echotwo wrote:But to claim that solos are in themselves over-rewarded is I think ludicrous. All other things being equal, it's draws that are over-rewarded.
I think being worth 3-4 times more than a draw is appropriate, to hopefully encourage others to go for it and to help promote the primary goal of the game. I just don't believe that the outcome of a game can be appropriately measured against outcomes of other games. All ranking systems will be flawed because of that.
echotwo wrote:How effective do you think the pseudo-Socratic method is at conveying the impression that you're not actually interested in having a conversation with your interlocutor?
When I was younger I use to always have the urge to argue. But I've realized over the years that people tend to believe what they want to believe, no matter what another says. So although I still have that urge, I now vastly limit my arguments and search for my own truths. I see little to gain from doing otherwise.
In this case, from all my experience/studying of the game, I've come to hold certain truths about the game. One of which is that given a group of highly competent players, the game will usually end in a draw. This is because of the layout of the map and that a competent player would not only understand the tactical situation of the map, but would also not want to see anyone but themself solo.
As for the socratic method, in this modern era, I find it to be a waste of time and far from the best way to learn.
)
