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

#41 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 April 2013 - 03:40 AM

A better solution, I think, is the simultaneous installation of the Anti-Chase and Auto Draw rules.  It seems to be a very good way of answering all objections as well as anything heretofore proposed.  

 

Things have been suggested like beginning a Draw counter when there are only so many pieces left on the board (me, I'm guilty!), or when there are no miners left.  But these things are at best arbitrary, and at worst, in the case of the no-miners suggestion, information-divulging.  A  blind limit on moves between attacks, even though clearly arbitrary, is the most unobtrusive thing in my opinion to base an Automatic Draw on.  And, combining the Auto Draw with Anti-Chase rules seems a good regulatory marriage.  

 

I say err on the conservative and make the numbers high to begin with.  Start with Anti-Chasing and a 20 full bind limit per-incident (this preserves the chasee's rights) plus a 150 total game limit per player, with the penalty of a loss if violated.  Then layer that rule with the Auto Draw rule which gives, from the very start of the game, 100 moves per player to make an attack.  [Make the Draw counter restart if EITHER player makes an attack.]  If 150 full-binds (the pb/fb kind) of chasing is allowed as a total game limit in the Anti-Chase rule, then that gives a chaser 50 chasing full-binds before he runs the risk of losing out on his chance at an Auto Draw.  That is, he is allowed 150 total chase moves, but if he has used 51 of them, he will get an automatic loss if he chases 99 more times.  He could still play for a Draw if he desired, but, since he must make at least 100 moves between attacks for the Auto Draw to kick in, he will automatically lose if he chooses to attempt to chase his way into a Draw.  

 

Is this giving too much rope to the chaser?  Not enough?  Is this Draw method fair?

 

Whether you agree with the numbers, it seems to me that this approach ignores many problematic variables, including but not limited to the number of pieces remaining and/or the power of those pieces.  That is a good thing.  The Anti-Chasing proposition affects the heinous chaser and the Auto Draw only affects games where nothing is demonstrably happening.  



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

#42 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 April 2013 - 05:48 AM

Spiff, this thing is going to be decided by the Dev's and I hope very soon, as I know you do.  My arguments may not prevail, but I would hope that a real game testing phase would generate good info on whatever is passed, and that we would then tweak it to perfection.  Already, in the past on this site, the Cool Down Timer has gone from two or three different numbers to finally settle on 15 seconds, and I personally think they got that right.

 

But in the light of there being very few comments posted here concerning the numbers for the Anti-Chasing and Auto Draw rules I have proposed, I have four questions for you:

  1. Do you feel, that given my argument on the chasee's loss of rights in the chase with the HmmNess 5 Full Binds limit, that 5 is still the number to go with?  Could you see 12, 15, 20, or even higher per-incident?
  2. HmmNess did not have a game total chasing limit in his proposal.  Do you feel there should be a game total limit on chasing?  What would that number be?
  3. Do you have any problems with the simple Auto Draw solution of 100 moves per player between attacks, placed in motion from the very start of the game?
  4. Can you see some combination of numbers that make for a symbiotic relationship between Anti-Chase and Auto Draw, as I have brought out lately?


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

#43 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

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

Posted 03 April 2013 - 07:25 AM

100 moves are not enough, especially if you have a chaser and have to deal with his continuous chase.

Same if you have an open flag and have to control a piece who run around the lake again and again, right and left. This can allow you one real move each 5-6 moves (5-6 moves to keep control of opponent piece, 1 move to prepare your attack).

And it can take much more moves in a end games to trap a piece when you don't want to trade your higher piece in the same time.


  • Don_Homer likes this

#44 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 04 April 2013 - 12:30 AM

Pd3a, the one thing I like about the rules of Anti-Chase and Auto Draw being passed in harmony with each other is that they help each other to wind up the game.  The Chaser can be forced (if the numbers are set at the right limits) into an automatic loss for violating the total game limit of chases, plus there is extra pressure not to chase if he wants to gain the Auto Draw.  If he chases too much, he brings on the Auto Draw faster.  I must say, I think 100 moves per player to Auto Draw is more than enough, but you have a valid point.  I wonder how many would agree that 100 moves per player to Auto Draw is too few a number?

 

Certainly, as has been said before, we don't want a rule that stifles the liquidation play of a player by forcing him into a draw where he might otherwise win.  But there has to be number of moves that beyond which it is no longer reasonable to keep playing.  A slow strangle should be allowed.  But how many moves per player would we then make the Auto Draw rule?

