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

i used a sanction card on them. they are banned from all competitive play.

oops am i assumed to note opponent i'm using sanction card or other cards when i play it? i couldn't read this thread all. pls let me know. thx

I generally agree with emoose. The experience was most fun for me because I was faced with the novel challenge. I do not believe playing with these settings once in a while (especially if it is against a strong opponent) is going to teach bad habits to the rookie. I do not see how playing against a vet with reduced income would stop the rookie from playing against a "real vet." The whole point is that strategy is what makes a vet, not specific settings we are used to. I don't want to teach rookies "what to do on turn 3 when you have an income of 8" I want to teach them strategy that applies in all situations.

In my mind the true learning experience comes from the tips and pointers at the end of the game, and the settings are just a nice way to bring together players that otherwise would not have a fun game together.

@Dirty Bee
You inform your opponent only about using Sanction Card.

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1758930

Great settings Gilg! I played Sunny Rain, and was subsequently obliberated (Despite sunny not playing his sanctions card untill turn 2). I played mine on turn 8, hoping to one up Ruthless's win...needless to say this did not occur, a fun game regardless.

Feel free to put me down for another Gilg (I would make it, but I thought you might like to be the creator so that you can continue to add to any statistical data you might be compiling).

So tempted to make a hockey comment right now...

Bumblebee, with that clan name, you should be discarding your sanctions card...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1764387

I feel like I played my card just in time to grab last chance of pulling the game. Still, if Heartheadstomach had concentrated on me instead of growing, I wouldn't have had a mere chance (I don't even say about unused Botswana possibility. oops, said that).

@ emoose and lobstrosity:
Thanks guys, your last comments say, what I am right now unable to write, in foreign language right now - just to tired :-)

@NuckLuck
Your opponent was actually really good! But you fought bravely!

@Denzyman UA
Thanks for playing - maybe one more?

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1759136

Game with Tru is over, I won without using the sanctions card, but mainly because Tru focused on expanding instead of fighting me early on