rod03801: Yes I agree but this way with the scoring adjusted for a wrong move on the first turn that the player has some sort of chance of winning. The way it is set up now the person has pretty much no chance of winning  the game if they kill a frog on move one.

Rose: I think that's a good compromise. There's still a penalty on the first move, but it's not as devastating. I think it should stay as it currently is for the rest of the game, though.

Any decision yet on the new scoring idea? To at least not give the other player 5pts when a frog is killed on the first move?

rod03801: I totally agree on a steep penalty IF a person kills a frog once the game play is on. Youre right is avoidable once the first moves are made. I just find it so unfair that you have no choice but to guess at one hopeful vacant spot and when you kill a frog you have pretty much NO chance of winning that game unless your opponent has no clue how to play or you get super lucky and get all 5 before they get the 3rd

I like #1 in that the 2nd player gets no pts if his opponent killed one of their frogs ON the opening move.

Option #3 would work as well. I appreciate that you have put thought in to this. Hopefully there will be enough discussion to make a change happen to make the game more fair

I was going to add to my previous post, but a customer came in and I had to go.

What I was going to add, is that yes, it seems a bit steep when it happens on the first move. If it happens throughout the rest of the game, it should be a steep penalty, because after the first move, it is COMPLETELY avoidable.

Maybe the possibility of it being less of a penalty when it happens on the first move?

Rose: Well I have been thinking about ways to change this for awhile now, and there are 3 ideas. Here is what I have:

Since a lot of players do not make wild guesses (unless they are very behind or about to lose), these posts & ideas do not take into consideration -3 points for bad guesses.

Currently, if a frog is hit – player loses 5 while other player gains 5

If player continues and finds the other 4 frogs, they will end up with 15 points (plus winning 2 points + 1 point for each frog)

Player 2 would have to at least find 3 frogs to still win the game. [so they have to find 3 before the other players find 4… since one is not out of play]


Idea #1:

If a frog is hit, player loses 5 points (that is all – other player does not gain 5 points)

Results:

If player continues and finds the other 4 frogs, they will end up with 15 points (plus winning 2 points + 1 point for each frog)

Player 2 would have to at least find 4 frogs to still win the game



Idea #2:

Take how Frog Legs is started – with a space in the middle.

My thoughts: Even though this works great for frog legs, I fear that doing this would give player 1 more of an advantage since they get to go first.


Idea #3:

Change the bonus points at the end of the game to something like 2 bonus points for win, and 2 bonus points for each frog left unfound.

So if player 1 hits a frog, but finds the other 4 – they will have 15 points + 2 for win + 2 for each frog unfound.

If Player 2 finds 3 frogs, they will have 20 points, and player 1 will get 6 bonus points for a total of 21 points and win.

If Player 2 finds 4 frogs, they will have 25 points, and player 1 will get 4 bonus points for a total of 19 points and lose.

==============================================

I think Idea #2 is too much. Idea #1 would work, but might confuse people.

Idea #3 would still achive the goal of making the other players still find 4 frogs to win - and should be very each for Fencer to reprogram the game (changing the old bonus of 1 point for each unfound frog to 2 points each)

Of course Fencer does not want to make any changes to games unless they are thought through completely - which is what I've been thinking about these ideas for awhile now - so what do others think. Do you think Idea #3 (change the bonus points slightly) will fix the issue and still make the game as playable as before?

Rose: I think the penalty is a bit steep. However, I love the game and it doesn't stop me from wanting to play it, at all. Just my 2 cents!

Is there no one else that plays frog finder that finds it so unfair in the game that if you kill a frog on your very first move you are pretty much going to lose? It stops people from wanting to play and makes it a very unfair game

Rose: considering the lack of response, I'll not be holding my breath.

I don't think anything will be done unless more people speak up about it. It is very unfair.. U make one error you might as well resign as you have no chance of winning really. Unless youre playing someone who has never played before and keeps guessing all wrong. I don't play noobs, so I am going to lose every single game I make that one single error in.