 

April 17th Edit:

 

Sorry, Sohal, I mispoke and called you Pd3a here apparently.  GLS



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

#45 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 04 April 2013 - 04:26 AM

I would be willing to change it to no more than 200 moves per player to force an automatic draw.   If everything that was stated to prevent chasing is in place, I don't see why this couldn't work here.  Anything beyond 200 moves per player, would just be dragging on the game needlessly.



#46 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 04 April 2013 - 04:55 AM

200 moves (without an attack) per player to Auto Draw would work for me.  I think it is high, but I also think that we could not do wrong by going high.  Besides, it would only make the Anti-Chasing rule more important.   If we leave the Anti-Chase total game rule at 150-200 full binds, then there is no way a chaser could chase to a draw.  He would have to quit chasing to salvage a draw.  I believe this symbiotic relationship of the two rules is very good.  It helps to ensure the chaser will be punished and the game will draw if nothing is happening.    

 

Edit:

 

Upon further reflection, I want to add that if we raise the Auto Draw limit to 200 moves per player, then we should raise the Anti-Chase Total Game Limit to something a bit higher, or say 250 full binds.  This would be so that the chaser would be allowed SOME chasing but after 50 full binds of chasing, it would be bad for him to continue chasing.  

 

However, I really feel both of these numbers are too high.  I still think that 100 moves for the Auto Draw is best.  The fact it would be reset with every attack means a game could have ample moves without going to a 200 limit.  And I just think that 250 for the Anti-Chase rule is too high.  It should be no more than 200, but it would even be good to be 150 in my mind.  



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

#47 5 Stars

5 Stars

    Spy

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 05 April 2013 - 04:06 PM

If you can select players who you don't ever want to play again that would help - soon all the bad players would have nobody left to play with!



#48 Strobe

Strobe

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 103 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 05 April 2013 - 07:14 PM

If you can select players who you don't ever want to play again that would help - soon all the bad players would have nobody left to play with!

 

But you can select high rank players, so what's left are the low ranks and you have better chance to win... ?


  • Don_Homer likes this

I believe that whatever doesn't defeat you on Stratego, simply makes you.. immortal.


#49 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 06 April 2013 - 04:59 AM

The following is a re-post from another thread:

 

Spiff wants only smart computer matching, but should the spread get as wide as a 200 ELO point drop for a loss, I suggest that there be a block then.  I mean, as I've said elsewhere before, make the computer match people up to where the higher player will still win 2-4 points for a win, and/or make it so the lower player cannot gain anything like 200 ELO points for a win.  Some kind of limitation like that makes sense to me.  I got Spiff as a Bronze Lieutenant once.  Got smeared.  But I'm sure he only gained a point for it...at the most.  I would've gained a bunch, of course, if I had pulled off the miracle.  And that was when he was probably a Silver Scout or Miner and I was Bronze Lieut. What will happen if he is Gold Major and he plays a Bronze Spy?  

 

 

I say that such matchups should not happen, but that the exact parameters ought to be in terms of how many maximum points win/loss do we want in a single game, as I described above.  

 

Further, I've said this before.  I like a LIMITED Decline button.  Limited to 2-3 times per calendar day.  For whatever reason make it so a player could refuse a computer match two or three times each day. (Or pick whatever limit you like)  THEN HE HAS TO PLAY.  This would not be like allowing complete Decline button privileges, but it would be a compromise with people who point out the situation above, and they don't feel like risking the loss that day to a lesser player, or they just don't want to play player X, or any of a host of reasons. They don't matter.  Allowing for some choice in match acceptance is good, in my opinion.  Just NEVER a FULL AND OPEN ABILITY to DECLINE all matches.  

 

Edit:  Trickz does not feel the chances of the extreme example would be likely to happen, and he's right, of course.  The search begins so close to one's own rank that it takes awhile to go very far.  There are some definite times when a higher percentage of newbies are on than others, though, and it would clearly be more possible then.  



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

#50 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 06 April 2013 - 05:03 AM

Re-posted from another thread.

