Jump to content


Photo

Automatic Draw System


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#41 Lord_AvS

Lord_AvS

    Bomb

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

Posted 02 March 2013 - 01:15 PM

If you both play so safe that you don't take risks and capture a unit for 50 turns then you both deserve a draw. Stratego is also about takings risks to get the win. When you can't walk with your miner to take his bombs or flag you deserve a draw as well.


  • Midnightguy likes this

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


#42 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 02 March 2013 - 09:43 PM

First, I would NOT make the 50 move counter tied to a single piece on either side (100 total moves), BUT RATHER THE ENTIRETY OF EACH PLAYER'S PIECES.  If neither player can achieve A CAPTURE within 50 moves--counting a move by ANY of their pieces--then an automatic draw should occur.

 

HAVING SAID THIS, I BELIEVE THE 50 MOVE NUMBER NEEDS TO BE HEAVILY DEBATED.  Stratego is NOT like chess.  There, except for the King and pawns, all the pieces can move multiple spaces at once, and pinning can happen clear across the board.  Stratego affords a weak imitation of this luxury only to the spy.  Moreover, the chessboard is only 64 squares big, while Stratego uses 92, and has two key obstacles in the center, not to mention there is no diagonal movement, as in chess.  It is therefore quite probably going to be a much slower proposition to make A CAPTURE toward the end of the game in Stratego, if indeed it is possible.  

 

When the counter FIRST gets activated is another matter.  But, perhaps, it should begin as high as 200-400 total piece moves?  200-400 sounds high, but if a fellow is a slow one to outflank his opponent, this gives him 100-200 moves and strikes me as a balance between enough time for him and the desirable expectation of a definite and timely outcome for both players toward the end of the game.   If 100-200 moves were not enough, the fact that the counter could be reset with a captured piece would give an option for the slow player, and the game would predictably and invariably wind down in pieces to a usable advantage for one player, or a draw.  

 

Second, I DO like a pop-up counter warning.  As has been pointed out, we have one currently with the two-space rule so what's the difference?  Also, I come from a high school wrestling background where stalling by a wrestler does get one warning prior to points being penalized.  The issue there is to encourage active matches, and the same should be here, in my humble opinion.  

 

Besides, if we raise the move counter to a much higher number, as I am suggesting above, it would get to be very tough to hang onto that figure in one's head, I feel.  As Midnightguy pointed out there are a number of Newbies here.  Myself being one of those, I would appreciate the counter warning--and maybe even 2 to 3 counter warnings--depending on the original number for the counter. 

 

Furthermore, in addition to specific pop-up warnings as the counter counts down, and to help with the mental keeping track of it, I would suggest that some kind of continuous notification be turned on when the counter is activated, showing the decreasing number of moves available before draw.  It could be a small box at the top or bottom of the screen that could be seen by both players, and reset with any capture.  BUT ONCE ACTIVATED, THIS SMALL BOX WOULD REMAIN ON UNTIL THE END OF THE GAME, whether a clear victory was won, or the match ended in a draw.  The box could even be toggled invisible to a player himself, if he so chose, and/or possibly drug to wherever a player wanted it on the screen.

 

As I said above, with the fact that the counter could be reset with each captured piece, the game would clearly wind down in pieces to a usable advantage for one player, or a draw.  Either result would guarantee the winner was not merely the one with the most time on his hands.  

 

Finally, and in line with that last sentence--but not that I'm wanting a time clock draw (though it might make for a whole other branch of the automatic-draw tree discussion on this forum)--shouldn't all games end in 30-60 minutes?  At my level this seems reasonable, though I confess debatable.  

 

And, of course, with all the above a fair treatment of ranking points needs to be addressed, as well as the ability to decline matches, and other things, though we need to keep them all SEPARATE ISSUES.  The automatic draw should happen.  Let us tweak the parameters after experience with it dictates newer wisdom.  And let us also allow a slow and civil progress toward perfection with our beloved game.  


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#43 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:33 PM

I think the automatic draw should be at more than 50 moves. Make it 100, even. Minimum of 75, let's say.