Hopefully more people may speak up about it and we can get the scoring changed

Rose: you are exactly right.  You did get bonus point (2 for finding all your frogs and 1 for the remaining frog of your opponent didn't find).  But you could only win if your opponent only finds two frogs.  That's just plain unfair and the rule needs to be changed.  It's a very bad rule.   The idea of the game is to have fun and a challenge, but in the situation like in your game, you lose on your first move. 

Something can be done to change this imbalance and should.  

Someone here said the other day that when a person loses ( has frogs not found) they lose pts when the winner finds all the frogs.. OR close to that was said
Frog Finder (Rose vs. A663)

I hit a frog right off the 'hop' so to speak in this game, I got all the other 4 frogs before my opponent even found his 4th frog. He had 20 pts before I found the last one.. STILL has 20 pts at end game. HE did not lose any points.. The game really isnt fair if you are going to automatically lose if you hit one frog on your very first shot. U have absolutely ZERO chance of winning or even tying!!!

30 points me, 7 for my opponent

I could win a game like this in my sleep. 

In a current game I am playing, my opponent has found 3 frogs.  One is upside down and as a result, she has -5 points.  However, I have found 3 frogs and currently have 20 points.  That's a 15 point spread.  This is a typical position.  I can't lose now.  and in nearly all of my games I always found at least 3 frogs.  It would be rare that someone would find all 5 and the opponent only find 2 frogs.  (yes, it happens but that's not a argument in favor of the current scoring situation - people win the lottery too - so?)

Lets say my opponent had found all 5 frogs.  That's 15 points.  Plus a bonus of 2.  That's 17.  Plus a bonus of 1 point for each of my remaining frogs.  Here's the breakdown.

Player 1   
5 frogs = 15 points plus 2 + 5 = 22.  That's the most you can get.  And only if I find no frogs.
If I find one frog it's player 1 = 21 and I'll have 10.
If I find two frogs player 1 = 20 and I'll have 15.

Keep in mind, player one must find all 5 frogs for the above scores.

If I find 3 frogs (the most likely thing that would happen statistically)
Player one gets 19 points and I'll have 20. 

Essentially, the game in this situation is designed for player one to find 4 frogs before I find three.  That's just not a good scoring rule.

game over.

With only a 10 point deficit it goes this way.  Consider player one lands on his/her frog.  Gets a -5 points.  But the opponent gets no points. then..

player 1     5 found frogs = 15 plus 2 bonus plus 5 = 22.  Same scores as above.  Player one's scores aren't affected. 

So, if player two finds

0   then it's 22 to 0
1  then it's 21 to 5
2  then it's 20 to 10
3  then it's 19 to 15
4 then it's  18 to 20.

This is more fair.  It basically eliminates player 1's first frog.  Now it's a 4 to 4 race.  I need to find just 4 frogs to win.

Only if Player 1 finds all 4 remaining frogs before I find 4, can he win. 
 

The best solution is to have a random zero square to avoid anyone landing on their frog on the first move.

As it is now, the current rules for points is flawed.  I don't mean to offend anyone but instead of shallow answers, how about some statistical facts?  Like I said, I'm not a math wiz so maybe I'm wrong.  But frankly I think I bring up a legitimate point about the game and it's just being dismissed with opinions, not statistical facts.  It's worth looking into.

  

coan.net:
but I can't ignore the fact of how even the win/loss is for each player (50.2% vs. 49.6%)


the majority of games are played where the first player doesn't land on his own frog.   This would account for the even stats above.  When both players are able to get a "0" square, the game is relatively even.  Even when I've guessed wrong later in the game and lost 3 points, I can still win.  The game is still "on."

But, if you were to consider the stats of ONLY those games where player 1 is -5 points with 4 frogs to find, and player 2 is +5 points with 5 frogs to find, I'll guess that the stats are 20% or less for player 1 to win.  Maybe even 10%. 

