I think you misunderstood me. I understand that you're trying to prove that you can play a strategic game on 100% luck settings. My point is merely that if you're trying to create a strategic template, it should bring something new to the table that other templates don't have. I don't think that attempting to duplicate the standard Strat 1v1 template using 100% luck really meets that bar. It seems more like a stunt. What is the benefit to playing your template over playing strat 1v1 with 20% luck and normal army counts? I don't think using a setting for the sake of using it qualifies as a reason to use it. I hope I've made my question clear.

MoD (or Sze) - would you agree to play one game with me on my 1v1? We don't have to play it to the end of course (just first 6-8 turns I suppose). This way I would get the chance to discuss it and further develop it. I'd really appreciate it If you could lend me some of your time and experience.










??

Edited 12/4/2015 23:28:30

wct, what were you aiming for in the contest? If you were going to try to win the contest, making a much more tedious version of Strategic 1v1 Weighted Random is not going to do it.

If your goal was to show that 100% luck can indeed be used in a strategic template, I think you have succeeded. But the point that these strong players are making is that there is no real benefit to playing with 100% luck over 0% WR. Adding extra armies just makes it more tedious. If you can find a 100% luck template that where the luck value actually adds to the strategic value of the template, I'd love to see it.

As for Fleecemaster's template, a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea. And that is basically what Fleecemaster's template is. It is all about calculation and simple addition, but is not hard to understand on any level. Like they say on the stream, a strong player will be able to figure out the template in 3 turns or less. That is 100% the truth. You could attempt to make a more complex version of the template, similar to many Warlight Olympic events from a few years ago. The problem is that the more the players play these templates, the simpler it is to figure out. You could make it more challenging with a bigger map and changing a few bonus values, yet even in this case, it will be a more boring, simpler version of chess. I think these kind of templates can be fun for a few games, but they don't have any longterm strategic value.

I think both wct and Fleecemaster made nonstandard templates, and both are interesting in their own right. Yet neither has longterm potential, which is what Szeweningen seems to be going for.

I think you misunderstood me. I understand that you're trying to prove that you can play a strategic game on 100% luck settings. My point is merely that if you're trying to create a strategic template, it should bring something new to the table that other templates don't have. I don't think that attempting to duplicate the standard Strat 1v1 template using 100% luck really meets that bar.

I think you misunderstood me. I've said many times that I didn't submit the template to win the contest. I said originally that it's a proof-of-concept.

My point is merely that if you're trying to create a strategic template, it should bring something new to the table that other templates don't have.

Which other templates used 100% luck?

I don't think that attempting to duplicate the standard Strat 1v1 template using 100% luck really meets that bar.

Why not? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Let's look at how the contest was introduced and explained by Szeweningen. I'll bold the relevant bits and snip some for brevity:

.... In the past few years all new templates I've seen were almost exclusively mine, Gui's or a rehash of them. It is possible I'm now just detached from the "new" community and I don't see anything new, but here is where the contest comes in. Contest is very simple, make your own 1v1 template, test it, optimise it, play on it once and post your results here! Deadline is the 30th of November, so you have a whole month to do it. Of course you can rehash old templates or put a new spin on them, however your chances will be smaller if the template is too similar to some standard templates.
...
Just to be clear, diplo/rp templates do not qualify, the template always needs some sort of strategic value. When you post give a template link, if you can a game link and describe shortly the idea behind the template and the settings. An example new template I have not released yet: .... snip

Also you can post multiple templates if you are like Ra and you have potentailly up to 30 hidden templates. Anyway, go make some templates and show me the results :)

Pretty simple contest, right?

Here's where I asked about luck:

Do you consider luck % as being necessarily a negative? If I made a template with 100% luck involved would it have a lower chance of winning?

Turns out he had already answered my basic question with this earlier comment:

I really don't want to put in specific rules for settings, i'll let the creators decide what they think is strategic and what is not. The reason behind it is that there are some well-established strategic settings that generally will work on every map, but possibly some things we think of that are not strategic on a general principle, may work in a very specific situation. Different kill rates, card focused 1v1 template, low base income, limited distribution, fog settings, these are all relatively unexplored. Maybe there will be some other new and original ideas or a mixture of those. I'm open to be surprised, if I can I'll test all the templates myself.

Seems like the rules are pretty open. Here's how I interpreted that comment:

P.S.: I think I've had my original question answered well already by szeweningen. High luck could be considered strategic. I guess it's up to the scenario maker to put forward a good case.