The goal is to very very seldomly (read: never) have a player with a decisive advantage lose because of the automatic draw system. ta

When a player has a crushing material advantage she will tend to station 3 of her highest pieces at the 3 channels in the mid board. She will gradually move them up until they are as high as they can go while still completely protecting the channels from any foreign bodies. Next, she will move a piece from the bottom of the board all the way to the demilitarized zone and pass it into the opponent's territory. Only then will that piece start chasing (the legal kind) pieces and attacking them.

My fear is that this could take more than 50 moves to accomplish.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to force a player to change her liquidation technique in order to avoid conceding a draw. In her haste to avoid this, she may allow a miner to crawl into her base and take her flag.

That is why a very high number would be best. It would seldom if ever occur in normal gameplay, and it would take much less time than the hours some players now have been taking facing evil chasers.

***Also, I think there should NOT be a counter to warn the player when the automatic draw is coming up. I am POSITIVE cheaters would exploit this by waiting 49 moves to diddle and then allow themselves to be captured at the 50th. Then take another 49 moves. Then another. Then another. Possibly. And this is bad. I want the automatic draw to sneak up on a cheater like a thief in the night.\
If the number is very high, the player will not have to worry about falling into it in the middle of a normal game.


 


  • HmmNess likes this

gg


#44 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:11 AM

As to the number of moves for our proposed counter, I agree with Designated Baby to make it high, very high.  As D.B. pointed out, we don't want to crimp anyone's valid liquidation technique.  

 

I do want to restate that the counter I am proposing would get reset with any capture, and that it is for, say (as an example), 400 moves by both players on the board, or 200 each.  Does this sound like a lot?  Well, with the current state of the chasing rule, I say maybe not.  If someone is doing some chasing (let's call it valid), all he has to do is chase me all the way across the board and back one time and 40 total moves will have been eaten up.  If someone wants to do that ten times, well, game's over. It's a draw.  I think it would be a good thing.  What are you going to do?  A superior player would need to avoid the draw-able situation...and usually could, I wager.  (Given the option to accept and decline matches, then the skill to avoid draws would develop as any other.)  

 

If 400, or whatever number is decided upon, is too many or not enough, we can always amend it later. For now, I suggest we err on the high side.

 

As to the continuous notification counter and the pop-up warnings that I have described previously today, I don't see the validity of having a draw "sneak up" on a player "like a thief in the night".  If the counter rule becomes 50 moves, then I see nothing "cheating" about taking 49 out of 50 moves and then another and another.  The truth is, I submit, that often one piece can make a difference and end the game rather quickly.  Waiting out 50 moves, and even another 50 for a second piece, seems completely non-problematic.  It's not like we'd be making the game take hours and hours (as some games do currently that I read about), possibly only a little longer.  I say have the continuous notification and pop-ups for both players so that all is even.  If a player doesn't want them, make them optional, and controllable, for himself.      

 

I would offer that WHEN THE COUNTER ACTIVATES, is a key issue.  I believe that some objections to the counter could be appeased by a proper rule for its activation.  Should it kick in when there are only (for example) 20 pieces left on the board for one of the players, and a valid liquidation technique can still be employed, or only 15 or less, when one piece can make quite a difference in the outcome.  Since games more often than not involve fully bombed flags, should it also kick in when there are no miners left on either side?  

 

Also, should the counter number be higher now, but lowered when a new anti-chasing rule is established?


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#45 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:39 AM

Gary your point about chasing taking up too many moves is a valid.  However if the site implements an anti chase system, then the concerns you have with it being a drawing issue, is no longer valid.  I agree with your point that chess has different moves and allows moves on the diagonal and perhaps 50 moves isn't enough time to determine if a game is really a draw or not in Stratego.  I would be willing to compromise and say that 100 moves should be enough time to determine if a game is going somewhere or not for I believe that 200 moves is redundant.  As Hmmness said on a previous post, it should only take 30 moves to trap a non scout piece is reason enough to believe that 100 moves would be highest I'd be willing to go.  However, if the site did make it 200 moves per side, then it's better than nothing at all. 



#46 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:19 AM

Midnightguy, I don't claim to have the exactly right answer on this or any other issue, only maybe some ideas.  I am aware that superior players will have insights that I cannot not imagine now.  Still, it seems to me we need to allow for the "cooking" time to make any changes.  Doesn't anything we arrive alter official rules?