 

I agree emphatically that Section 11 is VAGUE.  What we have been trying to do in this thread is NOT BE VAGUE.  We have been discussing tangible, workable solutions.  Vagueness is okay for descriptions, but rules need specificity.  Trickz, I say that first of all, why weren't you right when you said you could just keep switching off between your two pieces?  That would definitely reset the chasing counter.  And you could do that up until any TOTAL GAME LIMIT of chasing kicked in, which is forever at the moment, since now there is none.  IN ADDITION, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT:  In my suggestion of Anti-Chasing I put forth that the chasing counter SHOULD NOT RECORD ANY CHASING PRIOR TO 3-5 full binds being done.  That is, any full binding done prior to one of those numbers is INCIDENTAL AND IGNORED, and the counter does not even appear on the screen.  After the EVIL LINE is crossed of, say 5, uninterrupted full bind moves by one piece onto another, the chasing counter would kick in and appear on the screen to show that chasing was being recorded against the one player.  (Both players would see the info.)  This would further insulate you from any chasing penalties in your rather exotic situation of power versus miners.  It would allow for the defensive use of the so-called chasing move.  You just couldn't chase the miner five times or more and have it start the counter again.  

 

Basically, I am after "instituting" bad chasing into our game...just a bit.  Make it somewhat legal.  Begin with the fact that incidental chasing will be allowed for up to 5 full binds.  After that point, the counter appears  to both players (fairly unobtrusively off to the side....not too big) and the full bindings begin to charge to the offending player.  I of course suggest we set the per-incident limit at 20 full binds.  Since the counter will be visible to each player, I don't think a warning before the 20th full bind is necessary.  Just throw on the screen a "You can't do that." window like our current 2-Space rule does when the 21st chasing move is attempted.  The chasing counter would then disappear from the screen.   

 

After this, allow 200 full binds of chasing per player per game with a severe penalty if not obeyed.  I would make the penalty for violation of this TOTAL GAME LIMIT a LOSS instead of a simple warning.  If we want to eliminate most of the bad chasing, we'll give our rule TEETH.  

 

Although the counter for the TOTAL GAME LIMIT on chasing would always be visible once started, the per-incident chasing counter would reset and go away if either the chasing or chased piece was captured, or if the chaser did not remake a full bind in his turn.   

 

As for the Auto Draw, well, if we set the move limit there to 100 moves per player without an attack--right from the beginning of the game--it will allow the bad chaser to chase 100 full bind times (200-100=100) and still afford him the option for the draw.  But after this 100 chasing moves he would have to cease continually chasing if he wanted the DRAW because he would get the LOSS if he kept up his chasing.  

 

If my numbers don't suit, I still suggest we keep the Anti-Chasing TOTAL GAME LIMIT somewhat higher than the Auto Draw MOVES PER PLAYER LIMIT.   The difference will act to discourage bad chasing, in my opinion.

 

Also, to repeat what I said above, I like the "buffer" of "incidental" chasing moves that I described.  It will keep the chasing rule from intruding where it doesn't belong.  And if the per-incident limit is set to 20, then the chasee's right to direct the chase will be preserved.

--------------------------------------------

In closing, I want to quote D.B.'s words from another thread that are pertinent to the Draw situation:

 

Material does not matter at all. The only thing that matters is who can capture the flag or who can take all of his opponent's pieces.

Often material influences these, but if neither side can win, it is a draw. Period. Every time. The end. Case closed.



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

#51 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 05:21 AM

  And that was when he was probably a Silver Scout or Miner and I was Bronze Lieut. What will happen if he is Gold Major and he plays a Bronze Spy? 

 

Gary, on the other post where a few high silver players were complaining they get nothing for a win vs a low player, it seems likely any match up can happen at anytime.  The programmers asked us what do we do about this, and most are saying still allow match to happen and get 1 point for win.  I agree with you this match should never take place, because again what newbie wants to get killed by a top player and with all that can go wrong with the stability of the game, their ISP, power outage or whatever why would a top silver player want to keep risking X number of points for 1 point?  I agree too there are far more lower rated players then their are higher players, and ever since I was a silver player, I didn't get one match up with a silver player and faced all colonels and generals and a miner.  I offered my suggestion to set profile to who you want to face by ratings, but not getting much notice.



#52 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 06 April 2013 - 06:12 AM

M.G., yeah, setting the profile was discussed awhile back.  I know a few people liked this proposal.  I personally still think that the better answer is to go with limited smart matching by the computer and a limited Decline button.  The "limit" on smart matching would be measured by ELO points.  What is the maximum number of points a lower player should be able to win in a match?  Or perhaps the question would be better tackled from the other side.  What is the minimum number of points a higher player should be able to lose in a match?  Perhaps both parameters need to be set.  

 

The other half of my suggestion here is the limited Decline button.  M.G., if we set the limit to 2-3 Declines per day (again, the number range is arbitrary and debatable.  1-2 per day might be better...), the Decline button would act somewhat like your profile proposal, only whereas your proposal would be UN-LIMITED, and my Decline button proposal would be LIMITED.  