Which I did, in the template description here:

It's an attempt at a proof-of-concept that 100% luck WR could theoretically still be usable in a strategic way. I upped all the armies by 10 times, so that should reduce the standard deviation quite a bit. You may get a few odd results, but it's much less likely than if you were playing with the standard income and distribution settings. (10 armies might occasionally fail to take a 1, but 100 armies will almost surely take a 10.)

My issue is not with getting a low score. I expected as much, especially since Szew said "your chances will be smaller if the template is too similar to some standard templates", and the standard 1v1 is pretty much the definition of a standard template. My issue was with the 'judges' not actually judging it based on how the template actually works, but on how they thought it might work in their hypothetical, intuitive mental models, which, as I've said several times, can be misleading. It was not an *informed* critique. Szew's critique was the most informed on the stream, but he still jumped to the premature (IMO) conclusion that delay moves would actually be a big problem without testing it or reviewing any of the several sample games I provided.

It seems more like a stunt.

I don't know what to say to that. Check your biases, maybe? At what point should I have declared that it's intended as a proof of concept? *Before* actually posting the template? Because I said it's a proof of concept *when I actually posted the template*.

Why do you imagine a 'stunt' when the much simpler explanation which fits all the evidence of the prior thread is simply that I was submitting a proof of concept of Pure Luck strategy, to, I don't know, *prove* that the *concept* can work, contrary to the intuitions of several people who posted in the beginning of this thread.

You seem to be ignoring all this prior context. Why do *you* seem so intent on finding some nefarious motives to such a simple template idea? What's your beef, really?

What is the benefit to playing your template over playing strat 1v1 with 20% luck and normal army counts?

Nowhere in the contest description does it state you should show some particular benefit over playing 1v1 strat or any other template. That's *your* assumption about the contest. But I challenge you to find a quote from Szeweningen that implies that all submissions must conform to your personal expectations about that.

I was going by the description he gave, which I highlighted in bold. Specifically, to make my "own 1v1 template, test it, optimise it, play on it once and post your results here" where the template has "some sort of strategic value", and I as "creator decide what [ I] think is strategic and what is not", which I interpreted to mean that "it's up to [me] to put forward a good case" that Pure Luck can be strategic. I expected Szew and any other judges to judge it harsher because it's a rehash, but not discount it entirely because Szew said, "you can rehash old templates or put a new spin on them", such as "possibly some things we think of that are not strategic [i.e 100% luck] on a general principle, may work in a very specific situation [such as with 10 times armies]". I expected Szew and any other judges to be open-minded to such a weird-seeming template because Szew said, "Maybe there will be some other new and original ideas or a mixture of those. I'm open to be surprised," and I expected them to either test it or look at at least one of the 7-8 sample games I provided, because Szew said, "if I can I'll test all the templates myself."

Now *you* come along and make a bizarre accusation that all this is some 'stunt', almost like a 'joke' it seems. What sort of evidence do *you* have to justify that claim?

I don't think using a setting for the sake of using it qualifies as a reason to use it.

Start your own contest then.

I hope I've made my question clear.

Clear as mud.

TL;DR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

Edited 12/5/2015 00:18:24

JSA wrote:

wct, what were you aiming for in the contest? If you were going to try to win the contest, making a much more tedious version of Strategic 1v1 Weighted Random is not going to do it.

I'm not sure I can make it more clear than my post at 12/3/2015 21:47:28, and the post I just submitted at 12/4/2015 18:11:3. If you have specific questions, please quote something from me for context and ask me about it.

If your goal was to show that 100% luck can indeed be used in a strategic template, I think you have succeeded.

Thanks, glad to hear it.

But the point that these strong players are making is that there is no real benefit to playing with 100% luck over 0% WR.

The first person to raise that objection is Beren. You're the second. If I've missed somone else raising that objection, I'd appreciate a quote or link or something. My just-submitted post addresses this random argument.

Adding extra armies just makes it more tedious.

This has yet to be demonstrated, as several of my previous posts contend. If you have an objection to any of those arguments, please quote them and point out where you disagree, so that I have some context to respond to.

If you can find a 100% luck template that where the luck value actually adds to the strategic value of the template, I'd love to see it.

This is another example of where you might want to start your own contest. My template was submitted to *this* contest, which does not specify such requirements, as my previous post demonstrates.

