Jump to content


Photo

piece value in your opinion?


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

#41 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 02 May 2013 - 11:36 PM

good god  trickz...your last comment reminded me of this movie / song

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3khTntOxX-k

 

i swear, if youre not writting annoying poetry that makes no sense, you are writing novels...knock it off!

 

a lot of what you say i would like to counter...but you say so much wrong at once, i dont want to spend an hour responding to it.

 

have you ever heard the saying "less is more"?

 

+1.. I'm not even gonna read it, as i know its full of bullshii.. Reminds me of the part where he used the words "common sense"..

 

This boy is definitly schitzofrenic.. 


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#42 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:12 AM

Yo Drew, less is more?

Do you think that's the way the best will score?

They want to have more than less, thay attack the poor

and they also brag by typing some comments on the message board!

 

And if you want to counter stuff,....

then do it and if not, then I advice to keep your mouth on shut!

Give arguments and don't act like the avoiding clown who's nuts

by not backing his lousy stuff

about a value system so stupid that it should immediately drown in mud! :D

 

At least I give valid arguments and i'm not avoiding dude.

I make efforts to proof my sjit,

I don't reject like you cuz' that's disappointing news! :D

That's not my point of vue

cuz' I joined the room....

NOT to destroy the noobs

although admitted, I enjoy it goof

but I joined to proof

that your pointing clues

about the values of your annoying troops

are nothing more than toys for noobs,...

for those who play like little boys, it's good...

cuz' after all, there's a child in everyone of us...

little boys who win, little boys who lose

so I guess that'll make my fokkin' noise the truth! :D


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#43 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:36 AM

 

I don't reject like you cuz' that's disappointing news! :D

That's not my point of vue

 

 

Woww, whahaha, i just can't stop laughin..

 

http://forum.strateg...allenge-trickz/

 

 


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#44 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:02 AM

Yo Patty,

 

 

You think I reject cuz' I refuse a fight?

That's the case for what you accuse me right?

Lol, this proofs I'm right

and you proved it nice...

that you're using a noob his mind

cuz' the rejection was about not willing to give arguments

to claim your moddafokkin' vue is tight! ;)

No, instead you abuse the signs

but that's because you're used to try

to take it personal but I don't care so noob, it's fine! :D

We all know you invented this sytem cuz' you're a losing guy

who needs a boost, that's why...

you gathered with your partner Drew in crime,

used both your illusive mind

to abuse devine

rules which are used for times

that lasted longer than the age on which you can die. :D

Damn, my rhymes are again superfly!

That'll be all so dude, goodbye! :D


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#45 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

More than enough..

 

-3 weeks or 6 days.. Stop smoking that badass pod, douche.

 

-Why come up with a useless example as.. at the end of a game it is a spy+general vs a marshall..

This example will happen. 1 in a 1000 games? If at the one game, i did not managed to take down your spy, your truelly deserve the points..

 

-Lotto players are succesfull because the majority use the bombs on the same common places.. 

Besides that people use scouts and low pieces to be more succesfull at lotto..

 

Your 1 of 6 is complete bullshit too.... Lotto charges dont happen suddenly on the last row.. Add the cornered flag situation and ya got 28 spaces left..

28 spaces : the 7 pieces ya can run into means?

Wanna add running into a marshall too?

 

Don't come up with mathematics at me, youngster.. 

The chance my IQ is above yours is 99.9%..

 

 

- What's been said about silver players is common sense..

You've played to much, which is the reason your on top.

over 70% of people playing are kids/juveniles

 

most of the 70% kids/juveniles hardly no the rules on this site

 

If we all had such a miserable life as yours spending all day on Stratego.com.. How many people would be in gold and silver division?

And where would you be?

 

- over 40 games lost thanks to null-errors or frozen piece bugs..

200+ games played in quick arena.. Don't judge a book by its covers, my simple minded fool.

 

- Most of us people use miners as disguised bombs.. just as most of us use sergeants as slow-scouts or scout-stoppers

In your (once again, STUPID example).. aim for a disguised bomb.. Either you gets rewarded with ya opponent having -70 point or you end up with -50 points..

 

COMMON SENSE, FOOL..


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#46 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 03 May 2013 - 01:37 AM

-3 weeks or 6 days.. Stop smoking that badass pod, douche.