 

One thing I suggest is that any positions, on any issue whatsoever that the site implements, be given a one to two month trial and then voted upon for amendment, or permanency.   Any amendment would begin a new trial period for the changes.

 

I think we need to institute flexibility so that we can all come to a slow and solid consensus on the best solutions to whatever issues.   Let's Crock Pot things, you know, not microwave them.   


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#47 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:28 AM

True Gary we are still exploring what we need to do.  Hmmness was looking for ideas what we can do, if one side does have a miner left but, yet no one wishes to make an effort to win the game.  You are bringing out issues that we never mentioned before, so that is valid.  However, automatic draw feature should have been in our games yesterday.  It really irks me when I'm in a clear draw situation and my opponent hopes to frustrate me by refusing draws and keep game going on until I quit or give up by going for this flag and lose my piece to a bomb or he gets to my flag first.  I want this automatic draw put into our games ASAP! 



#48 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:59 AM

Midnightguy, it seems as if your avatar is yelling your last sentence...Ha!  

 

I believe the lack of miners is a laudable reason for a draw, yes.  But I would ask of you and everybody, isn't far simpler to make a countdown move counter hinged upon a certain number of pieces left on at least one side, and then to make it secondarily reactive to a lack of a capture?

 

If there are 40 pieces on each side, captures will happen within seconds.  If there are 35, it will still be a short time.  If there are 30, then 25, then 20, then 15....I submit to you the dynamics change at each level and a counter could be kicked in with no ill effects at all on good/bad, or fast/slow players.  

 

Admittedly, I can see that "cheaters" might chase down all the moves in the counter and gain a draw they might not have otherwise obtained.  So I do think the coming of the anti-chasing rule (though a separate issue in its details) needs to be implemented at the same time as the automatic draw.  


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#49 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:24 AM

Funny you mention about my avatar, I decided on this one because I planned all along to be an active member here in the forum and the Sergeant one fitted me quite nicely.  Not to mention many players who are high ranked will just choice the Marshall avatar, so I decided to be different in that aspect too.  ;)

 

I agree with you that we need to implement also the anti chase rule along with automatic draw.  Like I said in a previous post, I've yet to run into any chasers in any of my games!  Either that or I just simply offer him my piece to see what he is chasing with if I don't know that it is (many times he is bluffing) or make an attack in his zone.  I can't offer a true opinion in how to prevent chasing in the first place but, agree for the good of the site it needs to be fixed.  



#50 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 04 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

When a player has a crushing material advantage she will tend to station 3 of her highest pieces at the 3 channels in the mid board. She will gradually move them up until they are as high as they can go while still completely protecting the channels from any foreign bodies. Next, she will move a piece from the bottom of the board all the way to the demilitarized zone and pass it into the opponent's territory. Only then will that piece start chasing (the legal kind) pieces and attacking them.


My fear is that this could take more than 50 moves to accomplish.

I think it would be a terrible mistake to force a player to change her liquidation technique in order to avoid conceding a draw. In her haste to avoid this, she may allow a miner to crawl into her base and take her flag.

That is why a very high number would be best. It would seldom if ever occur in normal gameplay, and it would take much less time than the hours some players now have been taking facing evil chasers.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  We can't have an automatic draw that penalizes players that want to suffocate their opponents.  I sometimes do this to get my opponent to forfeit the match.


Posted Image

#51 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:31 PM

I don't think we can really talk about the number of moves separate from WHEN the counter activates.  

 

My suggestion is an arbitrary but conservative 12 pieces.  And I've changed my position here a bit.  I started off saying in this thread that the move counter should kick in when only one side is down to a magic number, for example the 12 pieces.  I now think the counter shouldn't kick in until BOTH sides reach that certain number.  This would still allow for a liquidation game if one person has far more material than the other.  If you were doing the suffocating, and still had 20 pieces (or any number above 12) on the board, the rule wouldn't stick its bothersome face into your game, and you could operate as normal.  And that's good.  I wouldn't want the rule to affect games that can be played out in a justifiable manner.  

 

The point of the automatic draw is to end CERTAIN games in a fair way, the same as a moderator would do so if he looked at them. Whether we catch all possible CERTAIN games is doubtful, but possibly my suggestion would net most of them.

