Jump to content


Photo

Official Game Rules


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
295 replies to this topic

Poll: Official Game Rules (55 member(s) have cast votes)

What should be the official game rules for Stratego.com?

  1. We should follow the ISF Rules. (38 votes [69.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.09%

  2. Voted We should make changes and have our own official rules. (17 votes [30.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.91%

What should be Stratego.com’s rule with respect to multiple chasing? (See Reply #41 for an explanation of what this is)

  1. Voted It should not be allowed. (This is the ISF interpretation) (30 votes [71.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.43%

  2. It should be allowed only in limited circumstance such as when it is necessary in order to defend one’s flag. (9 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  3. It should always be allowed. (3 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

Vote

#1 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 26 February 2014 - 04:49 AM

What should be our official game rules at Stratego.com?  Should we follow the International Stratego Federation (ISF) Rules, or should we make changes to them that will govern play at our site?

 

Where some people have expressed disagreement is on Section 10 and 11 of the rules.  So please read those parts at the link below and then give your opinion if you think this site should follow what is written, or if not then please suggest what changes you think should be made.  We may then do another poll later on to judge the support of specific changes that people have proposed.

 

http://www.isfstrate...sfgamerules.pdf  

 

 



#2 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:55 AM

Personally I don't care about chasing just as long as you do it quickly - the level allowed today for one piece is fine as far as I'm concerned.  It can be annoying when people do a multiple chase with two pieces going back and forth three times each, or if they make their three moves back and forth - move a second piece and then do it again (that is just weak IMO - your just seeing if your opponent might have already clicked on another piece to move)

 

Aside from that (which doesn't seem to happen too often), unless an algorithm can be developed to penalize the folks that refuse to ever make an attack I'm fine with how the rules are.  But I'm also not the most serious player.

 

What I want is the CLOCK!!!!!

 

Maybe there should be a serious player section and they can think and move all day long.  And a fun section where you get three seconds a move!

 

The only other change I've thought of relates to those (like my son) who are minors and playing.  I think the chat function shouldn't send any profanity across (I know its hearts - but he knows that means someone is swearing at him).  And if someone tries to send profanity across simply lock the chat function for the remainder that they are logged in that day.


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#3 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:03 PM

ISF rules are fines, why creating new rules ?

because some players doens't understand them ?


  • maxroelofs and leppie like this

#4 maxroelofs

maxroelofs

    Major

  • Dutch Tournament Manager
  • 1,035 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 26 February 2014 - 01:06 PM

ISF rules are fines, why creating new rules ?

because some players doens't understand them ?

 

Couldn't agree more.


To watch stratego videos: https://www.youtube....HOHXWONQMsVcOLA

#5 Where Is Ya Flag

Where Is Ya Flag

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 26 February 2014 - 02:48 PM

Can someone give picture examples?

 

By reading this, i'm not even sure which rules we actually use now.

 

examples:

- when 1 piece continuesly threatens 2 pieces.

- when 1 piece continuesly threatens 1 piece and on the other side of the board the same thing happens.

 

As far as I know, these two examples can go on and on.

If the ISF rules got no solution for this, than Stratego.com/we should come with solutions..

 

In the end there is a huge difference between physicial games and virtual games.


What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of *bleeping* A holes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your *bleeping* fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So...what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide--how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy!

2zjf5h4.jpg


#6 Lord_AvS

Lord_AvS

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:50 PM

First of all it's too hard to take the rules 1vs1 over to the rules of this site, because it's hard to understand and read for people not know with the competitive stratego. We have here also starters and the rules must be able to understand, even if you're not familiar with this game. Secondly you can't force people to read, understand and obey all ISF rules. The rules you implement for this site must be implemented on the software also. You can't bann people for saying some is against ISF rules, while hardware of the site is allowing so.

I don't care if people chase, sometimes i do it myself too. It must just have sense to do some moves and not delay the game without any progress that can be made. But that looks me just commen sense.

So I don't care about following the ISF rules or make our own rules. My condition is that it has to be implemented in the software so you can't offend it, without knowing it. Since this isn't a option to vote i haven't casted a vote.


  • Midnightguy and Napoleon 1er like this

Nothing's good or bad, but thinking makes it so.


#7 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 03:55 PM

ISF rules are fines, why creating new rules ?

because some players doens't understand them ?

 

We shouldn't be tied to their rules.  It prevents us from making better, clearer ones.  The continuous chasing one is a prime example.  The English wording in Section 11.1 (http://www.isfstrate...sfgamerules.pdf)  clearly does not say what they enforce it as.  The word "continuously" in English has the meaning of "unbroken".  Logic dictates that two pieces alternating in a "double chase" are clearly breaking any "continuous" chase with two single chases that switch back and forth.

 

To enforce the rule the way the ISF does would, yes, have given Enigma the clear win in his game that he posted the problem about recently.  Although his opponent was NOT right to refuse a draw request by Enigma, Enigma shouldn't have been given the win by some crutch of a rule that prevents the other fellow from simply defending his flag with two separate pieces "double chasing".  