Player 1 MUST find all remaining frogs (that's all 4 must be found) and will only achieve 15 points.  Player 2 only needs to find 2 frogs to achieve a tie. 

IF you had designed the game where player one started the game with a -5 but only had 4 frogs to find while player 2 had a +5 with 5 frogs to find, which side would you choose?

Maybe someone with a math background could provide the winning stats in a game like that.  I'm not a math wiz.  But once player 1 has shot his/her own frog, the game is no longer 50 50.  It's probably more like 10-90.   (I'm guessing here)

The game would be much more even if the very middle square was already a zero.  Or even a random square at zero.   Or even under the current rules, change the -10 points to just a -5.   At least look into the statistics of that type of position.  Even with a -5, the game still favors player 2.  (because with 4 frogs to find player 1 still can only get 15 points while player 2 only needs to find 3 to get that 15). 

AbigailII: I don't think I have ever played a player who helped revel where their own frogs were... well at least players who knows how to play.

coan.net: What some had done (and myself at times also) - in your FIRST SHOT - Don't shoot, but guess in a spot. (you will lose 3 points - but that is a lot less then 10 points... and will give you a place to shoot next time with no fear of hitting a frog)

Guessing on your first move is bad. The chance is the first guess/shot hitting a frog is such that on average you lose more points by guessing than shooting. And if you guess wrong, you will NOT have a "safe" shot the next time; assuming your opponent isn't totally stupid, it's your opponent who has a safe shot. And if you are unlucky, your first guess will be next to a frog; not only giving your opponent a three point advantage, your opponent will have a safe place to shoot, you still will not have a safe place (as your opponent shooting on the place you guessed will reveal a number larger than 0).

Artful Dodger: Also don't forget you get bonus points for winning & bonus points for the number of frogs not found. (not a lot - but can make a difference if people make bad guesses.... and if I'm down a frog, I make more guesses in the chance of making up for the dead frog)

But yes, I do understand what you are saying - but I think any less then what is there would then make it easier for player 1 to win (since they could get an extra move per game) and start to make the game less balanced then it currently is.

coan.net:  But wouldn't it be better overall just to lose 5 points instead of 10?  It's still gives the other an advantage (in points).  Then, with a -5, you need to find the other 4 and you'd still only get 20 points.  The other person has to find the same number, just 4, and will tie at worst.  Seems more fair.  Otherwise, when I lose 10 points to start the game is all but over.  Sure, you could win, but it's so unlikely statistically.  I think we ought to consider just making it a loss of 5 points.  Keeps ya in the game and evens the odds a bit.  Keep in mind that the opponent still has an advantage, but it's not so huge as it is now.

Artful Dodger: But think about the poor frogs...... who would want to shoot and kill any of those cute poor frogs??????

But seriously, it is a lot of points and does make it harder to win if you shoot a frog - But I've done it before - and have had it done to me also.... and at the same time, you now have less frogs to find (only 4 left).

I have also wondered if the 13x13 board with a 0 in the middle like in Frog Legs would be a good idea in Frog Finder also - always giving a person a place to start.

..... but I can't ignore the fact of how even the win/loss is for each player (50.2% vs. 49.6%) - so going first may give you an advantage of getting an extra chance to shoot/guess - but possible with the disadvantage of the bad chance of shooting a frog evens everything out.

What some had done (and myself at times also) - in your FIRST SHOT - Don't shoot, but guess in a spot. (you will lose 3 points - but that is a lot less then 10 points... and will give you a place to shoot next time with no fear of hitting a frog) Just an idea - not sure if it is the best strategy, but I guess is a good one to get away from not shooting a frog at the move.

joshi tm:  It's a bad rule of the game.  You basically lose on the first move.   Game over.  Not only are you ten points behind, but you can only get 15 points total.  Statistically, you can't win this game.  When a rule such as this one creates such a huge inbalance, something is wrong with the rule.

