Classicists League Table

General stuff.

Moderators: Buachaille, JonS, Fatmo

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby AndyCooke » 13 Nov 2010, 15:04

If we adopt DIAS, I'd suggest that 2-player draws get more recognition than other draws - as they have to be 17-17. We might describe that as a "tie" and view it better than a draw.
http://xkcd.com/552/

Silver member of the Classicists
AndyCooke
 
Posts: 491
Joined: 24 Dec 2008, 22:00
Location: Oxfordshire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby echotwo » 13 Nov 2010, 17:09

AndyCooke wrote:If we adopt DIAS, I'd suggest that 2-player draws get more recognition than other draws - as they have to be 17-17. We might describe that as a "tie" and view it better than a draw.


Andy, you've missed out the (IMO non-existent) logical step between 'they have to be 17-17' and 'they should get more recognition'.
echotwo
 
Posts: 735
Joined: 01 Feb 2010, 19:33
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby AndyCooke » 14 Nov 2010, 00:54

echotwo wrote:
AndyCooke wrote:If we adopt DIAS, I'd suggest that 2-player draws get more recognition than other draws - as they have to be 17-17. We might describe that as a "tie" and view it better than a draw.


Andy, you've missed out the (IMO non-existent) logical step between 'they have to be 17-17' and 'they should get more recognition'.


There are many possible permutations of centres between players in a 3-way draw. In a 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) there is but one: 17 SCs each.

A 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) is therefore more difficult and should be far rarer. To get there, you have to extinguish all other players and manage to stop another player who was in spitting distance of a solo. A 3-way draw can fall out that each player was a fair way off of a solo, and could therefore be more easily negotiated between the players. A 2-way draw in a DIAS game would provide colossal incentive to stab for the solo (just one more centre and far greater opportunity. If you've managed to prevent your lone opponent from doing so, you've pulled off a feat.

So eliminating players down to 3 is one thing. Whittling them from there down is far more difficult, and if you stop the solo-run of another player right at the absolute final gasp, alone, you deserve more recognition than a multi-player draw. In my opinion, of course. Odds are that a 2-way draw (under DIAS) should be the rarest outcome (far rarer than 3,4,5-way draws, and rarer than solos).

(Incidentally, would we restrict the maximum number of draw survivors? That is, you cannot propose a draw with more than x number of players left in the game? Or would we allow 7-way draws?
http://xkcd.com/552/

Silver member of the Classicists
AndyCooke
 
Posts: 491
Joined: 24 Dec 2008, 22:00
Location: Oxfordshire
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby bb82 » 14 Nov 2010, 13:21

With using the rules of the game, i.e. DIAS, getting a 2-way is nothing to brag about. It is extremely rare and if you get one, it is usually because you were whittling without any regard to getting into position to solo or that you had an 'unbreakable' alliance. Both of which are contrary to the primary goal of the game.

I would feel worse with getting a 2-way than with getting a 3-way.
I will strive to have the strength to change what can and 'should' be changed, the courage to accept what can't be changed, and the wisdom to be able to tell the difference.
User avatar
bb82
Sponsor
Sponsor
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 02 Dec 2009, 15:49
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby QueenOfHearts » 14 Nov 2010, 14:33

bb82 wrote:With using the rules of the game, i.e. DIAS, getting a 2-way is nothing to brag about. It is extremely rare and if you get one, it is usually because you were whittling without any regard to getting into position to solo or that you had an 'unbreakable' alliance. Both of which are contrary to the primary goal of the game.

I would feel worse with getting a 2-way than with getting a 3-way.

I would disagree with this bb.

IF you are whittling, then certainly, that would bring no satisfaction. But there are some legit instances where a 17-17 draws are achieved. For instance, what if you get lucky on a lot of things, and then it's just a race to the stalemate line, seeing that the other superpower is doing the same thing?
`·.„¸¸¸„‹•*˜¨˜°*•›„¸¸¸„.·´QoH`·.„¸¸¸„‹•*˜¨˜°*•›„¸¸¸„.·´
`·.„¸¸¸„‹•*˜¨Always played, never won!˜°*•›„¸¸¸„.·´

Thanks to SidneyKidney for my sexy avatar. It has a copyright on it.
User avatar
QueenOfHearts
Sponsor
Sponsor
 
Posts: 4650
Joined: 18 Jun 2009, 19:44
Location: (F) Mos (sc)
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby bb82 » 14 Nov 2010, 14:55

QueenOfHearts wrote:But there are some legit instances where a 17-17 draws are achieved. For instance, what if you get lucky on a lot of things, and then it's just a race to the stalemate line, seeing that the other superpower is doing the same thing?