 

-Why come up with a useless example as.. at the end of a game it is a spy+general vs a marshall..

This example will happen. 1 in a 1000 games?

 

-Lotto players are succesfull because the majority use the bombs on the same common places.. 

Besides that people use scouts and low pieces to be more succesfull at lotto..

 

You 1 of 6 is complete bullshit too.... Lotto charges dont happen suddenly on the last row.. Add the cornered flag situation and ya got 28 spaces left..

28 spaces : the 7 pieces ya can run into means?

 

Don't come up with mathematics at me, youngster.. 

The chance my IQ is above yours is 99.9%..

 

 

- What's been said about silver players is common sense..

You've played to much, which is the reason your on top.

over 70% of people playing are kids/juveniles

 

most of the 70% kids/juveniles hardly no the rules on this site

 

If we all had such a miserable life as yours spending all day on Stratego.com.. How many people would be in gold and silver division?

 

- over 40 games lost thanks to null-errors or frozen piece bugs..

300+ games played in quick arena.. Don't judge a book by its covers, my simple minded fool.

 

- Most of us people use miners as disguised bombs.. just as most of us use sergeants as slow-scouts or scout-stoppers

In your (once again, STUPID example).. aim for a disguised bomb.. Either you gets rewarded with ya opponent having -70 point or you end up with -50 points..

 

COMMON SENSE, FOOL..

 

1) You used a quote from me but in which context?  I don't know but I guess that's logic right....

Typical btw,...you don't have arguments so now I'm a smoker as well B)

2) If you make rules, then it's the goal that they are bulletproof.  It wouldn't be the first time that such a situation would occur on the board so in that case, your value system would have a serious problem.

But of course you deny that, blablabla, you don't give arguments why you think you're right while I proved it's wrong

3) You speak quite arrogantly so called "in name of most players" that they won't place bombs behind the lake.

It's not because you think those bombs would fok up your movability that other players automatically think the same about that.

Actually, the better players often have a bomb behind the lake, second row left towards the edge.

You also state that most people will use scouts, lieutenants or majors to gather information.

I thought you said the miners and the spy decide the game and they are the information collectors?

Pretty skitzo if you ask me :)

4)Typical simple noob's reply : "what I said about the silverplayers is common sense"

Common sense is that you back it up with valid arguments or in this case math.

So what you state is complete bs cuz' if 10 percent of the site is silver and there are about 1000 people, then it means

that 700 people are a child or juvenile who don't completely understand the rules and just play for fun.

Statiscally this means that from the 100 silverplayers (not the exact amount but to make it easy), 70 players have to be child or juvenile.

It could be a little more or less but the average would be 70.

How the fok can you become silver if you just play for the fun and don't understand the rules?!

If you want to become silver, you need to practise and it usually takes an adult brain as well

to think more advanced, which is quite logical if you think about it.

I'm not claiming that juveniles can't make the silver league, of course they can but the chance this would happen

is less likely than an adult reaching the league.

The more you play, the more chance you could have to develop skills to improve your game.

But this doesn't necessarily means that you automatically need to play lots of games,...that's what you say.

It could very well be that an adult player who begins here can become silver within only 40 games

because he has a natural talent for the game.

5) There are lots of players that played way more games than I have.

It's not because I've played more games than you, that you therefore can say I'm miserable.

Doesn't make any sense but I guess that's just another personal attack because of the lack of valid arguments :)

6) 300 quick games,.....so most of your games were quick games,...probably because you're too afraid to play the real stuff ranked? :)

7) Why would you go for points if you have to go for the flag or the kill?

That's the goal of the game,....not to collect points, wtf,...but whatever.

Having a debate with you is simply impossible, that's for sure.:)


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#47 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:01 AM

again way to much..

 

- with lake I obvious ment straight below the lake, not on the second row.. gosh your an idiot

 

- ofcourse it ain't bulletproof, otherwise the method would already exist, dont ya think?

Why do you think drew opened this thread for?

So what did you proofed in the end?

Once again, if you able to let ya spy survive till the moment an auto-end comes in, you deserve all probs, till then, hardly any1 will achieve this without wasting bombs around the spy.

So once again, your stupid example is just plain stupid and total irrelevant, just because it will hardly happen (how often do you need me or drew to tell you that?)

