I started a game against tru, I like the concept and I think even if it does not work perfectly at first a few tweaks will make these games interesting! I will let you know how it goes

The Fizzer Impersonater is in a deep lasting love with Fizzer..

[http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1757632](http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1757632)

I used the card on turn 8 but also got a free first turn (card wasn't played until turn 2). In my opinion, I like the idea of having just one sanction card used for a specific number of turns and then expiring to go back to full force. Then the Rookie can even have the option of playing it right at the start or holding it for a potentially more opportune time. I think the number of turns needs to be 5 cuz (at least in my game) I had virtually no chance of coming back from such a deficit of even 7 turns. Either that or I'm just not good enough to be involved in this challenge ;)

@gilgamesz:
|> I was aiming at a template which a vet could use with open seats
|> and customize after learning who is his opponent ( e.g. "X" with
|> 5 multiplayer games and level 1 single player - the vet plays SC
|> card in turn 12; "Y" with 95 games and crazy done in single
|> player - the vet plays SC card in turn 3)

Ah, I see your point. How about dividing the sanctions card into 1 piece, and setting a minimum of 1 piece per turn? Then the rookie plays one every turn, until turn X.
Downsides: easy to forget, the veteran benefits if the rookie doesn't conquer any territory in a given turn and you'll both be discarding cards the entire game.

Another possible solution would be to increase all the bonuses (relatively easy, since you're making a template, so you only have to do it once) to compensate. If you multiply by 5/3, after 40% sanction (60% left), you'll end up with approximately (thank you rounding errors) the original values again.

why not just provide a card that can be used to give the newb an income bonus instead?

|> why not just provide a card that can be used to give the newb an income bonus instead?

What gilgamesz is trying to accomplish is to use one template for different amounts of mismatches between skill levels. That's where the reference to open seats came from: first you determine the settings, then you determine the opponent.
With your idea it would still be necessary to change the duration of the income bonus (you're thinking about a negative-sanctions card, right?), which isn't possible; that has to be set before the opponents are chosen.

my previous post was in response to
"Another possible solution would be to increase all the bonuses (relatively easy, since you're making a template, so you only have to do it once) to compensate. If you multiply by 5/3, after 40% sanction (60% left), you'll end up with approximately (thank you rounding errors) the original values again."


RvW, I don't see how a 1000 turn 40% bonus to the noob would be any different then a 1000 turn 40% decrease on the vet.. in either case the noob is gaining an advantage.. and providing a 40% boost to income would be more effective then increasing the bonuses by 40%.. it would be more accurate due to rounding errors, and would also apply a slight initial bonus for the noob to spread...
as I had stated in my previous game, these settings won't really teach noobs how to win in strat 1v1, but will be good for them to learn the fundamental aspects of it, without having to worry about efficiency against a better opponent.. and the better opponent is there to give you pointers afterwards ;)

I am really gratefull to all those Rookies and Veterans who accepted my invitations and started playing this new game variant. Thank you!

@ Eitz
Its not that you are "not good enough to be involved in this challenge" - the problem is that BabyPossum is learning to fast :-) I think now he is allready able to win with the vet playing SC card in turn 5!!! If you are not to busy Eitz and if BabyPossum is not completely exhausted, maybe you could play rematch, with you playing the card in turn 4 (who knows what tricks he will learn from bytjie in the meantime?)

@RvW
Thanks for support! Seems that you to want to squize as much knowledge from single player as possible before joining multiplayer games - that was my approach to :-)

@ Perrin
I was starting this response few times and deleting it again - I think I'll wait for few more of the games to finish and then we'll see. Thanks for contributting Perrin.

@ lobstrosity
Thanks for joining the fun.Can't wait to see the game!

@ gilgamesz
my game should be wrapping up soon, I believe I have pulled of the win sans sanction use on my end. I will definitely have a few pointers to share with Tru once the game is over :)

According to a friend of mine, in Go there are 9 degrees/levels of players. Each level is equivalent to 1 extra starting stone, if players want to use a handicap system to start the game. Why not do something similar with WL?

From my ladder experience, I'd say the ELO ratings clearly divide skill levels. Based on active ladder members' skill and ratings, it seems players could be divided into 11 degrees/levels:

- Level 1: 1000 and below
- 2: 1000-1100
- 3: 1100-1200
- 4: 1200-1300
- 5: 1400-1500
- 6: 1500-1600
- 7: 1600-1700
- 8: 1700-1800
- 9: 1800-1900
- 10: 1900-2000
- 11: 2000+

I'd say each level is capable of beating someone 3 levels above and losing to someone three levels below: a 1500-1600 player could beat a 1800-1900 player (but not a 1900-2000 player) and could lose to a 1100-1200 player.

For the 'Veteran' vs 'Rookie' format, I'd assume all 'Veterans' are level 9, 10 or 11 players. And all 'Rookies' are level 1-5 players.

