Jump to content


Photo

New Idea! How to deal with chasers, delayers and other bad mannered behavior


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 02:19 AM

Spiff, I do understand it but it's just ridiculous in my opinon.
And to back someone down means that he can't kill the piece, he just tries to contain it in safe distance, no?
But the back down automatically leads to lose the piece and a piece can only be caught while it's being attacked.
A chase is forcing a move to attack.
The only intention of him doing "the back down-part" is to kill me and to be strategically good on the bord.
If the corridor is completely empty, then there is no problem cuz' i could go back and forth for the whole column and he could never catch me.
But since there were two bombs on my bottom part, I was trapped and that means that you don't have the right to avoid an attack by a superior piece. That's what backing down means then?

You must always be able to avoid an attack by a single piece.
But then again, he probably knew my bombs were there and he forced me to go there while I didn't understand the rule.
Nevertheless,....I think it's garbage and it can not be the intention that the chaser (cuz' that's what he clearly does, he starts the full bind, he goes down, i go up, he goes up, i go down, he goes down, which is impossible normally but i can't go up anymore.
But yet he can violate the 2square rule in a full bind, back 'n forth, down, up, down......I can't do that but he can,....
It doesn't make any sense but maybe I just don't understand it at all like you said.


The most simple rule would be that there is no 2square rule at all.
People may attack whatever they want and people may avoid the attacks every time.
If you do the same move 10 times, you should get a defeat or a disconnection.
A note on the screen that clearly tells you to not repeat the same move 10 times in a row because otherwise you automatically lose.

In this way, the games will never go to infinity because after the ninth move, the opponent has got to do make another move and so the game will go on although it's very slow.

But yeah, that's how I see it.
I just don't get the idea that you can't avoid an attack by someone that clearly wants you dead.
And because he wants that, it shall be done and boem, away is my piece.
It's just stupid, sorry.

If I didn't have bombs on the bottom, I would have survived his "backing down".
Now I didn't survive his backing down.
What have my bombs got to do with his backing down in the first place?
The fact is....the corridor is full empty spaces and I can go four spaces back and forth so enough space that he can't kill me.
But no, that's not possible,...I must be killied whether I like it or not.


They should take the rule out of the game and every full bind which has been created by the stronger piece in order to back the weaker piece down, should be treated like a chase.
Every fullbind with known pieces is an attempt to attack so it's a chase.
Leave the rule out, take an anti chasing counter on the screen and on ten, it's game over.

But yeah, does it matter, who cares, that's just how I see it and that's how I played Stratego my whole life.


Trickz
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#22 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 30 November 2012 - 11:03 PM

Trickz,

It sounds like at one point you were 1 square away from his Marshal vertically or horizontally. Let’s say it is your opponent’s turn and your General is diagonally 1 square away from his Marshal. When he moves on his turn in the same row or column as your General, he will have started the 2 square rule.

But, if he was resting 1 space away from your General on the same row or column and moves vertically or horizontally adjacent to your General, you’re screwed. You then are forced to move away creating a diagonal which means you have started the 2 square rule. If an opponent’s piece moves in a manner that allows them to be resting 1 square away from you in the same row or column, you need to move your piece off of that row or column immediately if you do not wish to be trapped by the 2 square rule. The code works, you just have to understand it better, because a lot of veteran players on this site use the 2 square rule tactic to trap pieces like I’ve described above.

All in all, it sounds like you basically trapped yourself. You ventured out too far with your General and he got stuck on the left side of the board. If his Marshal started in the same column as your General and moved adjacently vertical to your General right after you captured his Major, you’re screwed by the 2 square rule.

Now, this wouldn’t have been too much of a problem if you were diagonally away from his Marshal and waited for his Marshal to get vertically or horizontally adjacent to your General. Then you could dodge him on your upcoming turn and if he continues to move back and forth, he will get dinged by the 2 square rule. If the anti-chase idea that we have laid out gets implemented, then he would get dinged for chasing if he continues to reconstruct the same broken binds.