 

- once again, your simple minded.. 70% of all people still will be 70% of all people, and not 70% of the silver leaderboards.. There is a reason we got leaderboards don't ya think? It's quite obvious the smarter, more mature people will be on top of the leaderboards

Im not even gonna read what is beyond the 70% of silver leaderboards bullshit as ONCE AGAIN, it is irrelevant.

 

- Every1 on the forums KNOWS you play alot.. once again, what would happen if we all played alot like you do, which automaticly means that those 70% which didn't know how to play at first, will become alot less.

 

Where would you be on the leaderboards, if this was the case?

Wanna add those people who play and live in countries where Stratego is close to unheard?

 

Besides that I don't see any1 on the silver leaderboards who played as much as you do.. So keep on braggin about your silver status, it takes only 1 game to lose and you're a Bronze Marshall as I am.. 

 

"there are alots of players who played more than i have"? Kidding me? I've checked the leaderboards and I can count them on 1 hand!! Maybe a few don't appear on the leaderboards, as they also play quick games which means i can count them on 2 hands..

 

 

 

 

 

- I play quick games because it is actually more fun, especially with the frozen piece bugs and null-errors (which hardly happen in quick 5 minute games).. Besides that, unlike you, i got a bit of a life which means im unable to play 500+ games x atleast 15 minutes. (if not 30 mins. or an hour games)

 

- With a point-system ya play to win, not to draw or "collect" points.. It was an example at your useless and stupid example..

So once again. if some1 managed to keep a miner, for example, disguised as a bomb (as most people use a few miners for), and he survives till the auto-end, it definitly should be worth more than a useless slow-scout called sergeant

 

 

 

 

- Forget the part i asked you to see a doctor, for your schitzofreni, you are hopeless, you should seek for something to put you out your (if i complete this, ill get a ban)

 

- please for once just SHUT THE FLICK UP, as all you talk lately is bullshi


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#48 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:52 PM

 

 

And by the way, yes, wars in real life do end up in Draws.  Check out Antietam (Sharpsburg for you Northies) in the Civil War, or Lundy's Lane in the War of 1812, or Sollum in WWII.  Real leaders surrender or call a truce because they have real flesh and blood soldiers to think about.  In that way, we're nothing close to real.  Stratego's a game, pure and simple.  If I think I can win this game, I will darn sure try.  

 

 

For every example you come up which ended in a draw, i can give 100 examples which ended in wins/losses..

Don't act like it's common, as when/if a point-system will be introduced, your examples will be just as common as a stratego match which end up with exactly the same pieces for both sides..

 

 

 

 

 

 

I try to leave these topics behind, as I wanna see how the rest of the community thinks about a situation like Trickz said in this quote..

 

"If I have only the general left with a sealed flag and you have a sealed flag as well plus you have the general, two colonels, a major, two lieutenants and three sergeants,...............AND if I know where your general is"

 

So community,, what if your in a situation like this where you are the one with a general and all other pieces and your opponent is the one with ONLY the general..

 

Do you think you are stolen a victory, as your the person who didn't fcked it up?

 

Would you keep playing to "force" your win, until the other decides to forfeit (to find out his position is hopeless, unlike yours, just as Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Khaddafi g.e. did)

With other words, would a point-system be more fair, or do you completly accept the fact that you don't "deserve" a victory as you can't grab the flag nor kill his last piece.


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#49 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 May 2013 - 05:37 AM

Patty, if the situation is a fully bombed flag and one movable piece of the opponent versus a fully bombed flag and eight other movable pieces of yourself, then one potential methodology is to do what Drew would despise and try to mix up all of your pieces sufficiently to fool your opponent as to where your general is.  If you blow up generals, you win, so the game is still imminently winnable by you in this circumstance.  I only say that there be a limit of 200 moves without an attack to pull off the winning deception in this case.  Theoretically, that means the game could go on for several hundred moves with as many pieces remaining as in your example above.  But it at least would definitely end.  

 

Anyone who says that the object of Stratego is something other than capturing the flag or killing all of your opponents pieces is not talking of the classic game.  Drew has pushed many alternate ways of playing in the forums.  You fellas can set up a point system if you want Patty.  It just wouldn't be the classic game.  I kind of think you'll have better luck introducing it as an option (add to Drew's list of options?) than as a fundamental change to the basic game.  