 

If we stick with smart matching as a base, then especially as we get more players on the site one shouldn't have a match very far from his own rank.  But if he does, he will have the choice to Decline that match if he is in a "funk" as you called it.  I am for the LIMITED Decline button because I do think at some point you have to play a game.  One can't decline all day, but that's exactly what  could and would happen if the button were UNLIMITED. 



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

#53 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 07 April 2013 - 09:10 PM

M.G., I haven't talked about  one issue here as much as others, but the disconnection issue you mention could be another good reason for a Limited Decline button.  I don't know about everyone else, but the few times I've had a problem, I've had a slow moving computer and probably shouldn't have started the match in the first place.  The Limited Decline button would allow me to back out of a match where I was concerned for my own ability to continue to a finish.



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

#54 Wonky

Wonky

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum General

Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:56 PM

New player here.  How do I report to the crowd of decent folks that there are many complete jerks on this site?  Juno B and Dummy have both taken advantage of the weaknesses of the computer program and lack of moderators to force ties or losses when they are completely beaten.  They are not shy at all about saying that they will just chase you around the board you can't stay anymore.  Kemosabe tried the same thing.  These players are not good, they just know that no one can stop them from cheating.



#55 KingTubby

KingTubby

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:56 PM

Personally I think the "fatigue" system has potential. I would like to simplify it as follows:

the fatigue system should only be applied when both players are moving the same pieces all the time. As soon as a player moves a different piece, the counting should be reset. I don't think it's necessary to keep track of the "fatigueness" of a piece nor does it make sense to "decrease fatigueness" by adding points, just reset the counter every time a different piece has been moved by either party.

When the piece reached maximum "fatigueness", it cannot move anymore, unless it's the only available piece. A warning should be issued 1 move before reaching this point. I think 10 moves would be a good maximum.

I think this will eliminate the most annoying chases.

Do I overlook something here?
Posted Image
I man rule the arena

#56 KingTubby

KingTubby

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:09 PM

Gary, on the other post where a few high silver players were complaining they get nothing for a win vs a low player, it seems likely any match up can happen at anytime.  The programmers asked us what do we do about this, and most are saying still allow match to happen and get 1 point for win.  I agree with you this match should never take place, because again what newbie wants to get killed by a top player and with all that can go wrong with the stability of the game, their ISP, power outage or whatever why would a top silver player want to keep risking X number of points for 1 point?  I agree too there are far more lower rated players then their are higher players, and ever since I was a silver player, I didn't get one match up with a silver player and faced all colonels and generals and a miner.  I offered my suggestion to set profile to who you want to face by ratings, but not getting much notice.

this actually doesn't belong to this topic, but I would like to comment that I agree with the programmers: if a high ranking player meets a newbie, he should prove his strength and play. I have played a few times on this website, and I can tell that most of the time I meet higher ranking players. Only occasionally I meet a complete newbie, which is not a problem, usually these games finish in my favor in a few minutes. Furthermore I think newbies should also get a chance to play against better players.

If you are afraid of dropping in rank against a newbie, then you don't belong in the upper ranks in the first place. Fear is weakness. Even if that newbie is a top player with a new account, sooner or later you will meet him again and get your points back (if you are really better than him/her).

In short, I think the system is fair.
Posted Image
I man rule the arena

#57 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:32 PM

Tubby, I wrote that post for two reasons:

 

1) A few of the higher players were complaining about getting nothing for a win.  The rating system is doing what it should do, if you face such a poorly rated challenger, you should get ZERO points.  That is what goes on with chess ratings too, you win points only if you face challengers near or at your rating level.  If you are a Grandmaster player, you shouldn't get even a point if you face a 8 year old who is learning the pieces.  This is no different than a Silver Captain facing a Bronze Spy, should you get a point for facing a 8 year old who doesn't even know how thes Spy works? 

 

2) I think in terms of ALL players.  If we have that same 8 year old who just faced you in a game Tubby, will they get any real fun or learned anything by you killing him in a match just moving your Marshall and attack everything he moves around?  Countless time I been told off by when I slaughtered some player, because they weren't very good or I faced a 9 year old and he was like "Wow you are good I suck badly".  Is that fun?  (do remember in the USA the game is marketed to kids and we do have a number of them who play on here)

 

I'll play anyone at anytime on this site, but I won't apolgize for asking if the site can come up with a better system to get better match ups of same quality level.  I offered some ideas, but the site seems to have little interest. 