Hope this helps. I think I know who you are talking about by the way. He keeps his Marshal on the left side behind a Major on the 2nd column and attacks with the Major. He then retreats the Major back to the Marshal to bait your Colonel or General.

HmmNess
Posted Image

#23 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

Hmness, it still doesn't make any sense to me.
I understand the rules but it's not logical at all.
He didn't attack with the major first btw,....that major attacked in the middle, then it ran back up and i followed it with my general.
His marshall was on the right side of the middle so I break through the middle, chased his major to the left but he didn't move it.
Obviously I was gonna grab it and AFTER that move he went on chasing me with his marshall.
I couldn't go back down through the middle so I had to go to my left flank.
I'm on the inside of the left flank now and there is one space between us but he keeps on following and now we're in a full bind which he created.
I can go to the left or I can go down. I chose to go to the left.
Then he goes down so he's standing next to me on the corridor on the left flank.
I go up, he goes up, I go down, he goes down and I can't go up anymore so I go down.
It's just a stupid rule.
There are enough empty spaces so why do I have to offer my general if it can freely move?
It is HIS FAULT that he attacked with a major while his marshall was known to me but yet I can't go explore that situation?
So i'm being punished because he reveals his marshall.
If he used the major as bait in the hope I would kill it while his unknown marshall is standing behind it, THEN I can understand it.
But I know where he was and yet I can't avoid his attack.

It's absolutely ridicilous, I have to be able to avoid his attack at any time.
If he wants me away, then he should commit suicide with his general or trap me with his marshall so my general can't do anymore harm. That I can understand but I just can't understand why a higher piece can make you force to give your piece if he's standing diagonally in a corridor from you.
Doesn't make any sense, it's just disgusting.

If the top players on this site play like that,....then it's just pathetic in my opinion.
You can grab pieces by ATTACKING it.
You can't grab pieces by backing a piece down because a back down is not seen as a chase so therefore it's not an attempt to attack.
And yet that's the only purpose he had from the beginning.
To trap my general.
To be trapped means that I'm stuck and I can't go out and he's gonna kill me anyway.
But the fact is,..........I can get out because of the empty spaces and the diagonally-part so I should not be forced to give my piece to him.
I'm only forced to give my piece to him when I'm TRAPPED so that means when I simply can't move anymore to avoid his attack.
The moment I'm still able to avoid his attack and put it on an empty space, his chances should be hopeless.


If you have te right to attack and chase at all times, then you should also have te right to avoid the attack at all times.
That's logic for me.

The 2square rule should be banned out of the game, it's that simple.
Let people attack what they want, let them chase what they want.
As long as you can avoid his attack, you are fine.
When he keeps on fullbinding his piece (whether it's horizontal or vertical, doesn't matter) for 10 times in a row, he should get a disconnect or an automatic loss.


Everybody would have done the same thing as me in the situation I just described above.
But yeah,.....apparantly this is the new official rule so I better get used to it.
It ruins the whole game for me though because it doesn't make sense at all, it's totally unlogic.
Knowing where his marshall is and yet I can do nothing to stop his attack.

What would you do if your opponent charges with a marshall on the rightside of the board and you detect it with an explorer knowing that his major is in the middle weak and undefenced?
Indeed,....you are gonna chase it with your general and that's what I did.

But I guess it's a well thought killer tactic of him to use then?


What a bullshit :)
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#24 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:01 PM

"The 2square rule should be banned out of the game, it's that simple.
Let people attack what they want, let them chase what they want."

Trickz - you will lose a lot of credibility with statements like that. You state this because the 2-square rule didn't work for YOU in your scenario - it's up to you to setup the 2-square rule to your advantage in future games. The better payers do and I learned from watching them. Give it some thought.

Chasing is the single biggest problem with Stratego and the 2 square rule is a decent effort in curbing some of that. Stratego as an online game will never become popular unless chasing is controlled/prevented.