I'm not saying it isn't possible. But I am saying it usually happens because someone isn't 'playing' the game with the primary goal to solo. In the situation you describe there would usually be another nation that is holding on to some critical territory, hence a bigger draw than a 2-way.
I will strive to have the strength to change what can and 'should' be changed, the courage to accept what can't be changed, and the wisdom to be able to tell the difference.
User avatar
bb82
Sponsor
Sponsor
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 02 Dec 2009, 15:49
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-6

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby echotwo » 14 Nov 2010, 15:12

QueenOfHearts wrote:
bb82 wrote:With using the rules of the game, i.e. DIAS, getting a 2-way is nothing to brag about. It is extremely rare and if you get one, it is usually because you were whittling without any regard to getting into position to solo or that you had an 'unbreakable' alliance. Both of which are contrary to the primary goal of the game.

I would feel worse with getting a 2-way than with getting a 3-way.

I would disagree with this bb.

IF you are whittling, then certainly, that would bring no satisfaction. But there are some legit instances where a 17-17 draws are achieved. For instance, what if you get lucky on a lot of things, and then it's just a race to the stalemate line, seeing that the other superpower is doing the same thing?


The problem is that it's in fact the opposite of what QoH says. If you're whittling, then the result (you've achieved what you've set out to achieve, after all) brings considerable satisfaction. If you're playing for the win, then a 17-17 stalemate is deeply frustrating and disappointing.
echotwo
 
Posts: 735
Joined: 01 Feb 2010, 19:33
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby raphtown » 14 Nov 2010, 21:06

I think it would be helpful if someone could sum up the various points made here and what is or is not disagreed upon. I for one am a little confused at this point by all the differing ideas/opinions.
The Classicists are a group dedicated to reducing player NMRs.
User avatar
raphtown
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 19:07
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby Ceebs » 17 Nov 2010, 08:49

It can happen that 17-17 draws come about naturally with both parties trying their damnedest to solo the whole time. This was the case in one game i had i while back (19542).

While it is true that this was considerably more difficult to get than a 3-way, making the 2-way work proportionately more would detract from the relative value of a solo and give players the incentive to collude in whittling draws down from 3 to 2.
User avatar
Ceebs
 
Posts: 674
Joined: 23 Jul 2008, 05:51
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1058)
All-game rating: (1204)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Classicists League Table

Postby echotwo » 17 Nov 2010, 16:12

AndyCooke wrote:There are many possible permutations of centres between players in a 3-way draw. In a 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) there is but one: 17 SCs each.

A 2-way draw (under DIAS conditions) is therefore more difficult and should be far rarer. To get there, you have to extinguish all other players and manage to stop another player who was in spitting distance of a solo. A 3-way draw can fall out that each player was a fair way off of a solo, and could therefore be more easily negotiated between the players. A 2-way draw in a DIAS game would provide colossal incentive to stab for the solo (just one more centre and far greater opportunity. If you've managed to prevent your lone opponent from doing so, you've pulled off a feat.


If you want to argue based on rareness, one could say that a 17-12-1-1-1-1-1 split is even rarer than a 17-17 split, but I don't think it should be more highly rewarded. Similarly, there are plenty of things that are more difficult. Germany taking Tunis, for example, or Smyrna. England taking Sevastopol or Serbia. Austria taking Liverpool or Norway.

More to the point, a 2-way draw can very easily be negotiated by the players, if that's what they're aiming at. It happens all the time on this site. Similarly, I don't think it's particularly relevant that in a 3-way draw it's possible that 'each player was a fair way off of a solo'. If you've got a (genuine) two-way draw, you're in a situation where neither player has any chance at a solo, beyond the 'tactic' of waiting for someone else to NMR. You're not 'closer' by virtue of being on 17, if you've got a single player (or indeed alliance) that can hold the other 17 dots against you. A draw with a high SC-count means that you're accepting that you're not going to get to 18.
echotwo
 
Posts: 735
Joined: 01 Feb 2010, 19:33
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Miscellaneous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest