have succeeded. But the point that these strong players are making is that there is no real benefit to playing with 100% luck over 0% WR. Adding extra armies just makes it more tedious. If you can find a 100% luck template that where the luck value actually adds to the strategic value of the template, I'd love to see it.

As for Fleecemaster's template, a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea. And that is basically what Fleecemaster's template is. It is all about calculation and simple addition, but is not hard to understand on any level. Like they say on the stream, a strong player will be able to figure out the template in 3 turns or less. That is 100% the truth. You could attempt to make a more complex version of the template, similar to many Warlight Olympic events from a few years ago. The problem is that the more the players play these templates, the simpler it is to figure out. You could make it more challenging with a bigger map and changing a few bonus values, yet even in this case, it will be a more boring, simpler version of chess. I think these kind of templates can be fun for a few games, but they don't have any longterm strategic value.

I think both wct and Fleecemaster made nonstandard templates, and both are interesting in their own right. Yet neither has longterm potential, which is what Szeweningen seems to be going for.

I think you misunderstood me. I understand that you're trying to prove that you can play a strategic game on 100% luck settings. My point is merely that if you're trying to create a strategic template, it should bring something new to the table that other templates don't have. I don't think that attempting to duplicate the standard Strat 1v1 template using 100% luck really meets that bar.

I think you misunderstood me. I've said many times that I didn't submit the template to win the contest. I said originally that it's a proof-of-concept.

My point is merely that if you're trying to create a strategic template, it should bring something new to the table that other templates don't have.

Which other templates used 100% luck?

I don't think that attempting to duplicate the standard Strat 1v1 template using 100% luck really meets that bar.

Why not? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Let's look at how the contest was introduced and explained by Szeweningen. I'll bold the relevant bits and snip some for brevity:

.... In the past few years all new templates I've seen were almost exclusively mine, Gui's or a rehash of them. It is possible I'm now just detached from the "new" community and I don't see anything new, but here is where the contest comes in. Contest is very simple, make your own 1v1 template, test it, optimise it, play on it once and post your results here! Deadline is the 30th of November, so you have a whole month to do it. Of course you can rehash old templates or put a new spin on them, however your chances will be smaller if the template is too similar to some standard templates.
...
Just to be clear, diplo/rp templates do not qualify, the template always needs some sort of strategic value. When you post give a template link, if you can a game link and describe shortly the idea behind the template and the settings. An example new template I have not released yet: .... snip

Also you can post multiple templates if you are like Ra and you have potentailly up to 30 hidden templates. Anyway, go make some templates and show me the results :)

Pretty simple contest, right?

Here's where I asked about luck:

Do you consider luck % as being necessarily a negative? If I made a template with 100% luck involved would it have a lower chance of winning?

Turns out he had already answered my basic question with this earlier comment:

I really don't want to put in specific rules for settings, i'll let the creators decide what they think is strategic and what is not. The reason behind it is that there are some well-established strategic settings that generally will work on every map, but possibly some things we think of that are not strategic on a general principle, may work in a very specific situation. Different kill rates, card focused 1v1 template, low base income, limited distribution, fog settings, these are all relatively unexplored. Maybe there will be some other new and original ideas or a mixture of those. I'm open to be surprised, if I can I'll test all the templates myself.

Seems like the rules are pretty open. Here's how I interpreted that comment:

P.S.: I think I've had my original question answered well already by szeweningen. High luck could be considered strategic. I guess it's up to the scenario maker to put forward a good case.

Which I did, in the template description here:

It's an attempt at a proof-of-concept that 100% luck WR could theoretically still be usable in a strategic way. I upped all the armies by 10 times, so that should reduce the standard deviation quite a bit. You may get a few odd results, but it's much less likely than if you were playing with the standard income and distribution settings. (10 armies might occasionally fail to take a 1, but 100 armies will almost surely take a 10.)

My issue is not with getting a low score. I expected as much, especially since Szew said "your chances will be smaller if the template is too similar to some standard templates", and the standard 1v1 is pretty much the definition of a standard template. My issue was with the 'judges' not actually judging it based on how the template actually works, but on how they thought it might work in their hypothetical, intuitive mental models, which, as I've said several times, can be misleading. It was not an *informed* critique. Szew's critique was the most informed on the stream, but he still jumped to the premature (IMO) conclusion that delay moves would actually be a big problem without testing it or reviewing any of the several sample games I provided.

It seems more like a stunt.

I don't know what to say to that. Check your biases, maybe? At what point should I have declared that it's intended as a proof of concept? *Before* actually posting the template? Because I said it's a proof of concept *when I actually posted the template*.

Why do you imagine a 'stunt' when the much simpler explanation which fits all the evidence of the prior thread is simply that I was submitting a proof of concept of Pure Luck strategy, to, I don't know, *prove* that the *concept* can work, contrary to the intuitions of several people who posted in the beginning of this thread.

You seem to be ignoring all this prior context. Why do *you* seem so intent on finding some nefarious motives to such a simple template idea? What's your beef, really?

What is the benefit to playing your template over playing strat 1v1 with 20% luck and normal army counts?