Spiff

#25 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 02 December 2012 - 12:01 AM

Spiffster,

I admit chasing is the number one problem in the game but it can be solved.
You don't need the 2square rule for that.
When an opponent's high ranked piece recreates the fullbind for 5 times (could be less or more, doesn't matter) in a row, he gets an automatic loss.
He'll get a warning on the third same move, a ring on the fourth and the defeat screen on the fifth.

What is important with this is that all full binds created by the stronger piece must be treated as attempts to kill the threatened piece.
So that means chasing. To back down and chasing are two different things according to you but eventually they are the same because the backdown can force a kill in the 2-square rule and chasing is ment to kill as well.
The only difference is that "to back down a piece" means even more than chasing :
1) you kill it
2) you're standing strategically in a good way


The problem is,....when are moves the same and define chasing?
This depends on the created fullbind.
If you're chasing someone back to his own territory, it is aloud because you're not making the same moves over and over again.
Instead of that, you just go up, up, up, up so there is no problem for that kind of chasing.
But if you recreate the fullbind with the same moves by chasing the other piece from left, right, left or down, up, down, then this should be considered as chasing and after three same moves, you should be warned.
After five, it's over and out.


In this way, there are no surprises, no confusions, nothing at all and yet it's still simple and clear.
Chasing is aloud but repetitive fullbind chasing is not aloud.


Btw,...it's not because I had the disadvantage a couple of times with that rule, that I'm saying this.
I just think this would be more fair and it serves every player eventually.

The chance that the rule will be banned is almost nothing but the point is that this rule is debatable.
It doesn't offer a fair result in my opinion.
If I lose credibility by saying this, so be it,...I don't mind.

I just think there are more ways to Rome than the 2square rule.


Being able to avoid attacks at all times when you are in a free movable zone is just one of them! :)


grtz

trickz
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#26 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 03 December 2012 - 12:49 PM

I think trickz has a good point here with the 2 square rule. If we were to implement the bind rule, the 2 square rule would not be needed. The 2 square rule is made for chasers right? Well, if you get dinged by the 2 square rule while you are running away, players are now using the 2 square rule to trap their opponents unrealistically. It’s almost like the players are using a program glitch to win a piece. I agree that you should be able to run away from pieces as long as you wish.

That being said, I don’t know exactly how they determine if a player is violating the 2 square rule in tournament play. Perhaps they just call a judge over and the judge just checks if someone is chasing or not. The judge would not know exactly how many spaces have been moved before the judge was called, so how would the judge be able to determine who has moved “x” amount of spaces? He said, she said, unless you are video recording each and every match.

With the Bind rule in place, there is no need for a judge, so there is no need for the 2 square rule. The AI will determine who is chasing and who is not. The chaser is always the one to create a Full-Bind first. So the odds are stacked against you when you have the urge to chase. If we take the time to look outside of the box, I think we will realize that the 2 square rule just needs to be replaced with something better. That’s my opinion on the matter, what’s yours Spiff?

HmmNess
Posted Image

#27 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:28 AM

What is being suggested here is to modify ISF rules which, in my humble opinion, is a big mistake. Organized movements require some type of official documented manifesto to govern the activities and decisions of the movement and for Stratego, that manifesto is the ISF rules. When I first started playing Stratego online, I never heard of the 2-square rule (ISF rule # 10) and got smoked due to my ignorance but quickly became aware that the vast majority of the Stratego player community recognized and practiced rule #10 as it was written in the ISF rules. Knowing that Stratego was not perfect (chasing, stalling BS) and needed governance, I got on board with rule #10 in short order so I could participate in the Stratego community in an orderly fashion. I reserve judgement on rule #10 and accept it at face value as I do the entire ISF rules. If the highly unlikely event that the ISF rules were to be officially modified regarding rule #10, I would support the decision.

The Christians got the Bible, the Muslims got the Quran, and we have the ISF rules - so be it.

