BrainKing - Foros de discusión (Espionage)

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: penalty

Justaminute:
Whether something has a chance of being implemented should not be a bar to its introduction for discussion.
Whatever the reason for the penalty, removing a checker from the board is a penalty that does NOT occur in all checker variations. It doesn't occur in chess or most other games where a player may choose not to make a move to capture an opponent's piece.

The point I was making was not to show an approximate comparison. It does show that penalties exist in other games. You do not have to agree with the penalty I propose or that there should be a penalty.
My suggestions on a draw rule are not part of the game yet it is being discussed by several others. Though the addition of a penalty is not a part of the game, it too could be discussed and either rejected or accepted.
I make no apology for suggesting it.

There has been no suggestion made that the rule would require any kind of program change other than to add the text to the rules. The 50-move chess rule is not programmed. A player who calls a draw in chess based on the 50-move rule sends it to support to call the draw if the opponent declines the draw offer. The same would be the case in Espionage for either the draw or the penalty.

29. Julio 2011, 09:35:14

Justaminute

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: penalty

Dark Prince:
Do you seriously think that such a request has a remote chance of happening given all the requests that get posted on the feature request board?

The checker example is part of the game. The penalty is for failing to notice that you can take a piece.

The penalties you refer to in chess, such as a mobile going off, are because of the disruption to players concentration when they have limited time available. Hardly comparable.

Your suggested amendment is not part of the game, not unique to espionage and while I am no expert, I would think hugely difficult to programme.

29. Julio 2011, 05:21:40

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: penalty

Justaminute:
I'm not too concerned about whether the penalty I suggested is included as part of the draw rule. It has been rare that I've been offered a draw that I declined.

I can't agree with the reasoning, however, that a rule shouldn't lead to different treatment than occurs in another game type. On the contrary, differing rules are what sets a game apart from other games.
Penalties do occur in games for various purposes depending on the circumstances. In checkers, for example, there are variations that impose the penalty of removing a checker if an available jump is not taken.
In some timed chess tournaments there are time penalties for false draw claims and other infractions.
The lack of a penalty for an infraction in some game types does not imply that proposing a penalty for that infraction in a particular game is inappropriate.

28. Julio 2011, 10:59:15

Espionage (Dark Prince, 2011-04-13 01:17:20)

If chess has a 50 move rule and sabotage at IYT has it for some variants, maybe it's best to ask for at least 50 moves for all variants here? Same for all seems most clear to me. 60 moves is fine with me (as cookie monster asked for). Could everyone live with that?

@Dark Prince: With y I referred to your earlier post: To allow for slow starters, the 50 move rule could start at move 25 and the 35 move rule for smaller boards could start at move 15 for the open variations.
50 moves starting at move 50 and 35 moves starting at move 30 for the volcano variations.

If we ask for such a starting point I suggest we ask for the same starting point for all variants.

28. Julio 2011, 09:30:55

Justaminute

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw Rule Proposal

Dark Prince:
I think the part about multiple draw offers isn't appropriate. Yes it is annoying and yes it is bad manners but this can happen in any game on Brainking and I see no reason why Espionage should be treated differently. BK is no different to playing over the board, you politely decline the first time, do it more firmly the second time and then ignore them. They get the message. If it reaches a point where it is harrassment you can appeal to the arbitor (Fencer here).

28. Julio 2011, 02:52:47

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Draw Rule Proposal

Chaos:
Draw:
There are two ways of ending a game in a draw.
The first is by agreement between the opponents in which one player offers a draw and the other player accepts the offer. This can occur at any time during the game.
The other is by request to support under the 50-move rule if the opponent refuses the draw offer.
The 50-move rule (as it's called in chess) applies when X turns or more by each player have transpired since move Y (or X turns by one player and X-1 turns by the player requesting the draw) without a capture.

Move Y is the starting turn from which the X count begins. Regardless of the variation, the Y turn is reset to the latest move a capture by either player is made including resetting it to a turn prior to the initial Y for that variation. A capture is the only way to reset Y. A capture occurs any time a piece is moved to a square occupied by an enemy piece regardless of which piece is removed from the game board and placed in the appropriate capture list.

The draw must be offered when it is your turn and prior to making a move (it must be possible to legally make all moves that turn without moving any piece onto a square occupied by an enemy piece if it's the Xth move but not if beyond that move). If the X count is met or exceeded and no draw offer is made then or after, the opportunity will expire when a piece is captured.

It is annoying to many players to receive multiple draw offers when the threshold "X" moves has not been met.
Do not offer a draw more than once prior to the threshold or there will be a penalty. Any request for support to enforce the 50-move rule when the constraints for the rule have not been met will also invoke the penalty.
The other player will choose between two possible penalties. Either Y will be reset to the move of the inappropriate draw offer or the player making the offer must choose one of his mines to be removed by support.

