Jump to content


Photo

Solution to the trolling, chasing, etc.


  • Please log in to reply
223 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think the best solution is? (87 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think the best solution is to prevent trolls, chasing, etc.?

  1. Implement a forced game ending (see question below) (46 votes [48.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.94%

  2. Introduce a 'fatigue' system (6 votes [6.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.38%

  3. Voted Implementation of the ISF game rules section 11 (More-squares rule) (23 votes [24.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.47%

  4. Implementation of HmmNess' anti-chase system (19 votes [20.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.21%

About the forced-game ending solution, which do you think is better?

  1. When no attack has been done for X moves, the game is ended in a WIN for the player that has the piece with the highest ranking (that can still move). If both players have this, the game ends in a DRAW. (27 votes [31.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.03%

  2. Voted When no attack has been done for X moves, the game is ended in a DRAW. (60 votes [68.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.97%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#221 kentinator

kentinator

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 21 March 2014 - 01:05 AM

You know, I don't really think any of the proposed solutions will make the game any better, and in some cases could make it worse. It occurs to me that the reason we have so many problems this way is due to the fact that we are FORCED to play ANYONE we are matched against! If we could REFUSE to play the known idiots, the problem would be largely solved, and furthermore, may force people to play more fairly or stand to have much trouble getting anyone to play them!! 

 

What about allowing us to refuse the first two matches, or even just the first match we get, and hopefully the second one will be with a nice player? 



#222 bmende

bmende

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:21 PM

note, the results on the poll may be a little bit flawed, when I clicked my ballot I only knew the definition of the first option, the forced ending rule. The definitions of each only showed after a casted my ballot.

 

Personally, I like how the game rule is in defence of the chasee, and not the chaser.



#223 HardRain_Lenny

HardRain_Lenny

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 16 June 2014 - 10:03 PM

If Stratego.com pretents to be a real Stratego website I really hope that they aren't taking the output of this poll as the valid standard.

 

It's very easy.......a chaser is using invalid moves to force a draw. To protect the one who is chased, our ISF rules are in place in terms of both the 2 square and More square rule.

 

It's a strong recommendation to implement these rules within the Stratego.com software like Gravon did as well.

The chaser will be stopped and I can save my General or other moved pieces from a lousy Marshall who tries to force a draw or who  runs circles around the lakes while hunting my weaker piece.

 

Since 2 / 3 weeks I'm on Stratego.com and I've read a lot of postings on the forum prepared by players who apparantly try to contribute in improving the game or the site, but in fact the impact of these ideas will destroy our classic game with proven rules.

 

The ISF rules have been tested and discussed with almost all top live players and with all experienced referees we have in our community.

 

If a player from Stratego.com still have a valuable remark on these rule, he can send his issue to the ISF Court of Appeal.

I'll guarantee a serious treatment of such a request.



#224 bmende

bmende

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 05 August 2014 - 10:48 PM

How does Isf deal w double chasing? And how does isf differ from hmmness? The 2nd sentence under section 11.1 I don't really understand. And the hereby I also don't understand.

But it sounds like hmmNess is implemented and I have to say I really like that rule.

I think a good question to ask though is do we want draws in our games? I personally like draws, I think it increases strategy for the loser(and consequently I suppose for the winner).

If I'm losing in a game, under the right circumstances,I feel my only option is to start guessing w my highest piece, but if draws were on the table, then I may have a new option, go for a draw. Now all this game would need is to implement the draw after X moves rule, and then now you have a game of stratego which to me becomes a whole lot more interesting than a game where win-loose is the only outcome (now of course im assuming implementation of isf would lead to a restriction of drawing as a possible game outcome, if isf doesn't do that then what I just said is a bunch of hooblah)

Does isf attempt to eliminate all draws for like tournament play or something? If so I think not implementing isf and instead adding the draw after X moves rule should be implemented.

Does this make sense to anyone?

Also as a newcomer I came to feel that the hmmNess rule was quite natural and easy to understand, well, I gues thats because I didnt really need to "understand" it at its technical level (i didnt need to know exactly how many moves of chasing was allowed), all I needed to know was to not continuously chase the person




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users