As for Fleecemaster's template, a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea.

Can you supply a quote from Szew's contest descriptions to support your claim?

I don't see why it's worth arguing about. You said your template was meant to be a proof-of-concept, and it accomplished this goal. Your template is strategic with 100% luck.

My point was I don't see much potential for this proof-of-concept to go anywhere; I see no added strategic value of using 100% luck over using standard luck settings. I don't think it's worth it to add a contest about it. Better to challenge players to experiment with other settings that have potential.

Can you supply a quote from Szew's contest descriptions to support your claim?

Szeweningen said he'd like to see something new in his contest. I've seen Hexagonal maps being used for "Chess-type" games before, and I've seen maps like Four Castles also be used to try this. Fleecemaster's template brings nothing new to the table.

Edited 12/4/2015 23:48:26

@JSA: What about mine? 8]

Edited 12/4/2015 23:57:50

I haven't checked out your template yet. I honestly have checked out only a few templates in this contest, mostly the people complaining the most :P I can check yours out later if you wish.

Something to keep in mind with the commentators is that they had no true rating system set up, meaning they were mostly basing it on what they would want to play. I believe their ratings will likely be pretty accurate, but I am sure some templates were overrated/underrated based on their personal biases. For instance, I don't quite understand ChrisCMU's getting a 0.5 and a 1 from 2 guys, considering 2 others rated it as a 5. That just screams bias. It's likely not a deliberate bias, but it is still something to keep in mind.

I think the commentators will do a better job next time, and give templates a better look before the stream. I think they did a fine job for it being their first time doing this template contest, and I would be interested to see more of them.

Edited 12/5/2015 00:08:03

that would be great!! my template is on page 4. Long post - hard to miss it :P


and I was the first to complain here :P

what about ratings - it would be easier if maps were valued in few categories from 1 to 5 ...
Like:


Innovative 3
Strategic 4
Replayability 2
Game Joy 3

Edited 12/5/2015 00:12:49

I didn't read much of the earlier thread, just the last couple pages mainly.

I would really like to go through all the templates and give out my analysis of it, just so players can have another opinion. In the contest, I believe they were more centered at picking the best template, not necessarily on improving the templates that players submitted (although I think Szeweningen made many good suggestions on various templates). I would like to focus on how the templates can be improved (if they can).

I think that if Szeweningen decides to do this contest again, he will look at doing a rating system with different categories as you mention.

Edited 12/5/2015 00:11:54

Ok. I am waiting eagerly on your opinion then. We can set up 1v1 on this template if you want.

Sure, feel free to invite me. I'll check out the settings first and draw conclusions from them, then we can play and see if all my assumptions were correct, and whether it is an enjoyable way to play. Unfortunately I don't have time to look over it tonight, so it will have to wait until tomorrow.

same with me - need to go to sleep. Although Ill create a game so you can jump in when you feel ready. Jut try to read through this forum-description first :P

I don't see why it's worth arguing about. You said your template was meant to be a proof-of-concept, and it accomplished this goal. Your template is strategic with 100% luck.

Thanks. I think we have some common ground here. I agree it's not really worth arguing about, in the sense that I don't understand why some people seem to have such a big problem with the template/100%-luck. I *am* interested in defending the idea from some of the bad arguments against it, though; so in that sense, I kinda do think it's worth arguing about. But only in that way.

My point was I don't see much potential for this proof-of-concept to go anywhere; I see no added strategic value of using 100% luck over using standard luck settings.

Fair enough. The Dude quote comes to mind, though.

I don't think it's worth it to add a contest about it.

Are you referring to Szew's contest? Or perhaps to the tournament I started to beta-test the template?

If you mean Szew's contest, I'm not sure what you mean.

If you mean the tournament, then the tournament is not a real contest, except in the sense that it's in the form of a WL tournament, which is inherently competitive amongst the players. The purpose of the tournament, as explained in the tournament description (https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer/Tournament?ID=16560), is to beta-test this template to see if the claims that delay moves ruin the fun and workability of the template (amongst skilled players) are actually true or not. It's an investigation, not a contest, really.

Szeweningen said he'd like to see something new in his contest. I've seen Hexagonal maps being used for "Chess-type" games before, and I've seen maps like Four Castles also be used to try this. Fleecemaster's template brings nothing new to the table.