Artful Dodger: Just don't kill frogs. Thats baaaaaaaad.

If I or my opponent lands on our own frog, we lose 5 points and the opponent gets 5.  That's a 10 point advantage to the opponent.  If that happens on the first move, I do a shoot move, hit my own frog, and am in the minus the equivalent of 10 points.  Then if my opponent only finds three of his/her frogs, they'll have 20 points.  I now need to find 5 frogs before my opponent finds just 4.  It's a huge disadvantage.  Wouldn't it be better to keep the odds more even by just giving a -5 and nothing to the opponent?

AbigailII: So you reckon no one could guess about 95% correct

Baked Alaskan: Eh, no, I am mistaken. I was thinking the question was about frog legs, not frog finder.

A simulation for frog finder suggests that the second player has a slight advantage, winning about 52% of the games, with games lasting about 153 half moves. Again, the assumption is that no player guesses an already guessed square.

Baked Alaskan: Not in Frog Finder??

AbigailII:

((the middle 9 are empty))

Really?
All this time I never noticed that..  Hmmm 

Well, for your first shot (assuming you go first), the odd of guessing a frog is about 5.6%, assuming you won't guess one of the middle 9 squares, as they will be empty. The board is 13x13, making 169 squares; the middle 9 are empty, so 9 frogs will be found on 160 squares, or about 5.6% of the squares.

Running a simulation where both players guess randomly (but won't guess a square that was guessed before; and won't guess one of the middle 9 squares) shows the game is pretty even, and lasts about 144 half-moves.

What are the odds on random guessing on frog finder?

TeamBundy:
I like both ideas 

My 2 cents on how to make Frog Legs a game that is not annoying (and fun!) to play: as soon as you "shoot" a Zero, all neighbouring spaces that are also Zero are uncovered (like in Minesweeper).

Option 2: have the same setup of frogs for each player. However, each player only uncovers frogs in his/her own board (and thus doesn't know what the other player is uncovering). Once a frog is found, it is uncovered for both players and the points are awarded for the player who found the frog. The same goes if a frog is killed. Winner is who has more points after all frogs are saved/killed.

AbigailII: Either a smaller board or more frogs would help reduce the "boring" portion where both players take shots that they know will turn up zeros. Unless there's a rule change, I'm probably not going to start any more Frog Finder games.

How popular would small versions of Frog finder/frog legs be? For instance, on a 9x9 board; same rules. The number of frogs could be the same, or somewhat less (for instance 2x4 for the small frog finder, and 7 for the small frog legs).

Suggested names: "Spot the tadpole" (mini frog finder) and "Pollywog" (mini frog legs). (Tadpoles are sometimes named pollywogs).

Fencer:

Nothingness: 30 frogs on 13x13 board?

Nothingness: I'd like this crowded frog legs a lot better. With just nine frogs it too much of a guesswork.

i only want a version where you are using your reasoning skills and not just taking a blind shot in the dark b/c the shots seem like they are where they are. the only solution to this is to have more frogs at least 20 frogs. i would prefer at least 30

coan.net: Yeah, but once a 1 is shown, there will be often be "safe" shots, that neither reveal where the frog is, and still reveal a 1. Example:

  +---+---+---+
5 | 0 |   |   |   
  +---+---+---+
4 |   |   |   |   
  +---+---+---+
3 |   |   |   | 
  +---+---+---+
2 |   |   |   |   
  +---+---+---+
1 | 0 |   |   |   
  +---+---+---+
    a   b   c   

If a shot on a2 reveals a 1, the opponent can shoot on a4, also revealing a 1, cancelling any benefits from revealing a non-0.

troydaniels: Plus an idea that just popped in my head as I read your last post. (and an idea that may be good or bad - but not sure since I've only given it a thought for the past minute)

How about:
1 bonus point when your shot shows a 1
2 bonus points when your shot shows a 2
... and so on for 3-8

Of course once a frog is guessed, the "1" that is shown for that frog NO LONGER gets bonus points.