 

Although I am not in accord with any point-system idea, in the spirit of being constructive, I think you would be better considering point values from the vantage point of the classic game in your thinking.  One thing comes to mind here concerns the value of the Spy.  Amidst all the noise between you and Trickz I did hear part of a discussion going on.  At one point you were saying something about how a player ought to be rewarded for keeping his Spy throughout the game, I believe.  Well, Patty, you have to know that kind of thinking is not in line with the classic game.  The Spy has two values, one that is very high, the other low.  There is no value for simply keeping the Spy til the end of the game.  This is what I mean by keeping your points thinking in line with the classic game.  Most people, I don't think, will trip over the concept you propose if it at least makes sense with the game that they know here.  It's an idea anyway.    


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

#50 SuperDrew2k

SuperDrew2k

    Miner

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:04 AM

gary, pretend a value score will be implemented...what would you suggest each piece value to be?


Hmm....i wonder where that marshal went

#51 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:54 AM

gary, pretend a value score will be implemented...what would you suggest each piece value to be?

 

Drew, I don't know.  

 

I am on such the other side on this one I just can't contribute to the points idea.  But I will throw this out.  You are trying to establish values for pieces that are absolute and unchanging.  Well, let me tell you.  A Sergeant at the beginning of the game is expendable, perhaps, but at end of the game?  How has his value changed?  Another point:  If my opponent has only a Marshal, a Lieutenant, and a Sergeant; and I only have a Major and a Captain and a Spy, and we both have frontally exposed flags, who has the most power?  It's a dead heat, I submit.  My Major is equal to his Marshal, and though I have a Captain to his Lieutenant and Sergeant, I can in no way capture his Lieutenant or Sergeant without moving my Major uncomfortably off my flag.  Your effort seeks to reward piece values at the end of the game as a way of deciding games that would otherwise end in a Draw.  I just believe you have to look at what each piece is really worth in context, and I just don't think it is a profitable pursuit to try and determine absolute values.  As I said earlier the Spy is worth a lot in one situation and pretty worthless in a different situation, so that's another example.


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 SuperDrew2k

SuperDrew2k

    Miner

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:25 AM

gary, you suck...almost as much as a BS draw.

 

imagine being a spectator at the stratego world championship...the final, you sit there for 90+ minutes watching the two players carefully think out each move...it comes down to the end, finally, after they traded away all there pieces and neither are capable of snagging the flag..

..two trophies?

"sorry folks...i guess they will just have to play another long azz game to determine the champ later"..."come back tomorrow to see the excitement, hopefully it doesnt end with another draw, again, and again..."

 

but luckily most games do end with a flag victory or forfeit. so really a score would hardly ever be used. its main purpose would be for forced endings or stubborn peeps that refuse to say die. not a fun option, what the hell is fun about having a score?

 

youre right, piece values would vary during the game....no scouts early on can suck for trying to kill / find a spy. but whatever...should a scout value decrease once a spy is dead? ...thats why i stated piece value at the start of the game...so, you seriously cant add up an honest value proposal?

 

i get it though....youre afraid to betray the classic stratego gods watching from above...."how dare gary try to change our perfect game" ...or maybe the purists will start picking on you for having an imagination.


Hmm....i wonder where that marshal went

#53 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 05 May 2013 - 10:28 AM

Patty, if the situation is a fully bombed flag and one movable piece of the opponent versus a fully bombed flag and eight other movable pieces of yourself, then one potential methodology is to do what Drew would despise and try to mix up all of your pieces sufficiently to fool your opponent as to where your general is.  If you blow up generals, you win, so the game is still imminently winnable by you in this circumstance.  I only say that there be a limit of 200 moves without an attack to pull off the winning deception in this case.  Theoretically, that means the game could go on for several hundred moves with as many pieces remaining as in your example above.  But it at least would definitely end.  

 

Anyone who says that the object of Stratego is something other than capturing the flag or killing all of your opponents pieces is not talking of the classic game.  Drew has pushed many alternate ways of playing in the forums.  You fellas can set up a point system if you want Patty.  It just wouldn't be the classic game.  I kind of think you'll have better luck introducing it as an option (add to Drew's list of options?) than as a fundamental change to the basic game.  