#58 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Captain

  • WC Online Team
  • 865 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 11 April 2013 - 02:08 AM

You may not continuously move a piece back and forth between the same two fields. The limit here is set at three moves. It is important then to determine which player began moving to and fro. This player has
to stop first too, and this could lead to losing an important piece. The rule is known as the ‘two field’ moves rule.

 

You may also not continuously pursue one or more of your opponent’s pieces. If this happens (and extends across more than two fields) the aggressor must stop this at once

 

source: http://www.jumbo.eu/...082b695eb65.pdf (page 18, about moving)

 

(This basically is the "isf implementation" anyway)


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

 

Follow the 3rd Online World Championship: http://forum.strateg...d-championship/


#59 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,448 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:05 AM

Personally I think the "fatigue" system has potential. I would like to simplify it as follows:

the fatigue system should only be applied when both players are moving the same pieces all the time. As soon as a player moves a different piece, the counting should be reset. I don't think it's necessary to keep track of the "fatigueness" of a piece nor does it make sense to "decrease fatigueness" by adding points, just reset the counter every time a different piece has been moved by either party.

When the piece reached maximum "fatigueness", it cannot move anymore, unless it's the only available piece. A warning should be issued 1 move before reaching this point. I think 10 moves would be a good maximum.

I think this will eliminate the most annoying chases.

Do I overlook something here?

 

KingTubby,

 

Hi.  I've never spoken with you, but I have liked your posts.  I hope I don't offend you with the following comments.  At the risk of proving right those who would accuse me of being too opinionated, I would like to comment on the "fatigue" notion you bring up tonight.  

 

Here we have a turn-based game.  The electronic games that gave birth to the concept of fatigue generally are simultaneously played games--I think is mostly true.  Anyway, these games are very complex as to when fatigue increases and when it decreases.  Without all this complexity (some of which you state does not make sense) and simultaneous play your definition of "fatigue" seems to me pretty much the HmmNess full binds system.  It's not the "fatigue" system at all.  

 

That said, I do like the 10 moves as a maximum you list, however.  In my mind this is much better than HmmNess's 5, that's for sure.  But I would still argue for 20 to fully allow a chasee his rights in the affair.  

 

In so much as it is possible, I like the rules that enforce game play as it would be played across the game board face to face.  "Fatigue" is an artificial concept and it is foreign to the natural play of the board game.  What should be "fatigued"...as it were...is the bad behavior of chasers and draw ignorers.  Combining your system or HmmNess's (in essence the same, I think, and only the per-incident limit remains the talking point) with a good Auto Draw rule will dampen most of these so-called cheaters.  I say "so-called" because if it isn't against the site rules, then it pretty much isn't really "cheating".  And the only way to eliminate it is to program it into oblivion.  Make it impossible.  You can't rely on the nature of players.  That's what we're all complaining about.  No, we can't penalize bad behavior.  We must make bad behavior impossible.   

 

People keep asking for Moderators to oversee games.  But in my mind that's not practical.  What we need to have in my opinion is "Automated Game Moderation", or AGM.  (You heard it hear first...)  I of course simply mean that we should have "automation" by having the programming rules in place to prevent much of what is complained about on the site.  Certainly Anti-Chase and Auto Draw can be addressed easily enough.  These topics have been well-discussed in this thread.  



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

#60 KingTubby

KingTubby

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:36 AM

hi Gary,
I just adopted the term "fatigueness" from the one who started this topic, but basically it comes down to extending the 2 square rule to more squares. Perhaps it's the same as Hmmness' suggestion, but I found his explanation quite complex and difficult to follow. You need a kind of system to count who started the chase and when to block a piece from moving again.

May I suggest to the forum to use my suggestion as a starting point and find arguments why it would NOT work. Then perhaps we can tackle the shortcomings and work to a solution that can actually be programmed and implemented?

Example: A has a Spy in the lower left corner, B has a Miner one row above and one to the right. We assume the surrounding squares are empty and both have moved a different piece before the chasing starts. So B starts to chase A's Spy which he can never catch. B's counter for that Miner will become 1, now it's A's turn. Of course he moves the Spy, so his counter for his Spy becomes 1. B keeps chasing, no matter if he moves up, down, left or right as long as he keeps moving that Miner, the counter for that Miner keeps increasing, the same for A's Spy who he doesn't want to (and doesn't have to) give up. Since B started the chase, he will reach his limit (I still think 10 is a very good limit) first and he can no longer move that Miner. He has to move another piece and now BOTH counters will be reset to 0.

In my humble opinion this tackles the most irritating problem on this website. If you can think of a scenario that will not work with this rule, please share it on this forum.
Posted Image
I man rule the arena




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users