Spiff

#28 acs451

acs451

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:38 AM

I gave up a piece to trap a 9 against the vertical boundary, having 4 spaces to move in the vertical column, he took my piece with the 9 putting it on the vertical boundaryand 4 empty spaces to move in the column, I move adjacent to his 9 with my marshall on the 2nd vertical column away from the boundary. which initiated the endless chase of his piece moving up and down continuously, I had laid the trap for his piece by baiting with my 5 so he would take it. and end up on the vertical boundary, whereby I would trap it against the boundary with my 10.
since he made the first move vertically he should be at fault. following the same rules as the 2 square rule. I shouldn't be penalized for setting the trap. the opponent could have avoided it, but chose not too.
I am thinking that the rule should extrapolate the 2 square rule to encompass the first vertical or horizontal move to avoid capture in repetitive chase scenarios. where there are mutiple spaces to move to, to avoid capture, and thereby create ad infinitum endless game scenarios.
Limit the vertical or horizontal repitition by the first person to move in vertical or horizontal in the endless chase scenarios.
thanks great site, and loads of fun. except for that one big problem. . so far expirenced it 3 times. in 50 games.

#29 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:49 AM

Okay,

It's just a matter of opinion then but it would be nice if the ISF would follow their new made rules permanently.
They already changed in the past a couple of times and instead of the total unlogic never solving and confusion 2square rule they could have a simple bind rule which serves everybody with fair logic.

Spiff, if the ISF decides tomorrow that there's gonna be another rule implemented, you follow as well?
This rule is only in place for two years and yet it seems to make more problems then the 5move-rule before.

But who am I? I'm just making suggestions for the chasing problem in order to have a fair and nice offical jumbo stratego game :)
The bind rule seems more a solution to integrate than the 2square rule.

I don't think they'll change the rule btw because of the holy visions of the stratetitious ISF fundementalists
but then again,.....believe systems are never about logic.


But yeah, this could be an endless discussion so the solution would probably be that it won't be changed.
So be it, I still love the game, even with that stupid rule. :)


grtz

trickz
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#30 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:57 AM

Alright, it seems like we should try to stick to implementing this bind rule. Seems like there is a bit of a debate about ISF rules, but our goal is to make this game work on THIS SITE. If we can stop chasing, then other sites, and perhaps even the ISF, might look at the way we do things here and modify their own rules.

The game is still in beta, so we can still work these chase problems out. For now, keeping the 2 square rule in will really have to be voted amongst the community. Same with this bind rule, we need people to make a decision if they want to implement this rule in game or not.

So let’s wipe the slate clean real quick, and I am going to start a new thread that will ask both of these questions. The thread will be titled “Vote – New Anti-Chase system.”

Question 1: Should the new “Bind-Rule” discussed in this thread be implemented in game? (Yes/No)
Link: http://forum.strateg...nered-behavior/

Question 2: Should the 2 square rule be removed from game and replaced with a new anti-chase system like the “Bind-Rule?” (Yes/No)

We need yes or no answers only and we can tally this up at the end. Just simply answer with:

Q1: (Yes or No)
Q2: (Yes or No)

If we keep this simple, hopefully the community will participate with the questionnaire to give us some positive feedback.

HmmNess
Posted Image

#31 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:00 AM

I thought we talked about this on this thread already - the "pre-bind" anti-chasing model only addresses some types of chasing. It does not address linear chasing (like chasing around the lakes) which I thought we said could be addressed if we included a warning after 10 consecutive "full-binds" (regardless of pre-binds)....Why did this disappear from the discussion? As I recall, there was player support for the 10 "full-bind" model in this thread.

I don't support half of a fix - I support only if both models are implemented. I mean how confusing will it be to players if they get warned some of the time when chasing but not other times??? How does that solve anything??

Spiff

#32 HmmNess

HmmNess

    Awesome Member

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:19 AM

I looked back at my post and I did say that a 12 Full-Bind system would be acceptable. I now don’t agree with that sort of system, because you are not ending up in the same position over and over. You are moving to different positions every turn. You are ending up on completely opposite sides of the board.