 

To be clear on what I am suggesting, I mean this:  if at the point in the game BOTH PLAYERS have only 12 pieces or less, the move counter (the total number of moves on both sides down to draw) would kick in. This would allow for six bombs, a flag, and five pieces besides.  At that point there is probably definite knowledge where the flags are.  It's just a matter of making something happen.  If players have fully bombed flags on both sides and none have miners, then the move counter would justifiably end the game at an automatic point.  As I've stated elsewhere, the move counter would get reset with any capture on either side.  This stipulation ensures a steady progress to an outcome, unlike the current situation which favors no one but the person with most time on his hands.  

 

Remember, I am suggesting that it is a very slimmed down game that sees the counter kick in.  We can hopefully agree that 12 pieces on both sides could easily be a game that goes on interminably, and that this move counter would reasonably end these tightly played games.  I am suggesting 12 pieces, but think a range from 10 to 15 is defensible.  

 

Now, having stated all the above as prologue, I further suggest we agree to a HUGE NUMBER of TOTAL PIECE MOVES after the counter kicks in.  With the provision that we observe how all this goes in regular website play for a month or two, then we can at that time decide to alter it again or even completely nix it.  

 

I would hope for the anti-chasing rule proposed by Hmmness to be adopted simultaneously as the automatic draw herein offered, so that the number of total piece moves for the counter could be set at a lower number.  WITHOUT THE ANTI-CHASING RULE, I would suggest that the counter be set to 300.  WITH AN ANTI-CHASING RULE, I suggest 200.  

 

To recap:  the number for counter activation is 12 pieces on BOTH SIDES.  It is a conservative number and ensures the rule will not stick its nose in where it doesn't belong.  Once activated, the move counter begins at either 200 or 300, and this large number also tends to keep the rule from imposing itself needlessly on play.  Yes, it can be reset upon any capture by either player.  Yes, I suggest a continuous counter notification box once the counter is activated, and said box can be completely controlled by each player for himself.  Yes, I also suggest counter warnings.  I suggest three in fact.  The first is when the counter is activated; the second, when the counter is halfway counted down; the third and final warning when 50 total moves are left.  

 

Yes, my numbers are arbitrary.  I offer them as a workable starting point.  


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#52 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:36 AM

What about when there is a total of 12 pieces on the game board and 200 moves or so are allowed before a single capture, otherwise there is a draw? This is not resolving the main problem with putting an automatic draw in game. What happens when there are more than 12 pieces on the board? It breaks the whole idea of an automatic draw in the first place. The main problem that I notice, is when your opponent moves a scout over and over and over and over and over............. while you are trying to make progress. These type of players are called Delayers and this is a cheap way to cause an automatic draw. The only way for you to possibly win against this type of tactic, is to send in pieces to lotto.

What about penalizing players that move the same piece over and over? There have been many times where I was stuck in this exact situation. If I attempt to lotto and fail, my opponent would continue to move the same piece over and over until he had the material advantage. A scout is a perfect piece to move over and over forever if you are trying for a draw. 2 scouts are even worse! You could operate them on opposite sides of the game board. So making some rule against moving the same piece over and over wouldn't work either.

What about now allowing players to move the same 2 pieces or 3 pieces over and over? This will eventually hurt players that are trying to trap 1 piece with 2 or more of their pieces. It takes about 30 moves to trap 1 piece from across the whole game board with 2 of your pieces (60 moves if you combine both players). Yet, this goes into the whole 50 moves per player auto-draw idea. It is problematic if you are trying to suffocate your opponent's whole camp by blocking off both flanks and the center, which could take more than 50 moves. Therefore, penalizing players that move the same 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. pieces over and over will not work.

What about some type of system where you are forced to attack a piece in a certain number of moves? The problem with this idea would occur when your opponent runs around with a scout over and over while you are trying to trap them. Suddenly, when your opponent knows he is going to be issued a warning card, your opponent can quickly attack one of your pieces. The Delayer is now off the hook, and you are stuck with the warning card, since you were trying to trap him and never successfully attacked a piece.