 

Material superiority will not always matter, I agree, but we should not have rules here that favor the weaker pieces in this issue of the "double chase".  The situation with Enigma should have been a draw, pure and simple.  Nothing else is fair.  Is this contrary to the ISF position?  Yes, and this is precisely why we do NOT need to be tied to their rules.  

 

On this site we could enact an AutoDraw and that would end all double chasing problems, as well as single chasing, triple chasing, or whatever other delaying tactics might be dreamt up down the road.  It is a great example of a better rule that we could put into place at stratego.com versus what the ISF has.  

 

There may be more examples, as well, and so I don't know why we necessarily have to be tied to the International Stratego Fascists, as Trickz has so un-subtly called them.

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#8 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,893 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 26 February 2014 - 07:54 PM

Because ISF rules are foreseen for live "face-to-face" stratego and because we are an "online" stratego website there must be different rules which take those differences into consideration. In particular I fully agree with Lord-AVS that any allowed limit for double chase or number of moves without any attack or maximum time allowed without any attack shall be implemented in the software, so it does not need to be formulated as a rule, the program shall just disable what will be agreed as "not allowed chasing" automatically. I would also recommend that in case a limit is put to the number of moves allowed without attack before a draw is declared, to foresee some "warning" in the program, cause I doubt any player will be counting if he has done 100 moves or 200 moves since last attack. So there should be a warning message popping up for example every 50 moves to inform the players how many moves remain before the game will automatically end in a draw.

 

Napoleon 1er


  • Gaius Marius likes this

If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#9 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:27 PM

 In particular I fully agree with Lord-AVS that any allowed limit for double chase or number of moves without any attack or maximum time allowed without any attack shall be implemented in the software, so it does not need to be formulated as a rule, the program shall just disable what will be agreed as "not allowed chasing" automatically. 

 

Napoleon 1er

 

Daniel, I must disagree with you here.  Programming enforces, or it should, rules that we can all look at and read to understand.  There shouldn't be any invisible programming that is not solidly explained in a link to a set of written rules somewhere.  That we don't have that here currently is the main reason why new people coming to the site to play and have fun don't know how things like the (onerous) 2 square or the HmmNess chasing rules work in the programming.  There should be a quick link to fully explain these and whatever else the computer does.  

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#10 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:32 PM

Napoleon : you're right....we should not follow the ISF rules regarding the "continuous chasing part" since this is an online stratego site.

Those chasing rules are mainly used in real live tournaments of the ISF.  But apart from that, I bet eighty percent of the people don't even know those rules,....for sure!

 

 

Gary : ISF = International Stratego Facists, true :)

And they earn that title completely by one issue only,....the "continuous chasing" part which is NOT, I repeat Sohal, it's NOT a matter of not understanding,...........I understand it perfectly but the ISF just doesn't want to understand STRONG VALID arguments about WHY chasing one piece continuously is NOT the same as chasing MORE pieces continuously.

I'm not gonna do that explanation all over again but if you look good in the forum, you'll find TONS of valid arguments why the ISF is COMPLETELY WRONG with their definition of continuous chasing.

It's exactly this stupid rule that prevents me from playing live tournaments cuz' it really irritates me as hell :)

 

The 2s-rule is a good invented rule for instance,.....first I was against it but I after a time I could understand why they created this.

Sadly enough this is not the same for the continuous chasing part.

Lack of details in their rule section which makes it a very vague and a very debatable issue by all means.

 

 

 

Greetz

 

Trickz


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#11 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:48 PM

I will support the site using ISF rules....BUT the site must implement them in the programming.  If the program does not have them, then I will not judge cases using ISF rules because it would be unfair.  I agree with Trickz, we have 1000s of users on this site and less than 1000 players who are part of our forum and we can't expect them to know what ISF rules are.  I don't agree to some parts of rule 11, mainly you must give in to weaker units to leave your flag area and lose the game even though I feel you are protecting your flag and not chasing.  However, I feel its a give and take rule because I may win the game that way too.  



#12 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:53 PM

 I would also recommend that in case a limit is put to the number of moves allowed without attack before a draw is declared, to foresee some "warning" in the program, cause I doubt any player will be counting if he has done 100 moves or 200 moves since last attack. So there should be a warning message popping up for example every 50 moves to inform the players how many moves remain before the game will automatically end in a draw.

 

Napoleon 1er

 

I agree that there should be a series of warnings.  Perhaps, too, it would be good if we clarified whether we mean 200 moves per person or 200 moves in total between both the players?

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#13 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 08:55 PM

I will support the site using ISF rules....BUT the site must implement then in the programming.  If the program does not have them, then I will not judge cases using ISF rules because it would be unfair because I agree with Trickz.   We have 1000s of users on this site and less than 1000 players who are part of our forum and we can't expect them to know what ISF rules are.  I don't agree to some parts of rule 11, mainly you must give in to weaker units to leave your flag area and lose the game even though I feel you are protecting your flag and not chasing.  However, I feel its a give and take rule because I may win the game that way too.  