First of all, creating a 12 Full-Bind system would not work with the pre-bind system. The pre-bind system breaks full-binds if a piece separates itself 1 whole square away from an opponent piece. The 12 full-bind system will not work with the code in this manner.

Second of all, the 12 Full-Bind system is not needed if a Marshal is playing the attacker in this position. The Marshal will be making a huge mistake to follow a General all the way back to his camp. The General just needs to run around the lake and attack the opponent’s camp. Another reason why a 12 full-bind system is not needed in this situation, is because the General could just move back and forth if the 2 square rule was removed from the game. The pre-bind system would take care of the chaser if the Marshal moved back and forth.

But, let’s talk about lesser ranked pieces. If we look back at Wojtek’s little illustration, we can see some problems with the defending player. The Major basically ventured off too far which allowed the opponent’s General to chase him down. This should be allowed, because the defender was foolish enough to push his Major in an area that was unexplored in the first place. If the Major gets trapped in the process, it is his fault for venturing too far. If the General is able to wipe out 3 or 4 pieces, because the Major doesn’t want to be captured, it is the Major’s fault for venturing too far.

Let’s talk about chasing around the lake in general. A player decides to move the same piece around his side of the lake and then moves down toward your side. You follow him, because you do not want him to break through with that piece. He runs back to his camp and runs around the other side of the lake. You follow him to make sure he doesn’t break through. This can continue for a long time. This isn’t really considered chasing in my book, it would be more like delaying. The player is just moving the same piece over and over. How could the software prohibit this movement without crippling the game? This is the question that needs answering

The Pre-Bind system does not address someone running around the lake like this and it never will. This doesn’t mean that it is a half-finished system, this just means that the system is only used for chasing when a player keeps moving between the same squares over and over.

HmmNess
Posted Image

#33 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

OK I've given it some careful thought and I'm willing to go with just the "pre-bind" model all by itself. I've come to realize that once a player understands how the "pre-bind" model and warning system works and gets chased around a lake for example, the 'runner' can position himself in a way that guarantees a "pre-bind" and subsequent "pre-binds" and can then leverage the warning system from there if the chaser continues to chase. I can work with that. And most importantly, the anti-chasing system supports and is enforcing ISF rules.

I am still concerned about eliminating ISF rule #10 (2-square back 'n forth rule). This Jumbo-sponsored site implemented a rule #10 warning system all on their own without player input which implies that Jumbo recognizes and supports ISF rules. Jumbo has to decide what they want to do regarding rule #10 - stick with their long-standing support of ISF or start blazing a new trail? Consider Jumbo's perspective - all of the international tournaments that have been run over the years have been governed by ISF rules so there is a large well-established community of Stratego players that come to expect ISF governance. Do you think Jumbo will choose to make an unprecedented change to a policy that they have supported over the years (and with this site) and potentially alienate the long-standing well-established community? And what will that mean for future tournaments - which rule-set applies?

Spiff

#34 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 04 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

You've got a good point there Spiff, I can't deny that.
Although I follow HmmNess in what he's saying about the chasing around the lake.
In my eyes this is also delaying the game but it's not chasing because of the different moves everytime.

I also don't think that Jumbo will ban the 2square rule because of the ISF governance in this.
But the fact remains....it is a very debatable rule that is maybe supported by a well built online stratego community but the same can be said the other way around, no?
Does Metaforge also use the 2square rule for instance? I don't know this but if the rules are ISF-governed, then this should mean that all stratego sites online will have to implement the 2square rule and I don't think this is the case to be honest.


From my personal perspective,....I received a complaint from a player and the moderator told me that I acted with unsportive behaviour with EVASING tactics.
To evase means to avoid or am I wrong?
This is really crazy,....so someone complains that he can't chase my inferior piece because I won't let him and he reported that to a moderator apparantly..........

This is for me the number one reason why the 2square rule is and remains absolutely unsustainable.
This rule doesn't stop chasing, on the contrary,....it just STIMULATES chasing.
And because chasing is the number one problem in the entire game,....that's why this whole discussion began in the first place.