27. Julio 2011, 20:25:12

Asunto: The existing draw rule...

at IYT:
"If a game of Sabotage has a certain number of moves in a row with no captures, then the game is a draw. The number of moves varies according to the type of Sabotage game:

* Sabotage: 50 moves per player
* Sabotage Rush: 50 moves per player
* Mini Sabotage: 35 moves per player

These rules apply to Sabotage games which were started after 5/8/01."

I recommend listing a date for which games that were started before are exempt from the draw rule or at least the count is reset on that date for them.

27. Julio 2011, 18:25:12

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw rule

dAGGER: I think a minimum number of moves with no capture is a good rule to force a draw, if one of the opponents claims for it:
1) it is simple to remember for everyone
2) it helps preventing games to go on years, when only a player is very slow
3) if two skilled and defensive players agree on going on, it does not oblige to end up the game as a draw, if no opponent asks for it."

I agree with dAGGER completely. For this reason I think the rules shoudln't be too different between the various variants, best would be 1 and the same rule (x amount of noncapture moves maybe with an addition of beginning after move y)

27. Julio 2011, 15:43:20

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Catching up

cookie monster:
Thanks for your input and correction.
I am so accustomed to the word "move" for a draw situation that I didn't realize I was using it where "turn" is the appropriate word for this game type.

27. Julio 2011, 14:04:54

cookie monster

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Catching up

On the Spy issues, I like Dark Prince's proposed wording change for the additional information it provides even though the current wording appears consistent.

On the Draw rule, I think we can ignore both repetition of position and moves that prevent that (e.g. a piece being revealed by a Spy) and focus solely on the number of TURNS without a capture. (Other approaches would hit the clause eventually anyway). As for the number of turns, I would suggest 60, but will happily go with a higher number if someone links a game that includes more than 60 and still resulted in a decisive outcome on the board.

As far as turtling, I again agree with Dark Prince's statement: "The fact that "turtling" is a well known and widely used strategy does not necessitate that rules do not discourage their use. On the contrary, rules are commonly used as a mechanism to deter such strategies. "

If one player wishes to sit back and do nothing but defend then, obviously, the second player can sit and not attack and a draw is the natural outcome. Letting a person not attack and then refuse a draw indefinitely seems sub-optimal to me.

27. Julio 2011, 13:50:22

dAGGER

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw rule

Nothingness:
I think a minimum number of moves with no capture is a good rule to force a draw, if one of the opponents claims for it:
1) it is simple to remember for everyone
2) it helps preventing games to go on years, when only a player is very slow
3) if two skilled and defensive players agree on going on, it does not oblige to end up the game as a draw, if no opponent asks for it.

I think the most important thing here is to help games to go on faster.

26. Julio 2011, 09:08:04

Asunto: I found some interesting information...

...on the 50 move draw rule in chess.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule

"The fifty-move rule in chess states that a player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty consecutive moves (fifty moves by each side). The intended reason for the rule is so that a player with no chance to win cannot be obstinate and play on indefinitely (Hooper & Whyld 1992), or seek a win purely due to an opponent's fatigue. All of the basic checkmates can be accomplished in well under fifty moves.
In the 20th century it was discovered that some positions of certain endgames can only be won in more than fifty moves (without a capture or a pawn move). The rule was changed to include certain exceptions in which one hundred moves were allowed with particular material combinations. However, more and more exceptions were discovered and in 1992 FIDE abolished all such exceptions and reinstated the strict fifty-move rule."

I hope it's not a problem that I copied the text and pasted it here.
The point is that though it was found that a game could be won beyond the 50 moves, the 50 move rule was eventually reinstated. Again, this rule ensures that a game must progress or a player will have the right to call a draw. I assert that such reasoning applies or should apply to Espionage as well.

26. Julio 2011, 08:16:03

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw rule

Nothingness:
I would say the wins I have against you and others here playing Espionage and my very high win percentage in Sabotage variations at IYT adequately refute your claim that I am inexperienced.

The fact that "turtling" is a well known and widely used strategy does not necessitate that rules do not discourage their use. On the contrary, rules are commonly used as a mechanism to deter such strategies. The following is copied from the site you linked in your message.

"In practice, however, games are often designed to punish turtling through various game mechanics. Consequently, while turtling strategies are usually simple enough for novices to learn and are effective as such, they are easily defeated by experienced players who understand the game's methods to counter turtling."

That being the case, I strongly suggest that a draw rule be used to inhibit the use of turtling.