 

Rob, you're the champion of Auto Draw!  We don't need this double chasing enforced separately here.  No way.  

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#14 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:05 PM

The 2s-rule is a good invented rule for instance,.....first I was against it but I after a time I could understand why they created this.

 

"first I was against it..."  Wow, I'll say!  Ya left me hangin' out to dry, my friend.  I was all alone and with only bronze credentials.  Where did my anti-2 square mate go?  

 

Oh well, I've made my peace with it now too.  

 

Gary


The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#15 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 26 February 2014 - 09:54 PM

 The rules you implement for this site must be implemented on the software also. You can't bann people for saying some is against ISF rules, while hardware of the site is allowing so.

 

 

I will support the site using ISF rules....BUT the site must implement them in the programming.  If the program does not have them, then I will not judge cases using ISF rules because it would be unfair.  

 

The software doesn't prevent players from refusing draw requests even though they have no chance to win and are unsportingly prolonging the game, yet we judge this to be unfair.  So just because the site's software doesn't enforce something does not mean that we have to accept it or can't take any action.   I'd like the purpose of this thread to be one in which we adopt (or create) our "ideal" set of rules which will be the standard for game play at our site.  The current rules posted on the site are very simplistic and do not cover important aspects of the game, even ones that the site already has implemented in the programming.  So there is a need for Stratego.com to have a more complete "Official Rules".  I understand that some of these rules could not or should not be enforced immediately, since it would take some time for the community to understand and be made aware of them, and that in some cases to enforce things fairly and uniformly it would require programming changes.  However, in other cases, it might be obvious from screen shots that a player is violating the rules and so we could take action there.  In any event, what we come up with here can serve as a guide for what those future programming changes should be.         



#16 Lord_AvS

Lord_AvS

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:03 PM

Glitching is exploiting (and knowing you're exploiting) a limitation of the gamesoftware. Refusing draw requests, which are totally a draw, is minded unsportingly prolonging in the game. The opponent will see after some moves that there is no way to get a win (and you as opponent can tell him that too).

This is in my opinion a totally different case that you should judge. You implement a set of complicated rules which are played in live tournaments and expect your site users to be aware of it. I dare to bet that even not every stratego live tournament player is aware of the set of rules and will have a judge sometimes say to him that a action is not allowed (we even have that sometimes in draught live tournaments).

 

Why must we have a set of complicating rules that covers every difficult situation a stratego player can pass through? For 1% of the stratego players that are professional and want to have rules for all 99% of site users must suffer...

I am a partisan for a set understandabel rules for all players, some implemention at game software and to trust the sportivity of every players that participate a stratego match on this site!


Nothing's good or bad, but thinking makes it so.


#17 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 26 February 2014 - 10:11 PM

 

Lack of details in their rule section which makes it a very vague and a very debatable issue by all means.

 

 

I definitely agree the ISF rules are poorly written.  I mean what’s up with this part in 11.3?

 

 “Hereby:  a/to move: a/to move plus attacking or a/to move to an empty square.”

 

That statement should be taken out back and shot!  If anything the ISF rules need to be re-written in clear and concise English.



#18 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • 1,893 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 26 February 2014 - 11:29 PM

One thing is sure and I agree again with Lord-AVS, if we want to change something to rules/program we shall first keep it simple and 2nd avoide having 1% making decisions for 99%. Each proposed critical change shall be voted (in the same way it is currently done for the timer setup) and changes shall be implemented only in case of clear majority.

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...


#19 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:10 AM

Let me give an example.  A while back GaryLShelton asked in a previous thread if anyone could say what were the chasing restrictions implemented in the game software as a result of Hmmness’ suggestions, and there was not any answer to be found on the site.  Nothing official about this has been written.  That’s part of what we’re trying to do here – come up with a clear written set of rules that the site follows.  Whether most people who play here will know about or be interested in all aspects of this is not relevant.  Anybody who wants to know should be able to get a clear answer to any question about the rules.  I agree with Napoleon 1er that any change should have majority support.

 

Edit:  A more basic example is the two squares rule.  A new player will find that he/she is blocked from continuing to move back and forth and may not understand why.  There is no mention of this in our site's "Stratego Rules".  So it would be of service to all players to have our complete rules available for reference.



#20 Enigma

Enigma

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:42 AM

As I've mentioned before, I believe the online game should re-create the experience of  the live game as much as possible.  There needs to be one unified set of rules that apply for both live and online games.  Since there is already a legitimate set of rules set up by the ISF, it makes the most sense to implement these rules as they currently exist.

 

I'm not necessarily opposed to rule changes in the future, but it's best if that process is done through a single centralized organization.  If you do not agree with the rules, it is probably best to seek change by petitioning the organization.


  • HardRain_Lenny likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users