What about, if you move any scout over and over, you will be penalized for delaying the game? This idea could work in this type of situation. We would need to come up with the exact numbers to use, but if a player is moving any number of scouts over and over without attacking with them, a warning should be issued to the player. The warning should state that the player is delaying the game by using scouts to dodge all attacks in attempt to automatically draw the game. All scouts for the Delayer would be frozen for 1 turn. Like I said, I haven't tested this out, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

What if all a player has left is 1 scout or any number of scouts? Well, the player is probably going to lose anyway, so I doubt this would make any difference at all. You better hurry and lotto with those scouts or something. Maybe you will win and get a lucky flag capture. Maybe you will lose by running into a bunch of bombs or higher ranked pieces. But, you sure as hell shouldn't get a draw by delaying the game.

What if both players only have scouts left? I really don't have a clue how this should be settled. A draw sounds nice, but how on earth will you achieve it without breaking everything else. This one is a freestyle up in the air. I guess whoever has the most scouts will be declared the winner, "heh."

As for Non-Scout related automatic draw situations, I feel as though a specific number of moves per player could be issued before the game is drawn. Chess is 50, so maybe 200 or 300 would work for Stratego. But, I'm telling you right now, with scouts involved, this system would not work. You need 4 pieces or more to trap a scout. I believe, by penalizing players that use scouts to dodge will at least cut a Delayer's arsenal in half. Put both of these ideas together with the anti-chase system and maybe.... it will work. Not totally sure yet, but I’m trying.

HmmNess


Posted Image

#53 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:51 AM

Nice post,so sick, no shit....
All those weird symbols, I guess Ness is practising a codescript for a known glitch :)
I've had that shit as well but maybe it's a tiny problem and it's so fixed....
I mean,...if people want to say something, they shouldn't have a problem to post it
and as member of the staff you should know this :P
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#54 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 05 March 2013 - 02:58 AM

ya i fixed, check it out again =)


Posted Image

#55 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:01 AM

HmmNess,

 

Thank you for your comments.  

 

What I was suggesting was 12 pieces per each player on the board, not total.  It is an arbitrary number, yes, and I am very open to hashing on it.  However, I do feel that it should be THE SAME number for BOTH SIDES, as I have already suggested.  

 

Beyond this, I think I am having a strong new thought.  Or maybe it's just late tonight.  Possibly, you were hinting at this.  How would you like this idea?  Maybe we throw out the notion of an automatic draw entirely?  Instead of making the move counter count down to a draw, we make the move counter count down to a loss, so that we create an automatic loss rule.   We could utilize separate move counters for each player, AND MAKE THEM ACTIVATE ONCE THAT PLAYER IS DOWN TO 12 PIECES ON THE BOARD, so that the pressure would be on the player with less material.  Doesn't this reward the right side of things?  

 

What do you think?


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#56 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:52 AM

Well, then it boils down to who made the 1st move that started the count down timer. If you knew that your opponent has activated their count down timer  before you have and you are in a drawing position, it looks like dodging your opponent would be you best bet until they get a loss.

 

Players should be penalized for bad conduct, not getting the shorter end of the stick.  If you chase, you should be penalized.  If you are using scouts to dodge attacks and delay the game, you should be penalized.  If you are moving the same 1 piece over and over without making any progress, you should be penalized.  Just how to implement the Scout Dodge Delay and the 1 piece Delay is our problem.

 

Whatever you do wrong, the software should take these steps:

1.) 1st Warning

2.) 2nd Warning

3.) Green Penalty Card

4.) 3rd Warning

5.) Yellow Penalty Card

6.) Red Penalty Card = Automatic Forfeit.

 

I thought an automatic draw should occur, but it needs to be expanded upon.  The game should only result in a draw if BOTH players cannot make any progress.  If someone is delaying the game to force their opponent into a bad position, the player should be punished for not even trying to play.  In chess, if you try to waste time, you lose.  I believe it should be the same with Stratego.

 

HmmNess


Posted Image

#57 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,095 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:23 PM

HmmNess,

 

Perhaps we can answer all three issues aside from the automatic draw.  If you say that the scout dodge, 1-piece mover, and interminable chasers are three big problems, why don't we take the idea of the countdown move timer and place the onus on the player exhibiting this "bad behavior" by forcing them into a piece capture situation within 50 or 100 moves after it has been determined they have infracted the rules?   Although I myself am not sure how to precisely define "bad behavior" I say that the countdown timer gives your various warning levels some teeth.  