 

Although I am not in accord with any point-system idea, in the spirit of being constructive, I think you would be better considering point values from the vantage point of the classic game in your thinking.  One thing comes to mind here concerns the value of the Spy.  Amidst all the noise between you and Trickz I did hear part of a discussion going on.  At one point you were saying something about how a player ought to be rewarded for keeping his Spy throughout the game, I believe.  Well, Patty, you have to know that kind of thinking is not in line with the classic game.  The Spy has two values, one that is very high, the other low.  There is no value for simply keeping the Spy til the end of the game.  This is what I mean by keeping your points thinking in line with the classic game.  Most people, I don't think, will trip over the concept you propose if it at least makes sense with the game that they know here.  It's an idea anyway.    

 

But why ain't I talking about the "classic" game? As i'm talking about a point-system I don't think it actually change the game, does it?

The only thing it change would be the outcome of the game, in the end, which would be more fair if you'd asked me..

Which also would speed things up and gets rid of unsportsmanslike behaviour..

 

As I said, im glad most people just accept their losses and forfeit, but for those who don't got the brains and keep on playing vs. those who actually does have a life and don't wanna sit for hours for a few rankings, there should come a point-system.

 

 

An auto-draw system would not be the solution, if you'd ask me..

I think this will be abuseable an would be far from sportsmanslike..

 

So instead of killing all pieces or capturing the flag, an auto-draw would be more about running and hiding..

We all know that for some situations around the lake its all about luring.. Both players got a last change of getting to the flag, the question is who doesn't count the spaces or is more into killing the other..

This is where the topic, "remember the game you should had lost, but won"

Forget about that topic, as no1 would try it anymore if they are "down in material". There would only be more "safe play"

 

For a change, a point-system , once again, which will only applie at the end of the game (nothing "not" classic about it) would bring more action.. People would think twice, middle/ near the end of the game..

To me, i truelly think an auto-end point-system would only make the game more interesting, unlike the endless games or endless draws.

 

The spy..

I don't see no problem with my points on the spy.. Spies won't survive anyways.. but if it does, it actually could be decisive..

Nobody memorize the spy, as soon as the Marshall is gone.. But everybody uses it to trap or lure pieces, am I right? Now how often did you see, for example, a last miner getting trapped by a spy?

What i ment to say is that, at the end of the game, any "unknown" piece IS high value.. So if a spy remains unknown or simply not being catched by you or the opponent , it really deserves points.


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#54 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:01 PM

But why ain't I talking about the "classic" game? As i'm talking about a point-system I don't think it actually change the game, does it?

The only thing it change would be the outcome of the game, in the end, which would be more fair if you'd asked me..

Which also would speed things up and gets rid of unsportsmanslike behaviour..

 

As I said, im glad most people just accept their losses and forfeit, but for those who don't got the brains and keep on playing vs. those who actually does have a life and don't wanna sit for hours for a few rankings, there should come a point-system.

 

 

An auto-draw system would not be the solution, if you'd ask me..

I think this will be abuseable an would be far from sportsmanslike..

 

So instead of killing all pieces or capturing the flag, an auto-draw would be more about running and hiding..

We all know that for some situations around the lake its all about luring.. Both players got a last change of getting to the flag, the question is who doesn't count the spaces or is more into killing the other..

This is where the topic, "remember the game you should had lost, but won"

Forget about that topic, as no1 would try it anymore if they are "down in material". There would only be more "safe play"

 

For a change, a point-system , once again, which will only applie at the end of the game (nothing "not" classic about it) would bring more action.. People would think twice, middle/ near the end of the game..

To me, i truelly think an auto-end point-system would only make the game more interesting, unlike the endless games or endless draws.

 

The spy..

I don't see no problem with my points on the spy.. Spies won't survive anyways.. but if it does, it actually could be decisive..

Nobody memorize the spy, as soon as the Marshall is gone.. But everybody uses it to trap or lure pieces, am I right? Now how often did you see, for example, a last miner getting trapped by a spy?

What i ment to say is that, at the end of the game, any "unknown" piece IS high value.. So if a spy remains unknown or simply not being catched by you or the opponent , it really deserves points.