Nowhere in the contest description does it state you should show some particular benefit over playing 1v1 strat or any other template. That's *your* assumption about the contest. But I challenge you to find a quote from Szeweningen that implies that all submissions must conform to your personal expectations about that.

I was going by the description he gave, which I highlighted in bold. Specifically, to make my "own 1v1 template, test it, optimise it, play on it once and post your results here" where the template has "some sort of strategic value", and I as "creator decide what [ I] think is strategic and what is not", which I interpreted to mean that "it's up to [me] to put forward a good case" that Pure Luck can be strategic. I expected Szew and any other judges to judge it harsher because it's a rehash, but not discount it entirely because Szew said, "you can rehash old templates or put a new spin on them", such as "possibly some things we think of that are not strategic [i.e 100% luck] on a general principle, may work in a very specific situation [such as with 10 times armies]". I expected Szew and any other judges to be open-minded to such a weird-seeming template because Szew said, "Maybe there will be some other new and original ideas or a mixture of those. I'm open to be surprised," and I expected them to either test it or look at at least one of the 7-8 sample games I provided, because Szew said, "if I can I'll test all the templates myself."

Now *you* come along and make a bizarre accusation that all this is some 'stunt', almost like a 'joke' it seems. What sort of evidence do *you* have to justify that claim?

I don't think using a setting for the sake of using it qualifies as a reason to use it.

Start your own contest then.

I hope I've made my question clear.

Clear as mud.

TL;DR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

Edited 12/5/2015 00:18:24

JSA wrote:

wct, what were you aiming for in the contest? If you were going to try to win the contest, making a much more tedious version of Strategic 1v1 Weighted Random is not going to do it.

I'm not sure I can make it more clear than my post at 12/3/2015 21:47:28, and the post I just submitted at 12/4/2015 18:11:3. If you have specific questions, please quote something from me for context and ask me about it.

If your goal was to show that 100% luck can indeed be used in a strategic template, I think you have succeeded.

Thanks, glad to hear it.

But the point that these strong players are making is that there is no real benefit to playing with 100% luck over 0% WR.

The first person to raise that objection is Beren. You're the second. If I've missed somone else raising that objection, I'd appreciate a quote or link or something. My just-submitted post addresses this random argument.

Adding extra armies just makes it more tedious.

This has yet to be demonstrated, as several of my previous posts contend. If you have an objection to any of those arguments, please quote them and point out where you disagree, so that I have some context to respond to.

If you can find a 100% luck template that where the luck value actually adds to the strategic value of the template, I'd love to see it.

This is another example of where you might want to start your own contest. My template was submitted to *this* contest, which does not specify such requirements, as my previous post demonstrates.

As for Fleecemaster's template, a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea.

Can you supply a quote from Szew's contest descriptions to support your claim?

I don't see why it's worth arguing about. You said your template was meant to be a proof-of-concept, and it accomplished this goal. Your template is strategic with 100% luck.

My point was I don't see much potential for this proof-of-concept to go anywhere; I see no added strategic value of using 100% luck over using standard luck settings. I don't think it's worth it to add a contest about it. Better to challenge players to experiment with other settings that have potential.

Can you supply a quote from Szew's contest descriptions to support your claim?

Szeweningen said he'd like to see something new in his contest. I've seen Hexagonal maps being used for "Chess-type" games before, and I've seen maps like Four Castles also be used to try this. Fleecemaster's template brings nothing new to the table.

Edited 12/4/2015 23:48:26

@JSA: What about mine? 8]

Edited 12/4/2015 23:57:50

I haven't checked out your template yet. I honestly have checked out only a few templates in this contest, mostly the people complaining the most :P I can check yours out later if you wish.

Something to keep in mind with the commentators is that they had no true rating system set up, meaning they were mostly basing it on what they would want to play. I believe their ratings will likely be pretty accurate, but I am sure some templates were overrated/underrated based on their personal biases. For instance, I don't quite understand ChrisCMU's getting a 0.5 and a 1 from 2 guys, considering 2 others rated it as a 5. That just screams bias. It's likely not a deliberate bias, but it is still something to keep in mind.

I think the commentators will do a better job next time, and give templates a better look before the stream. I think they did a fine job for it being their first time doing this template contest, and I would be interested to see more of them.

Edited 12/5/2015 00:08:03

that would be great!! my template is on page 4. Long post - hard to miss it :P


and I was the first to complain here :P

what about ratings - it would be easier if maps were valued in few categories from 1 to 5 ...
Like:


Innovative 3
Strategic 4
Replayability 2
Game Joy 3

Edited 12/5/2015 00:12:49

I didn't read much of the earlier thread, just the last couple pages mainly.

I would really like to go through all the templates and give out my analysis of it, just so players can have another opinion. In the contest, I believe they were more centered at picking the best template, not necessarily on improving the templates that players submitted (although I think Szeweningen made many good suggestions on various templates). I would like to focus on how the templates can be improved (if they can).

I think that if Szeweningen decides to do this contest again, he will look at doing a rating system with different categories as you mention.

Edited 12/5/2015 00:11:54