 

Despite the fact we wouldn't be installing an automatic draw rule, per se, with this approach, we might be addressing some of the most key components of the draw situation we are trying to rein in.  An advantage is that we wouldn't have to necessarily settle on the ranking points issue that is so connected to the draw.  We would only have to be sure of the definitions of "bad behavior", I say.

 

Lastly, and ad nauseum,  I believe that all changes should be given a 1 month time trial.  


Posted Image
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...931#entry468931

#58 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:08 PM

I thought an automatic draw should occur, but it needs to be expanded upon.  The game should only result in a draw if BOTH players cannot make any progress.  If someone is delaying the game to force their opponent into a bad position, the player should be punished for not even trying to play.  In chess, if you try to waste time, you lose.  I believe it should be the same with Stratego.
 
HmmNess

I don't agree with this actually....
Delaying the game can't be considered as to force your opponent in a bad position.
If the "losing" player does this without miners, the reason would probably be that he has no other choice or he will lose the game. Everything he moves will be surrounded and crushed so his best shot is to delay and get a draw out of it. I don't think that this should be punished.
This should only be punished if you have no miners left and you can't catch the scout(s) with your left piece(s) but only if that "losing" player refuses a draw request.
If your opponent has more pieces in the game except the scouts, then you must find a way to catch them.
If you don't dare to do that because of the risks, then you should accept a draw.
But you can't punish someone for trying to stay alive and hoping for a draw.

You did the same with me remember...and I couldn't blame you for doing that.
And I also don't think that was worth a punishment. You had no other choice or you would certainly have lost the game.
And you knew that I had no choice as well,...I could not risk it or you would have outnumbered me. So we settled for a draw.

Only the never ending chasers should be penalized.
And also the guys that refuse a draw even if they can't win the game anymore.
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#59 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:26 PM

I also think those suggestions are not great.

If a player wants to draw the game because he is losing, he should try as hard as he can to do it!

 

Often having scouts left IS a way to draw a game because they can never be captured. Depending on the pieces that is true.
Penalties should not be given. If the leading player cannot capture a scout when the moves are counting to an auto-draw, then the game deserves to be a draw!

A player should never lose simply because he is playing to draw. He should be punished if he is avoiding the draw when he has no chances to win.

 

EDIT:

 

We really need some kind of automatic draw system immediately.

I just played a guy who after just blindly charging through my base with his general (without hitting a bomb (I think he had already played me with a different account)) he was up big material and then I came back. It ended up with me having a marshal against his many pieces, but no miners and my flag was protected.

He could never capture my flag or marshal so it should have been a draw immediately (because spies were also off the board.) He declined it and waited until 14 seconds ticked to make a move and wouldn't listen to my appeals to reason.

To his credit he eventually, finally agreed to a draw.

100 moves auto draw. 200 move auto draw. I don't know. But, we need something.

 


gg


#60 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:15 AM

We need something yes, but that something can't be rushed.

 

My problem with an auto-draw system that allows 200 or however many moves, is that players are going to delay the game when they are losing in order to draw.  When players are down on material, they will not even attempt to move any valuable pieces.  They will just dodge you over and over until you make a mistake or take a draw.  Hell, they were losing anyway, so why not try for a draw.  Unlike chess, Stratego games can come to this conclusion very often.

 

Players could simply rush in with whatever pieces they wish and if they are losing, simply use a scout to dodge back and forth while you send in your troops to lotto, or send in your precious miners and try to find his bombs.  This is not how the game is supposed to be played, yet this type of system would encourage players to play like this.  If you are delaying the game you should be penalized, plain and simple.

 

In chess, you can't delay in this manner, because it will allow your opponent an advantage very quickly.  They call this advantage "Gaining Tempo."  The more you wait and chess, the worse your position will become.  In stratego, the more you wait, the better.  The less your opponent knows about your bomb placements, the better.  In chess, draws are usually achieved when both players have attacked or defended equally and the material is pretty equal.  In stratego, draws are usually achieved when players delay the game, because they are too scared to attack.

 

This is why i believe that a shorter time limit (from 15 seconds to 5 seconds) should be in order and players should be penalized for delaying the game to force a draw.

 

HmmNess


Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users