26. Julio 2011, 08:01:56

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw rule

Nothingness: i apologize for my approach and the wording but it is a fundamental gaming strategy to stall. removing this will ultimately hurt the strategic/ defensive minded players. i will leave the game if such a rule is adopted.

26. Julio 2011, 07:45:51

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw rule

Dark Prince: your obviously new to gaming. Stalling aka turtling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtling_(gameplay)
is a strategy that has been utilized for years. Read the definition before you criticize a legitimate game style that you are incapable of overcoming. the move amounts are a joke and ridiculous. 30 moves is barely enough time to set up a proper defense especially in small volcano versions. 60 moves in a large version is not close enough either. i was looking more at 80-100-120-150 as a gear for implementing a non-attack.

26. Julio 2011, 05:18:25

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Draw rule

Dark Prince:
Another option to my multiple choice suggestion would be for those voting to specify the numbers for the variations they choose to vote on and then a bell curve analysis to determine the outcome. I don't know the minimum number of votes for such an analysis to be accurate or for multiple choice for that matter.
I'm interested in the input others may have on that.

26. Julio 2011, 04:53:37

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Draw rule

Just because a strategy of stalling can be employed does not justify its support in rules. Here is where the voting should hold for those who either wish the game to be pushed towards advancement or to reward defensive play. I have previously addressed the option of a beginning move from which the count begins for the threshold of moves agreed upon for a draw situation.

I suggest multiple choices as follows, but feel free to add more choices than those I list below.
i.e.
45, 50, 55, 60 for each of the large board variations.
30, 35, 40, 45 for each of the small board variations.

Start move for draw count.
0,10, 20, 30, 40 for each of the large variations.
0, 5, 10, 15, 20 for each of the small variations.

26. Julio 2011, 03:15:35

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re:Draw Rule(s)

Dark Prince: i agree with mostly everything you stated. the only thing is the moves without a capture especially in the beginning of the game. this is a tricky situation. Solid defense is not attacking 1st or never attacking PERIOD! a threshold count should not be implemented since it is a defensive strategy in the volcano versions. Ialwayswinsam and I used to have on a normal basis 400 move games where no capture occurred for the 1st 200 moves. this was the way the small volcano version have to be played at a high level.

26. Julio 2011, 00:15:11

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re:Draw Rule(s)

Chaos:
There is no good reason for a draw rule to be excessively complex or subjective. All rules must be objective in the ability to enforce them.
I assert that ratings differences can have no place in any rule other than how ratings change with a win, draw or loss.
There is no stalemate in any variation of Espionage since the inability to make a legal move is a loss (if I understand it correctly). There are two other ways to lose. They are losing the HQ to enemy capture and losing all movable pieces to enemy capture.

The situation of various pieces that can avoid capture need not be addressed subjectively with their relative positions since it can be addressed objectively with the number of moves made without a capture being made by either player. When that threshold is met, either player can call it a draw without agreement by the opponent. If it were to require agreement, it would not be a rule and could not be enforced.
Regardless of any objections to such a rule, it would serve to keep the game moving at a more reasonable pace than would be the case without it.

If the move threshold without a capture is met, and a piece is subsequently captured prior to either player calling a draw, the threshold count is reset on the move the capture was made.

I suggest there are two things to discuss for draw rules. One is the number of moves for the threshold for each variation. The other is a three-time repetition of positions draw (with it being the same player's turn to move). Such a rule may be difficult with unidentified pieces, but possible since there is tracking with the move list. This might have the additional benefit of compelling development early in a game.

25. Julio 2011, 20:14:17

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Justaminute: as for moves.. to you the moves are are sequential but to the opp (when you move) they are simultaneous). so its a matter of perspective. this is a turn base game. it just so happens you make more than one move per turn. but after the turn is over all 5 movers happened simultaneously( sort of but not really)

25. Julio 2011, 19:51:57

Modificado por Nothingness (25. Julio 2011, 20:03:12)

A non-volcano version is tougher to determine. Espionage is geared towards the aggressors favor in this determination. If a 5 attacks a 5 Both are not destroyed. the defender is. so we must not deter solid defensive play. lets say no one attacks for 1st 50 moves in a large open version. We will now look at the ratings of the players if a 2000 rated player is playing a 1500 player and they have gone 50 moves we must assume that the 2000 player is waiting for the 1500 player to move carelessly to get an early advantage. the 2000 rated player might not move first in fear of sacrificing to early. it is possible to force a draw every game if it is played properly. mirroring a position can be quite daunting to overcome. so we must be careful in forcing draws. It has always been my contention if you cannot crack a solid defensive style than you are not that good of a player anyways, why force a person to play your style b/c your too weak to crack a solid defense?