But that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that "a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea." Can you support that claim, or are you now changing your claim to the different claim that "Szeweningen said he'd like to see something new in his contest .... Fleecemaster's template brings nothing new to the table"?

[I don't intend to defend Fleecemaster's template. I don't know it well enough to do so, and it's not my dog in the fight. I just found your claims surprising and was curious about them.]

Edited 12/5/2015 00:49:52

It's likely not a deliberate bias, but it is still something to keep in mind.

I think the commentators will do a better job next time, and give templates a better look before the stream. I think they did a fine job for it being their first time doing this template contest, and I would be interested to see more of them.

I agree with this, FWIW.

JSA: I don't think it's worth it to add a contest about it.

When I said that, I was referring to this:

wct: This is another example of where you might want to start your own contest. My template was submitted to *this* contest, which does not specify such requirements, as my previous post demonstrates.


JSA: a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea

JSA: Szeweningen said he'd like to see something new in his contest. I've seen Hexagonal maps being used for "Chess-type" games before, and I've seen maps like Four Castles also be used to try this. Fleecemaster's template brings nothing new to the table.

wct: But that wasn't your claim. Your claim was that "a very easy version of chess was obviously not Szeweningen's idea." Can you support that claim, or are you now changing your claim to the different claim that "Szeweningen said he'd like to see something new in his contest .... Fleecemaster's template brings nothing new to the table"?

They tie directly together. What I mean is that very easy versions of chess have already been made on warlight, and that it is nothing new. Szeweningen wanted new ideas, something that hadn't been seen before. I can see where I wasn't clear on pointing out this connection earlier and where they could be seen as 2 separate points based on the way I presented them.

JSA: I don't think it's worth it to add a contest about it.

When I said that, I was referring to this:

wct: This is another example of where you might want to start your own contest. My template was submitted to *this* contest, which does not specify such requirements, as my previous post demonstrates.

Then I don't understand what you mean. "to add a contest about it"? Do you mean to submit it to a contest?

They tie directly together. What I mean is that very easy versions of chess have already been made on warlight, and that it is nothing new. Szeweningen wanted new ideas, something that hadn't been seen before. I can see where I wasn't clear on pointing out this connection earlier and where they could be seen as 2 separate points based on the way I presented them.

Okay, I understand you better on this. I disagree, though, as FM's template was one of only two that used Army Caps, and, arguably, in a similar way that my template shows that something normally thought of as inherently un-strategic (in this case, a symmetrical map with symmetrical starting points) can still be strategic. But you would have to discuss that with FM if you wanted to continue the discussion further, as again, I'm not that familiar with his template. I don't think the standards you are holding the templates to reflect what szeweningen's posts described the contest as. Whether szew meant something different than what he actually wrote is another question altogether which only he can shed light on.

BTW: I just checked out some of the sample games in Kain's template post, and I gotta say that it's a cool mechanic he was able to hack together. He also says he wants to start/has started a uservoice thingy to try to get Fizzer to implement the basic concept, which is a combo of random distribution and manual distribution, and I really think it's a great idea, and that his sample games and the template for this contest show how it would work quite convincingly. I think it's worth checking it out, for anyone still reading this thread. If Fizzer were to implement it, you wouldn't have to use the hacky Sanctions/Reinforcement card combo trick that Kain used, it would just work 'out of the box'. Would be pretty cool, IMO.

Edited 12/5/2015 06:24:26

I think Szeweningen's ratings demonstrate what he wanted :P I can understand where it would be unclear going in.

Ah, I must have misread what you wrote. When you said to start my own contest, I thought you specifically meant 100% luck contest, but it seems that you did not. That's why I said it wasn't worth doing a contest about.

Also, I checked out Kain's template a bit, found it interesting and want to check it out more. I also watched the stream on it afterwards, and Szeweningen basically mentions many of my exact thoughts about Kain's template. I think it is extremely unusual, but definitely has some strategic value to it. I believe there is a lot of tweaking that can be done, but it definitely has potential. I think the other 3 commentators were thrown by the unusual settings; I find that many players are ok with trying one unusual setting at a time, but throwing in 1 base army, a lot of cards, 1 base income per turn, auto distribution, local deployment all at once sounds like it has to be an awful template. Yet when you actually look at how these things work together, there's definitely potential there.