From Jumbo's perspective it's indeed a hard choice to make so I do understand Spiff's concerns about this.
However,....I think Jumbo should serve their players on their site with their stratego-game and if the most players on the site prefer the bindrule instead of the 2square-rule,.....then they really should listen to their users I think.

Btw, speaking about the ISF governance,...I think Jumbo doesn't follow the complete ISF-governance because of the elo rating system for instance.
Spiff also said that the rating system could not be the correct model, it's way different than the rating system of the ISF,
which I also think.

Or they decide to take the ISF-rules all the way or they don't,...



Untill that time,....this topic stays very delicate :)
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#35 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 05 December 2012 - 12:49 AM

Trickz -

RE: Metaforge - yes, they enforce rule #10 as well - have since 2007 (when I first went there) and probably well before that. In my observation, every real site enforces rule #10

Spiff

#36 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:14 AM

Spiff,

It can't be true that the 2srule was already there in 2007 because the ISF implemented that rule only in 2010.

Whatever Jumbo decides to do with the rule,...it's fine with me although there is really nothing real with that rule.
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#37 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 05 December 2012 - 03:51 AM

It was there in 2007 - I know, I lived it. Metaforge doesn't have to sync with ISF although I think they like to.

Where did you hear that rule #10 just came into being for ISF in 2010? That sounds like bad info to me. Quote your reliable source and/or provide a link.

Spiff

#38 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 02:47 PM

Hi Spiff,

The rule did change and they specially implemented the new 2square rule in the Metaforge 2010 Computer World Championship.
http://www.strategou...ld_Championship

If you scroll, it clearly states that the rule has been changed officially in 2010.
As you can see, they even gave the program code to change the rule in order to play the WC with the computer with the new rule implemented.

If you were to look back at the forum of Metaforge during the time of this world championship, you will see a lot of discussion about the changed rule.

So I don't think it's bad info because it came from Metaforge itself where you played from 2007 with that rule you said.
It's weird that they then implemented the 2-square rule only three years later for competing in a computer-based WC.
If the rule already existed in 2007, then why would they change the program code of the pc for the 2010 computer world championship? That doesn't make any sense....

By the way,...I've heard from a moderator on this site that they will implement a complete new anti chasing rule within one week.
How they will do this, I don't know but that's the message I've got yesterday.

Karen says :

"The good news is that we will implement a brand new 'no chasing' rule next week, so this should help solve a lot of bad behavior from other users! This will make it far less frustrating to play against opponents who just tour the board."


We will find out soon I guess.


Greetz

Trickz
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#39 SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 05 December 2012 - 06:49 PM

Dude - that was the computer world championships - where computers play computers, programmers' code versus other programmers' code. Has nothing to do with real Stratego tournaments with real people playing each other. Nothing to do with ISF sanctioned tournaments. If you read the Wikipedia page, you can see that they are adding rule #10 for the first time (for the computer tourney) so that the developers can incorporate a warning system into their bot code.

Like I said, bad info :rolleyes: Rule #10 has been around quite a while.

Spiff

#40 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 05 December 2012 - 08:02 PM

It's weird that Strategousa.org clearly states that the ISF changed the rule in 2010 officially.
That sentence has got nothing to do with the computer competition.
It's about the five move-rule being replaced by the 2s-rule and since the computer programming was still based on the 5-move rule, they had to reprogram that rule for the computer contest.

If Strategousa.org claims they know the changed rule from the ISF, why would they say that?
Because it's bad info as you say? Then why say it? .....:s
There must be a document somewhere from the ISF that clearly speaks about this rule-update.
What you're also saying/claiming is that international tournaments are at least being played for 5 years with the 2s-rule.
And this is simply not the case.

Can you provide me the evidence that the 2s-rule is at least five years in existing?
Can you also tell me what the last international tournament was where they still used the 5 move rule?

I'm sure that the rule is changed two years ago but it could very well be that the practical side of it has been going on for a longer period of time,...unofficially then.

Anyway a new rule is coming so who cares :)
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users