SUBTERFUGE Forums

tw2000 wrote:tbh how about each pair decides what rules to implement before the game starts in PM or in-game public chat?
All the organiser needs to do is the pairing, the rules can be sorted by the players.... (I'm thinking that this can include whether they want to play domination or mining tbh)

We could do that, as long as everyone who has signed up is in agreeance. And if the 2 can't come to an agreement, we resort to a mining, no extra rules game.

Can I join? I'm L1

crover wrote:Can I join? I'm L1

You're in!

tw2000 wrote:tbh how about each pair decides what rules to implement before the game starts in PM or in-game public chat?
All the organiser needs to do is the pairing, the rules can be sorted by the players.... (I'm thinking that this can include whether they want to play domination or mining tbh)

This could be manipulated so that one person always disagrees with the other to have a regular no-limitations game. (Which is what I'd do tbh.)

juanma206 wrote:

tw2000 wrote:tbh how about each pair decides what rules to implement before the game starts in PM or in-game public chat?
All the organiser needs to do is the pairing, the rules can be sorted by the players.... (I'm thinking that this can include whether they want to play domination or mining tbh)

This could be manipulated so that one person always disagrees with the other to have a regular no-limitations game. (Which is what I'd do tbh.)

tbh as long as outposts are settled at the beginning at 10-10 I'm fine with the rest

tw2000 wrote:

juanma206 wrote:

tw2000 wrote:tbh how about each pair decides what rules to implement before the game starts in PM or in-game public chat?
All the organiser needs to do is the pairing, the rules can be sorted by the players.... (I'm thinking that this can include whether they want to play domination or mining tbh)

This could be manipulated so that one person always disagrees with the other to have a regular no-limitations game. (Which is what I'd do tbh.)

tbh as long as outposts are settled at the beginning at 10-10 I'm fine with the rest

tbh as long as outposts are NOT settled at the beginning at 10-10 I'm fine. (And no restrictions math get on it)

juanma206 wrote:

tw2000 wrote:

juanma206 wrote:This could be manipulated so that one person always disagrees with the other to have a regular no-limitations game. (Which is what I'd do tbh.)

tbh as long as outposts are settled at the beginning at 10-10 I'm fine with the rest

tbh as long as outposts are NOT settled at the beginning at 10-10 I'm fine. (And no restrictions math get on it)

uh why? I would like to get at least this aspect of EGU (externally generated unpredicatability) out of the way. Otherwise it would be more a lottery and less a test of skill.

Because from my perspective, luck is what makes this game a game. And also the fact that we're human and no matter how skilled we are, we can make mistakes.
My point is, if everything was due to skill and no mistakes or luck, then 100% of the time, the "most skilled" person would win. Would you play in a game where you are GUARANTEED to either win against a worse person or lose against a better person?

From my perspective, setting outposts before the game even start isn't fair to the game. While you can try to minimize the luck factor, human error and luck must still play a part in all games.

juanma206 wrote:Because from my perspective, luck is what makes this game a game. And also the fact that we're human and no matter how skilled we are, we can make mistakes.
My point is, if everything was due to skill and no mistakes or luck, then 100% of the time, the "most skilled" person would win. Would you play in a game where you are GUARANTEED to either win against a worse person or lose against a better person?

From my perspective, setting outposts before the game even start isn't fair to the game. While you can try to minimize the luck factor, human error and luck must still play a part in all games.

Well, in chess, even though there is no luck involved, grandmasters still lose and win and draw to the same oppoent even though they may play those games one after the other.
There is something else called Internally Generated Unpredictability (IGU) which describes the randomness of human thought, a component of what we refer to as 'skill'. That is what you mean by 'human error and luck' (I hope). Also, people are not computers. We know how to improve from our mistakes. Only the most advanced AI these days (like google deepmind) know how to do that).

Oh and then there's also one very fundamental thing you overlooked: When we don't know who is 'more skilled', we cannot guarantee who will win. So of course we would like to find out who is 'more skilled' and so we wish to minimise EGU at least the first time we play each other.

tw2000 wrote:

juanma206 wrote:Because from my perspective, luck is what makes this game a game. And also the fact that we're human and no matter how skilled we are, we can make mistakes.
My point is, if everything was due to skill and no mistakes or luck, then 100% of the time, the "most skilled" person would win. Would you play in a game where you are GUARANTEED to either win against a worse person or lose against a better person?

From my perspective, setting outposts before the game even start isn't fair to the game. While you can try to minimize the luck factor, human error and luck must still play a part in all games.

Well, in chess, even though there is no luck involved, grandmasters still lose and win and draw to the same oppoent even though they may play those games one after the other.
There is something else called Internally Generated Unpredictability (IGU) which describes the randomness of human thought, a component of what we refer to as 'skill'. That is what you mean by 'human error and luck' (I hope). Also, people are not computers. We know how to improve from our mistakes. Only the most advanced AI these days (like google deepmind) know how to do that).

Oh and then there's also one very fundamental thing you overlooked: When we don't know who is 'more skilled', we cannot guarantee who will win. So of course we would like to find out who is 'more skilled' and so we wish to minimise EGU at least the first time we play each other.

Also, please don't be offended by my replies. I'm not trying to argue over anything. I'm just having a good old debate here (which I enjoy).