Now let's talk about Succession Wars. I checked out the stream, but haven't checked out the template by myself yet. I was wondering how Sweweningen and master of desaster, both being strong in warlight theory, could have such different ideas about what score the template deserved. I find that once again, I agree with Szeweningen. The 2's are dominant here, and while I don't agree with giving it a 0.5, I also don't agree it is a good template by any means. For instance, the fact that Szeweningen and masterofdesaster seemed to disagree on the best way to play this template means that it may be fun for a game or two even for top players. I think with some tweaks, it has potential to be an ok template, and I will try messing with it and seeing if I can come up with something, but I think it doesn't have the potential that Kain's does.

Also, I think the commentators graded the maps on a hard scale. 10 was pretty much perfect; 1 means a template has little strategic value. Based on their ratings, something on the duel map would have been far below 0. I understand why they rated this way because it added some separation between templates, but players with a low rating should understand the very high standards the commentators had, and not feel bad about their low scores. I will say I am impressed with some of the work put into some of these templates; even some of the ones that I consider less strategic definitely had some time put in, and I would like to say Good job! to all participants in this contest. I will definitely enter the next one. I believe I am stronger at analyzing and improving a current template rather than creating and starting a template from scratch, but hopefully I could make something interesting and fun.

Edited 12/5/2015 06:33:57

I think Szeweningen's ratings demonstrate what he wanted :P I can understand where it would be unclear going in.

Right. That's where a lot of the frustration has come from. What was advertised, and what actually occurred, were two very different things, from several of the participants' POVs.

I was wondering how Sweweningen and master of desaster, both being strong in warlight theory, could have such different ideas about what score the template deserved.

I think Szew's perspective, on the day of the stream, perhaps had evolved from what he had originally posted, as reflected by his actual commentary. I think MoD's expectations were more in line with what was originally written by Szew in his first two posts (OP and follow-up) on this thread. That's my hunch anyways.

[ETA:

Now let's talk about Succession Wars. .... and while I don't agree with giving it a 0.5, I also don't agree it is a good template by any means.

Whatever the numerical scores, I stand by my earlier comment that it deserved a better score than mine, for the very least that it was a lot more original.]

Also, I think the commentators graded the maps on a hard scale. 10 was pretty much perfect; 1 means a template has little strategic value. Based on their ratings, something on the duel map would have been far below 0. I understand why they rated this way because it added some separation between templates, but players with a low rating should understand the very high standards the commentators had, and not feel bad about their low scores.

I want to emphasize this for the umpteenth time: I don't think any of those with complaints are actually complaining about their scores. They are complaining about the *reasoning* (or, more accurately, the *lack* of reasoning (stemming from not actually trying them out)) that went into those judgments. If good reasons had been given for low scores, and the scores reflected those reasons, I don't think anyone would have complained about it. It's when *bad* reasons are used to justify low scores that people feel cheated, betrayed, insulted, etc.

Kain said it very well with this: "In my opinion this could be compared to guy who tried to chop down tree with a pistol and after few minutes come to conclusion that "this is a dumbest axe he ever used". "

Edited 12/5/2015 07:19:41

From the 4-5 templates I have seen the stream on, I would consider Szeweningen's ratings pretty spot on. I understood their reasoning, but I could see where those with less experience of warlight may have trouble understanding some of the ratings. I think they could have explained their ratings better when they actually gave them at the end, so that all of the viewing audience would understand them.

I don't think Szeweningen advertised any different than he actually rated the templates. The issue of this is that his opening posts are relatively vague, leaving him with the power to grade the templates as he wished. While I believe his ratings to be pretty similar to how I would rate these templates, I think a better rating system should be put in place next time. I liked Kain's idea of having multiple categories.

I want to emphasize this for the umpteenth time: I don't think any of those with complaints are actually complaining about their scores. They are complaining about the *reasoning* (or, more accurately, the *lack* of reasoning (stemming from not actually trying them out)) that went into those judgments. If good reasons had been given for low scores, and the scores reflected those reasons, I don't think anyone would have complained about it. It's when *bad* reasons are used to justify low scores that people feel cheated, betrayed, insulted, etc.

I don't buy this. If these players had received good scores without any reasons, I highly doubt we would see as many complaints. I think it is not the players rating the templates that are flawed, but rather the rating system itself. The players rating the templates had no set standard for how to rate the templates, so they rated them as they saw fit. In many cases, they used solid reasoning; it's just hard to quantify something like overall playability of a template without breaking it down into different parts.