Slitherine

FroBodine wrote:Hi kali-yo-mama . . . yeah, the general allocation is very lame right now. I don't understand why they designed it this way. It's a very poor implementation.

Regardless . . . you were probably winning because you employed better tactics, and attacked with the "right" units at the right time. It's a learning experience. The more you play, vs. A.I. and more importantly, vs. real human opponents, the more you learn.

That's no reason to give up on a tournament and completely give up on online play. Playing humans is the most satisfying part of this game, in my opinion. I'm sorry you don't agree.

I still don't get what you are unsatisfied about, but oh well. You build an army, attack, and either win or lose. I don't see what could be unsatisfying about that, especially since you say you don't mind losing, same as me. I don't care if I win or lose. I just want to have a fun game, and maybe learn some good tactics along the way. If you stop playing tournaments, you will miss out on LOTS of learning.

FroBodine wrote:Hi rexhurley. I understand the game and its mechanics just fine. My tactics maybe not so great, but that's a different story. It's kaliyama who had the issues with the game, not me.

Anyway, I was just frustrated that he basically quit the tournament in the final round, leaving me high and dry.

And . . . I WILL take you up on your offer for a game or two, after the tournaments are finished. I'm always up for being beaten to a pulp by a pro, and learning better strategies along the way.

Thank you for the offer!

stockwellpete wrote:How many points will be needed to win this competition, do we think? 500? More?

kaliyama wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:

Sharkall wrote:Are there any rules for conceding/surrendering? I don't plan on doing that of course, but my opponent did in both my games. Besides being poor form (there's no risk of getting injured like in a physical sport for continuing, and the opponent general deserves to witness his plans come to fruition - or not), it can be very disadvantaging in this tournament format (for the winner).

For example, one of my games was going 5% (my casualties) - 3% (enemy), at which point the enemy general surrendered even though had been inflicting more casualties and it was early in a battle in which he didn't have very good prospects. For that I received 60 points, the minimum win reward (as you get 60 + the difference between you and your opponent). If you take the current top player after first round, he has 209 points, for an average of more than 100 per game. That is what you get for a 40%-0% victory. But you never have that chance if the opponent concedes say when you are up 10%-0%, you lose a potential 30 points instantly. That doesn't seem very fair in a point based tournament...

I agree with this and I have raised it before. At the very least the winning player in these circumstances should get the 60pts for the win plus a default 25pts for the minimum winning margin on games ending around the 40% losses mark. So in this case where a player has resigned both games the winner should be getting 170pts at the very least.

I also think there is a case for saying that if a player resigns a game before the end then their default score should be zero. I actually think that players should be free to resign without rancour as long as they know that there may be penalties for doing so.

Thanks. I am trying to figure out how to respond to this - there are enough things to the game not evident from the manual (e.g. how sub-commanders work, which I had no idea until after i started these matches and then stumbled upon the post on that topic in this thread), that I am just going to keep getting blown out every match. Were I to want to keep playing multiplayer there'd be no question of staying in and taking my lumps, but at this point I doubt I want to keep playing multiplayer as the only way I will fully understand the rules and how the game works is by losing iteratively, and for me the game does not do a great job giving feedback of what is happening on enemy turns or what I am doing wrong. I am sure people who did not start out with tabletop rules do this, I just don't want to devote the time to doing so given the amount of time it will take versus the reward I will receive from it, given my limited allotment of free time.

I would just concede every match to bow out of the tournament but don't want to penalize people. But on the other hand, if I stay in matches at my current level of ignorance about game mechanics, i'm effectively "feeding" points to my opponents in a way that does not seem very fair either. What do people think the ethical way to proceed is?

Igorputski wrote:You're the player; you have the control to do whatever you like. Tournaments are not perfectly balanced as there is always a little randomness to the winners and losers. You get what you get and that is all that you get. Quit whining because the rules aren't balanced in your favor. Those that lose always seem to whine about unfairness. Life isn't fair and neither are tournaments.

If they want to make it fairer then it would be by wins alone and not a point system but, they chose to go with a point system so that's the way it is. Can't balance for everything, why should you get extra points just because someone quit? You didn't earn them. I say you get what you "earn" and that is all that you get.

stockwellpete wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:How many points will be needed to win this competition, do we think? 500? More?

The answer was 508.

rexhurley wrote:Dang well played that man you must have routed your opponent totally in that last round while Hidde and I bashed each other to the ultimate 110pt draw ah the joys of Swiss Chess at the top. I'll take credit for holding him to that though

Rom1944 wrote:I had a great time with the tournament, but i hhave a question for stockwellpete (by the way congratulations).
How the hell did you manage to win with the saka a few pointers would be good as i dont know how to use those kind of armies.

Also can the tournament be for open list in the future i mean everybody choses his armies?

stockwellpete wrote:

rexhurley wrote:Dang well played that man you must have routed your opponent totally in that last round while Hidde and I bashed each other to the ultimate 110pt draw ah the joys of Swiss Chess at the top. I'll take credit for holding him to that though

Cheers Rex. I had two very tough games in the last round and the score lines rather flattered me a bit. Don't tell Anders but I was hoping you would be able to put a spanner in the works for him. You must have played really well over the two games to hold him to the same score.

NikiforosFokas wrote:Well done stockwellpete!!

stockwellpete wrote:

Igorputski wrote:You're the player; you have the control to do whatever you like. Tournaments are not perfectly balanced as there is always a little randomness to the winners and losers. You get what you get and that is all that you get. Quit whining because the rules aren't balanced in your favor. Those that lose always seem to whine about unfairness. Life isn't fair and neither are tournaments.

If they want to make it fairer then it would be by wins alone and not a point system but, they chose to go with a point system so that's the way it is. Can't balance for everything, why should you get extra points just because someone quit? You didn't earn them. I say you get what you "earn" and that is all that you get.

Another unpleasant post from you, Igorputski. You are a proper little "internet warrior", aren't you? How many times have moderators had to speak to you recently? Myself, zakblood slith, remember? And nobody is whining here. The tournament system is new and some adjustments may be necessary. At the moment the top players are being penalised a little bit when opponents either "fail to show" or resign half-way through. Normally a convincing win would gain around 85+ points per game, whereas only 60 points are currently awarded. In a three round competition that can be decisive. I have actually won the first tournament, but I don't really deserve to have done because clearly the best player at the moment is ianiow. But Ian had a player default in the second round so he only got 120 points which has allowed me to open up an unassailable gap on him.

And tell me another thing. Why do you care? You don't even enter the tournaments.

cankre wrote:Sorry ianiow.

I was the one who dropped out of the second round. I had a medical emergency with my daughter.

Damn...I hate that I potentially cased you not to win.