Even though this may not solve the problem, but it could start to reward the player who makes shots to show more of the board - and not shots to "waste" so they don't give any information to their opponent.

Again, an idea I would have to think about a little more. (maybe even double bonus - 2 points for every "1" your shot shows, etc....)

AbigailII:  My proposal doesn't introduce any more chance than there already is.  It automatically fills in the ones that are obviously zero (with a precise definition of obvious) but not the ones that a more complication intuitive process would also reveal to be zero.

I'm in several games right now where part of the board looks like below.  The rest of the board consists of squares where, for either player, it gives the opponent an advantage if you guess or shoot in any square.  Consequently, we're going through and filling in this section of the board with solid zeros.  This is rather boring and time consuming and doesn't actually accomplish anything, since we're both making shots that we know will reveal a zero.  I'm trying to create a rule that bypasses this part of the game.  (It will probably be still be there with my rule, but much shorter.) 

  +---+---+---+---+---+
6 | 0 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   
  +---+---+---+---+---+
5 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   |
  +---+---+---+---+---+
4 | 0 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   
  +---+---+---+---+---+
3 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   |   
  +---+---+---+---+---+
2 | 0 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   
  +---+---+---+---+---+
1 |   | 0 |   | 0 |   |
  +---+---+---+---+---+
    a   b   c   d   e

By the way, I'm not neccesarily opposed to long games.  I play anti-backgammon, which can easily run into hundreds of moves.  But most of those moves require actual thought (and auto-pass is there to skip many of the ones that don't).  But under the current rules, Frog Legs usually leads to 50 or so moves where the only thought is to correctly figure out a square that won't matter (which is probably the same calculation you did in the last 10 moves).

Currently, the game lasts till all the frogs are found. However, there's usually no point in playing on if one player is more than 5 * F points ahead, with F the number of frogs to be found. (I say usually because theoretically it could be that all unknown squares could potentially contain a frog, forcing the player ahead to guess - but that's a situation that won't occur very often).

So, I suggest to add another winning condition: whenever you are ahead with a number of points more than 5 times the number of unrevealed frogs, you win. This will shorten many games by dozens of moves, where the player ahead is going to play frog finder, not caring who reveals the frog.

  +---+---+---+---+
5 |   |   |   |   |    
  +---+---+---+---+
4 |   | 1 |   |   |    
  +---+---+---+---+
3 | 0 |   |   |   |    
  +---+---+---+---+
2 |   | 1 |   |   |    
  +---+---+---+---+
1 |   |   |   |   |    
  +---+---+---+---+
    a   b   c   d    

In a game of Frog Legs, what would you do? Guess on c3 or not? If not, whould you shoot if a1 and a5 are showing 0s as well? Assume the score is equal, and at least 2 frogs are still missing.

joshi tm: Yes? So? What's your point? I'm talking about what happens if a2 reveals a 1.

joshi tm: If shoothing at a2 reveals a 0, there can be everything at d4.

I don't get your point.

AbigailII: If shoothing at a2 reveals a 0, there can be everything at d4.

troydaniels: Filling in *some* of the squares that are 0 is something that doesn't appeal to me at all. If some of the squares are filled in, but not all of them, you introduce a category of chance in the game where there's no such chance currently. IMO, either all 0-predetermined squares should be revealed, or none. Not all "obviously" zero for some vague notion of obvious.

AbigailII: I'm advocating for filling in the squares that are "obviously" zero. While obvious hasn't been defined, it doesn't apply here. This is an active part of the board, and most shots will reveal some information about where the frogs are. Figuring out that D4 is 0 is something a good player would do (and a bad player might not).

I'm not trying to automate the game so that there's little actual thinking for the players to do. I'm trying to eliminate the phase where there's a 5x7 block with a checkerboard pattern of zeros, and both players spend almost 20 turns filling it in, because the alternative is to shoot in an area like what you drew and risk giving your opponent an advantage.