25. Julio 2011, 19:43:18

Here is one scenario for a volcano draw situation. Opp material: 4,2,Spy protected base with bombs. You: 3,1,1, protected base with bombs. in this scenario... if the 3 and 4 are separated by more than 2 squares this is a drawn position. i call it the ring around the rosie. the four can never catch the 3 and the 3 can never get to the base since it is protected by bombs and neither player has any sabs. if however either base is exposed then it is not a draw. if a base is exposed and there is sufficient material to win IF the 2nd most powerful piece remaining must be more powerful than the 2nd most powerful piece remaining of the opp that has his base exposed. if not than it is still a draw.

25. Julio 2011, 15:10:52

SL-Mark

Asunto: Re: Request for changed rule wording

Chaos: "For the draw rule I suggest we vote on it."

In the event of a draw, I vote for myself!

24. Julio 2011, 12:04:13

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Request for changed rule wording

We have to come to some sort of consensus if we want to make a request. Justaminute, Nothingness, dAGGER & others: do you agree with Dark Prince's wording?

How about the draw rule, we still didn't make a clear stand on what we want exactly. I would like to approach Fencer for both after we make a decision on what we want.

For the draw rule I suggest we vote on it. We make a short list of possible draw rules as mentioned before (including no draw rule), and vote untill one has a majority of votes. Is that an idea?

23. Julio 2011, 19:27:03

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: Sequential Vs. Simultaneous

Chaos:
Several things demonstrate that the moves within a turn are sequential rather than simultaneous. The move list shows the order of moves and vacating a square must occur prior to another piece occupying it, but I agree that these do not definitively eliminate the simultaneous move possibility. I don't care for the analogy of cars moving on a road since continuous movement doesn't reflect a turn based game. When vehicles in a particular lane start from a traffic signal turning green, in reality, they do not all start moving at the same time except in some cartoons. So that analogy demonstrates sequential better than it does simultaneous moves.
The existing state of spy identification as described in previous messages clearly demonstrates that moves within a turn are not simultaneous, but are in fact sequential.

23. Julio 2011, 14:22:44

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Justaminute: within the move you have to move the first piece before you can place the second at the spot it vacated though. That makes it a sequel of moves, I think.

23. Julio 2011, 11:21:48

Justaminute

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Chaos: If the pieces move at the same speed the front piece is vacating the square at the same speed the new piece is entering it and the moves occur at the same time. For example take cars in a road, the car behind does not wait for the front car to have moved before it moves. It relies on the fact by going at the same speed the car will have vacated by the time it gets there.

22. Julio 2011, 17:18:04

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Nothingness: It seems clear to me this way.Within a turn the moves are one after another - proven by the fact you can go to the spot just left by one of your other pieces. So within a turn a spy can identify (an) opponent's piece(s) before dying.

22. Julio 2011, 14:49:03

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Dark Prince: this still does not clarify the way it is played.. it must be stated through a specific situation.

22. Julio 2011, 02:05:49

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Chaos:
Current Wording:
Spies: A Spy reveals an identity of all enemy pieces which are currently located one space next to its own position (horizontally, vertically or diagonally). Once a piece is "unmasked", it stays visible for the opponent to the end of the game. Such situation can happen either when a Spy moves next to enemy pieces or if a piece moves next to enemy Spy. A Spy can capture only another Spy or a Sapper and dies when steps on a Mine.

Proposed Wording:
Spies: A Spy reveals the identities of all previously unidentified enemy pieces which are moved adjacent to its location or whose location is adjacent to the square to which the Spy is moved. This includes movement within a turn in which either that Spy is subsequently captured after a masked piece moves adjacent to it or a masked piece is subsequently captured after a Spy is moved adjacent to it. "Adjacent" means abbutting horizontally, vertically or diagonally. The identities of unmasked enemy pieces are shown upon submission of the turn and remain visible either on the board or in the capture list for the rest of the game. A Spy can capture only another Spy, a Sapper or the Headquarters and dies when it steps on a Mine or Ranked Soldier. A Spy can be captured by any enemy piece that steps on it.

22. Julio 2011, 00:34:13

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Dark Prince: yes, you're right, that's consistent. Let's create what we think should be added to the rules (clarification moves within turn) and the draw issue, then I can go to Fencer to ask it to be included in the rules.

21. Julio 2011, 22:43:35

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: ID quirk

Chaos:
I agree that individual moves within a turn cannot be viewed as simultaneous since one piece vacating a square allows another piece to subsequently move to that square the same turn.
As such, it is consistent for a spy to identify a piece moved adjacent to it prior to its capture that same turn. It is also consistent for a spy to move adjacent to a previously unidentified piece, another piece capture that one subsequently the same move and that captured piece show up upon submittal in the capture list with its identity revealed.

21. Julio 2011, 21:38:11