 

What I mean by the classic game is the board game.  One can make this online experience very similar, I think, but there are definite problems inherent here that need to be addressed.  The nature of playing someone not face to face with them is the source of the problem.  In that case you just look at each other and call it a Draw and quit.  Since no ELO points are involved no one has any gripes.

 

The concept of an Automatic Draw is not part of the classic game either, per se, but it is not out of line with it.  A rule to automatically end the game at some point seeks only to prevent bad online behavior.  In in-person, friendly games, we would all just walk away from the stalemated game.  The goal for the Auto Draw, in my opinion, is to enact programming which least interferes with the game that would enforce this "walking away" from the stalemated game for both players.  (I leave equitable ELO points distributions for a Draw to another topic.)

 

Your points system is a fundamental change to the "classic game" because a points system has not been done that way in any of the board game versions, at least ones I know of.

 

Another point is that you say "an auto-end point-system would only make the game more interesting, unlike the endless games or endless draws. "

This "auto-end point-system" has not been laid out yet.  There have been talks about what this or that piece should be valued, but how would you end the game automatically?  Tell us the mechanism for the auto game end in your system.   I assume you would award a winner-takes-all victory to the player with the better material picture, but would you end the game based on points somehow?  

 

The last point I want to make today refers to your words below.  You back what I have been trying to say about point values.  It's hard to assign them absolutely.  As you say, an unknown piece is of high value.  

 

What i ment to say is that, at the end of the game, any "unknown" piece IS high value.. So if a spy remains unknown or simply not being catched by you or the opponent , it really deserves points.

 

Months ago White Knight posted here that he had to guess his attack between a bomb and an unmoved Sergeant.  He guessed wrong and a Draw game became a loss.  So the piece value of the unknown piece would become quite great in that common case. It wasn't merely a "Sergeant".  It was an UNKNOWN Sergeant.  I don't know how you can assign point values in any kind of absolute way, therefore.   

 

But the main question for the moment, to me, with your points system is how you would want to automatically end games.


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

#55 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:18 PM

gary, you suck...almost as much as a BS draw.

 

imagine being a spectator at the stratego world championship...the final, you sit there for 90+ minutes watching the two players carefully think out each move...it comes down to the end, finally, after they traded away all there pieces and neither are capable of snagging the flag..

..two trophies?

"sorry folks...i guess they will just have to play another long azz game to determine the champ later"..."come back tomorrow to see the excitement, hopefully it doesnt end with another draw, again, and again..."

 

 

This is why you just don't get the point.

If you're aware of ISF tournaments, then you would never say this cuz' there is no final in such a tournament.

The games will be played according to the Swiss tournament system.

http://en.wikipedia....stem_tournament

This means that no matter what the outcome is in the "final" (there isn't even a final!) there is always a global outcome who wins the tournament.

All the players will play the same amount of matches in this system,....6 or 7, depending on the participants.

Whoever has the best score in those six or seven matches will win the tournament.

And this is ALWAYS the case btw,....there is no knockout stage in tournaments.

 

For the rest,...Gary described it perfectly :

Anyone who says that the object of Stratego is something other than capturing the flag or killing all of your opponents pieces is not talking of the classic game.

 

I love all the variatons of the game to play in fungames against your friends.

And believe me,...I've used every imaginable rule thinkable in those games and it's really fun to play like that.

However,...it's no serious play, it's just for fun.  In the classic game there can never be a value system, in not a single circumstance.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#56 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

 

But the main question for the moment, to me, with your points system is how you would want to automatically end games.

 

That question is quite easy to answer.. Instead of the auto-draw after x-numbers of moves, we could use an auto-end game after x-numbers of moves.. Based on a good designed point-system some1 could be declared a winner..

There was a poll which one of the answers was.. Auto-end  and the winner is decided by highest piece.. This is a bad option, as 1 marshall or general cannot trap 3 low pieces on it's own..

 

About the unknown sergeant.. I don't know how the game went, so I can't talk about why he moved his last piece to the disguised bomb or what his opponents pieces were..

But as soon as people meets and are used to a point-system, they will adjust their playstyle on it.. 

Just as we had to adjust to the recent updates

 

All I know is that he made a choice and it went wrong.. If he took the flag , it was just another played and forgotten unheard story.