Another way to make 'Rookie' vs 'Veteran' games fair, first one must determine each players level:

- If both players are 1v1 ladder players: Simply subtract levels. Every difference in levels of 1 should be the standard unit to start determining any change in card settings.
- If the 'Veteran' is not a member: assume you'd be rated 1900-2000.
- If the 'Rookie' is not a member: play 2-3 normal games with the 'Veteran'. Then, the 'Veteran' should look at the 1v1 ladder list. Which of the level 1-5 ladder players have you played? Look at your games with these players. Compare the level of ease you had with the 1v1 ladder player(s) and the 'Rookie'. Which 1v1 ladder player is the 'Rookie' closest to in ability, based on your common games with ladder players? This will give you an approximate level for the 'Rookie'.

Next, adjust card settings to fit the difference in levels of players. If the sanctions card is not an ideal way to make games fair, why not try using reinforcement cards?

- I'd say a +0.5 reinforcement card is needed for each difference of 1 in levels.
- Thus: 'Veteran' is a level 10 player. 'Rookie' is a level 5 player. Difference = 5. So a +2.5 reinforcement card would be used.
- 'Rookie' uses reinforcement cards. 'Veteran' plays the game without using reinforcement cards.

+2.5: round up or down (can't use half a troop).

reinforcement cards: in 1 or 2 pieces (I'm not sure which would be fairest).

I think that's just re-creating the problem in another method, personally.

Assuming both the rookie and the veteran find a way to meet each other and go through the trouble of establishing the rookie's skill level with some practice games, having the rookie play a reinforcement card each turn just brings you back to the problem of the rookie learning with an advantage they won't find anywhere else. If you instead use a temporary Sanctions Card, with settings determined based on the rookie's skill, the rookie themselves is learning to play under normal 1v1 settings, without getting overwhelmed by the veteran in the first few turns.

I also think it's bad to tinker with the Reinforcement Card since it's a normal and very key part of normal games, whereas the Sanctions Card is being introduced without interfering with normal cards. (On that note, does the Sanctions Card also reduce the bonus armies provided by Reinforcement Cards?)

there are ways around that. just think more: provide 14 reinforcements (of +1, +2 or +3) at the start (and set max cards held to 15). rookie uses one a turn. vet doesn't. vet keeps 4 of his and discards 10 (see below):

- turn 1: 13 left for rookie
- turn 2: 12
- turn 3: 11
- turn 4: 8...rookie earns a new reinforcement by making 4 attacks, uses 1 more to make it add up to +4 or +6 (to make it close to the real +5). vet uses 2 of his 4 (to simulate real reinforcement of +5)
- turn 5: 7
- turn 6: 6
- turn 7: 5
- turn 8: 2...let's assume rookie earns a new reinforcement by making 4 attacks, uses 1 more to make it add up to +4 or +6 (to make it close to the real +5). vet uses his/her last 2 (to simulate real reinforcement of +5)
- turn 9: 1
- turn 10: all +2 or +3 bonuses are gone. if the game is not over yet, the fight is now on equal footing. but future reinforcements are limited to +2 or +3.

sure, you get +4 or +6 instead of a +5 after making 4 attacks. but i think a boost of armies does more. tripping up the vet (sanctions card) is not natural. let the vet play his game for the first 10 turns without being tied down, to make it more natural.

if you want another boost: ask participating vets to list 10 good bonuses and 1-3 good counters worth picking before the rookie makes his/her picks. then the rookie might start thinking more like the vet (and make more strategic picks).

bad math: turns 4 through 12 should have this many cards left 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 (last one used on turn 11). so it's an 11-turn boost.

Sanctions does not affect R cards


Yuan, afaik you can't make R cards provide a selection of armies unless you make it scaling by turns/territs, and either one would increase as the game progressed..

you could also provide +3 R cards, that the Rookie could use on turns 2 5 7, in addition to his normal cards, or something like that.. the initial Sanctions Idea I think is best because the Vet is playing at a reduced power and the noob is playing a 1v1 strat \*as it would normally be played* the problem imho was the eternal duration.. it would give them the sense of having less armies late game, and when they started playing real games, would have to adjust for it, as well as their enemies being able to grow as fast as them

it goes to purpose: if the goal is to make it fun for the vet, reduce his income. if the goal is to give the rookie a real vet (real moves, full income, actual game experience of playing the vet) to see what a vet would do without any encumbrances, increase the rookie's income.

if the goal is to help the rookie improve: play a real game. then, talk the rookie through the picks (at the start before the rookie makes his picks) and discuss the moves (after the game). do that a few times and the rookie will learn. play a few games with sanction cards or reinforcement cards, and the rookie learns how to win with the different cards but not without crutches.

In a sense you're right, but as a rookie I disagree.

Reducing the vet's income makes the game more fun for both players, since the rookie isn't being overwhelmed by the well-calculated and very efficient growth of the vet, while the vet enjoys the challenge of trying to overcome a disadvantage. The rookie is still experiencing a real vet, since the vet is demonstrating strategy, but again the rookie isn't being overwhelmed, since the vet has reduced numbers.

The last part of your comment is half and half; the discussion of the picks and move can happen with or without the card changes, so I'll ignore that bit. As for learning on crutches, that's part of my previous point. Playing with the cards and armies of the rookie is changing the rules of the game, so it's not quite an ideal learning situation, and this was already mentioned earlier in the thread too. The essential point of this template is to give rookies crutches to help them learn more about the game, and I think the method that's *least* damaging to real 1v1 play is to slow down the growth of the vet.

Yuanshai, just an FYI... you omitted 1300-1400