But assume he had a major and his opponent had this unknown sergeant and a lt., he can't trap one of them, so based on a point-system he would be behind.. At this point its either lose by auto-end or try to get a victory by gamble.

( which he did eventually anyway, as how i think of it now i like his style as he play to win instead of always blocking/chase games)..


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#57 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:37 PM

imagine being a spectator at the stratego world championship...the final, you sit there for 90+ minutes watching the two players carefully think out each move...it comes down to the end, finally, after they traded away all there pieces and neither are capable of snagging the flag..

..two trophies?

"sorry folks...i guess they will just have to play another long azz game to determine the champ later"..."come back tomorrow to see the excitement, hopefully it doesnt end with another draw, again, and again..."

 

but luckily most games do end with a flag victory or forfeit. so really a score would hardly ever be used. its main purpose would be for forced endings or stubborn peeps that refuse to say die. not a fun option, what the hell is fun about having a score?

 

Drew, my question is still how would your points system be employed to automatically end the game?  Adjudicating a winner based upon points is one thing, but ending the game so that this can be done is quite another.  How would you do this?  

 

Since I know nothing of any tournament play I can't comment knowledgeably about whether points should be used in any tournament play.  I see Trickz has stated the ISF uses Swiss Tournament Rules.  

 

I find it interesting that you don't see but a rare ("hardly ever be used") use of your points system.  You and Patty have been pressing for it like it would change half the games, I thought.  

 

Back to the points valuation itself, you say:

 

youre right, piece values would vary during the game....no scouts early on can suck for trying to kill / find a spy. but whatever...should a scout value decrease once a spy is dead? ...thats why i stated piece value at the start of the game...so, you seriously cant add up an honest value proposal?

 

 

Drew, you've said the use of your points system would be to determine the winner at the end of the game, yet here you say you would assign points for pieces at the beginning.  And you admit that the value of pieces changes during the game....   The difference between us, my friend, is that you would attempt to climb this mountain of a problem (assigning absolute point values to pieces), whereas I just look at it and am persuaded to go have a beer.  (And I don't even drink!)  Especially since you have said here that your points values would "hardly be used", what is the fuss all about?


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 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 05 May 2013 - 03:58 PM

That question is quite easy to answer.. Instead of the auto-draw after x-numbers of moves, we could use an auto-end game after x-numbers of moves.. Based on a good designed point-system some1 could be declared a winner..

There was a poll which one of the answers was.. Auto-end  and the winner is decided by highest piece.. This is a bad option, as 1 marshall or general cannot trap 3 low pieces on it's own..

 

Patty, first of all, wildest CONGRATS on making Silver Scout!  You have meteoric in your rise lately.  It seems you were just Bronze Colonel yesterday....  Good luck in staying up there.

 

Okay, so the issue is let's have an automatic end after X number of moves and then either adjudicate a Draw or a Points System victor, right?  Then, we could put out a poll and get a few responses.  The poll might be:  "Do You Wish to Enact an Automatic Game End with:  1) a Draw result for both players, or 2) a Points System victor result?"  

 

The Draw topic has stopped on 200 moves per player as of the last time it was discussed.  That is a large number of moves, perhaps, but it's better than playing forever.  If folks would like to see a Points System winner after this time, or a Draw, we could hear the comments.  I don't honestly think that even the ISF is going to adopt a Points System, but I don't knock your system on that account.  My first and lasting comment is that your Points System is not the way the board game is played, and so you must confess you are suggesting a fundamental change to the rules of the game here, even if your system is not likely to be used very often, as Drew indicated.


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

#59 SuperDrew2k

SuperDrew2k

    Miner

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 06 May 2013 - 01:47 AM

Drew, my question is still how would your points system be employed to automatically end the game?  Adjudicating a winner based upon points is one thing, but ending the game so that this can be done is quite another.  How would you do this?  

 

i would suggest an attack counter on the side of the board...say, 200? moves with no attack and the game ends leaving the high score as the winner. the average game is around 300-600 moves total...but ive seen some long games (shufflers / defensive / etc) last for 1200-1500 moves. so i think 200 wouldnt be a bad choice. 

 

Since I know nothing of any tournament play I can't comment knowledgeably about whether points should be used in any tournament play.  I see Trickz has stated the ISF uses Swiss Tournament Rules.

 

i know nothing either, and what trickz said doesnt surprise me being that most of what the ISF does is probably stupid. i would rather the tournament come down to the two best playing each other to determine the champ. think of the score count like watching a boxing match. is the fight automatically a draw if no fighter is knocked out? score each piece taken would be the same as counting the punches thrown. so if the flag isnt captured, we could go to the judges / score and determine the champ.

 

I find it interesting that you don't see but a rare ("hardly ever be used") use of your points system.  You and Patty have been pressing for it like it would change half the games, I thought.  

 

im not pressing anything, american numbering on the pieces is all i really cared about as far as change. patty and i are just throwing out our opinions.

i only suggested it mainly for a solution to the chasers, which i think would have been much better than the one thats in effect now. i hardly ever had any draws in the thousands of games ives played, but im the type to forfeit if i know ive lost. but i do think a winner should be announced if the losing player cant admit they lost. (had weaker pieces)

i saw you say that you are just as happy with a draw...so by that way of thinking...you should just hunt your oppenents miners instead of the flag...hell, a couple good lotto runs...and you could be a winner in your eyes. right? 

 

Back to the points valuation itself, you say:

 

 

Drew, you've said the use of your points system would be to determine the winner at the end of the game, yet here you say you would assign points for pieces at the beginning.  And you admit that the value of pieces changes during the game....   The difference between us, my friend, is that you would attempt to climb this mountain of a problem (assigning absolute point values to pieces), whereas I just look at it and am persuaded to go have a beer.  (And I don't even drink!)  Especially since you have said here that your points values would "hardly be used", what is the fuss all about?

 

i think the piece values should have a set value from the start so there is no confusion during the game like, "ok my marshal is dead so now your spy is worthless. if you want to start the game with both spys scored as a zero, that would be fine with me....what ever the concensus agrees on.

no matter what, the goal of stratego would stay the same...which is...try to keep your stronger pieces alive as you battle your way to the flag.

 

 

 


Hmm....i wonder where that marshal went

#60 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:58 PM

Patty, first of all, wildest CONGRATS on making Silver Scout!  You have meteoric in your rise lately.  It seems you were just Bronze Colonel yesterday....  Good luck in staying up there.

 

Okay, so the issue is let's have an automatic end after X number of moves and then either adjudicate a Draw or a Points System victor, right?  Then, we could put out a poll and get a few responses.  The poll might be:  "Do You Wish to Enact an Automatic Game End with:  1) a Draw result for both players, or 2) a Points System victor result?"  

 

The Draw topic has stopped on 200 moves per player as of the last time it was discussed.  That is a large number of moves, perhaps, but it's better than playing forever.  If folks would like to see a Points System winner after this time, or a Draw, we could hear the comments.  I don't honestly think that even the ISF is going to adopt a Points System, but I don't knock your system on that account.  My first and lasting comment is that your Points System is not the way the board game is played, and so you must confess you are suggesting a fundamental change to the rules of the game here, even if your system is not likely to be used very often, as Drew indicated.

 

 

Thanks, but i'm already a Bronze Marshall, it's hard to stay on top. 

 

I've no idea where this draw topic has ended, as its way too confusing.. People brought to many side-idea's.

Full binds/half binds, 200 through game, 200 when none attacks..

For now, chasing ain't the problem nomore so i would suggest 50 unattacked moves for player X before an auto-end and a point system comes in.

 

ISF is far from a FIFA or FIBA.. 

If or if they do not gonna adopt it, i can't care about.. As i bet there are only a handfull of players who actually do ranked live games.. 

Against 10 thousands of players who play with their own rules and styles...

 

 

For those who say, "stratego is about capture the flag or taking out all pieces (quite hard, uh, if people whine about chasing).. Any other thing is just a draw, FOREVER, PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION

You're talking bullshi..

 

Stratego is a game of duel/battle.. This way its best to compare it with boxing..

And if even boxing federations did implent a point-system, why the fck can't we/ the ISF?

 

It's quite ridicilous to say, ey, both players still standing in the last round so lets say it's a draw..

As "you didn't kocked him out" and "you also didn't injured his fists"..

 

The fittest person wins and it should also be at Stratego..


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users