1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can pano be beaten? Yes, by almost everybody!

Discussion in 'OOC' started by Cabaray, Jul 14, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    It also shouldn't use info from the last campaign to determine scoring in the current one. That's elementary, but CB derped it up.

    Functionally what you have to do is make it so factions gain points when they win and lose points when they lose.
     
  2. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    People already "can't find time" to write up losses, so that would not be helpful...
     
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Writing up the win would give the other faction a loss of points whether or not they wrote up the loss.
     
  4. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    I feel like the flaw in that should be self evident...

    Let's say a player who doesn't want to join in plays with two others who do.

    Player A wins against B then writes up his report and player Bs faction looses points.
    B wins against C and writes it up, for a net gain of nothing.
    C wins against A but doesn't care about writing up reports.

    Let's say player A plays a lot of people who for whatever reason don't want to join in the campaign. Do we only count the linked reports now?
     
  5. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Just to be clear, are players A, B and C all participating in different factions?

    If that's the case, in the first scenario you mentioned, It's true all the factions would have a wash, which is what you'd want for an outcome like that, but before the C beats A game was recorded, A's faction would be up a win, B's faction would be neutral, and C's would be down a win.

    Whether or not to count the linked reports is a detail to be worked out; regardless, each linked pair of reports would only be counted once, otherwise the system breaks down.
     
  6. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    All three players in different factions means that if all three are reported by ether party it's a wash. But since C never reports it's up to A to report his loss. If A doesn't or can't then As faction wins because of a lie of ommision.

    It also means that if a faction gains a lead they don't have to fight to keep it, they just stop playing, meaning they can't lose points...
     
  7. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Sure, but there's no reason to think this wouldn't hit all factions evenly.

    Doesn't stop others from gaining them. Moreover, they have the most to gain from beating the faction that's trying to overtake them - they would gain a win, and the other faction would lose one. Right now the cost/benefit analysis favors avoiding facing the faction that's actually challenging you in a location.
     
  8. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Then we're back to most battles wins, and nothing has changed except people are more incentivised to report only wins, and people will be getting salty about anyone who actually reports a loss.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  9. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    No.

    You definitely don't want to set it up so a player reporting a win gains points for their faction gains them points and a player writing up a loss loses their faction points. Instead reporting the win should give the faction reporting it points and make the faction they report it against lose points, regardless of whether the loser writes it up or not. Honestly I'm a bit confused as to why you would think I would think what you described was a good idea.
     
    #29 Hecaton, Jul 19, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  10. Sergej Faehrlich

    Sergej Faehrlich Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    700
    are we at this discussion again? last year ringing in my ears...I try to imagine some of th "powerhouses" of each faction specifically "playing" against chosen factions for like 200 times to push down their results...but we had that last year...your poin didn't become any more valid...I'm out again...recruiting Kuang Shi
     
    cazboab likes this.
  11. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Because you suggested it.

    Giving players the ability to take points away from other factions in any way is a horrible idea, and will absolutely lead to more cheating, hostility and general ungoodness.
     
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    I did not suggest it requiring a player to validate their loss in some way for points to be taken away; that would discourage players from doing so. That was what you suggested I had with no basis.

    Having factions lose points is basically the only way to equalize for faction population size in a point-based system. We can both agree that having players write up losses to make their faction lose points would disincentivize players from doing so.

    The cheating and hostility already exists in these campaigns, and unless BoW lacks confidence in their ability to detect phony reports, I don't see the problem with what I suggested. You think that it will encourage players to make phony reports against factions they don't like; I don't see how that would be any different from the current situation where in theory someone could gain points for their faction by making phony reports. Right now, factions were given handicaps based on their performance/population in *last* campaign, which just means that whichever faction has a substantially higher population than last time will have an unfair advantage in the campaign. That's a terrible way to do things and if someone had asked me I would have pointed it out day 1; the disadvantage that PanO has (high population last time and low this time) is a direct result of that.
     
  13. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    No I didn't. I said that people already don't write up their loses when they're playing people who aren't involved in the campaign.

    The first part is patently incorrect, there already is a another method in play. The reductive method you suggest would have to assume equal population of factions, and is essentially the same as the exclusive zone in kurage. We can't have a system where you have to fight a specific faction or are hugely encouraged to do so because it excludes players who have small groups or even large groups who just don't have players of certain factions.

    Mathematically your system should bring everyone to near zero points, but it won't because there are immutable and human factors that influence the results. The main things it will do is encourage the winner picks field play the mods have already said wasn't in the spirit of the campaign, and almost eliminate anyone reporting a loss against anyone who isn't writing reports.
     
  14. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Specifically what you said is that people will be salty when someone else writes up their loss, which implies that people are being discouraged from writing up losses. That's what I was commenting on.


    No there isn't; there's a method to normalize faction points scored for the *last* campaign that happened, which, given that relative faction pops change in between campaigns, is basically guaranteed to create a system with the factions on uneven footings. The fact that you think this is a good method to balance relative faction power levels tells me you haven't thought much about the topic; the question of "But what if the faction populations are different this time?" not coming in BoW/CB meetings on the topic tells me they don't care too much.

    No and no. Larger factions would win a lot, but they would lose a lot too, which would even things out. You could still score points in a zone to beat another faction without having to play that faction (though the risk/reward would be higher if you did). Try to math it out, assuming that wins give just as many points as a loss takes away.


    Well CB/BoW basically did that with this current campaign. My solution creates a higher risk/reward if playing the faction that your faction is contesting the zone with, which I think is more interesting, while still allowing for scoring if you can't find an opponent of that faction. The current system encourages not confronting factions that your faction is actually contending with, which is unfun and unfluffy.

    Sure.

    Yes, like how much people win relative to losing. Which is a better way to resolve the campaign than how many people bought Icestorm.

    "Winner picks zone" is already highly incentivized and only kept in check by sportsmanship. My solution wouldn't change that. The system already breaks down when one player isn't writing up their reports.
     
  15. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    I think you're misunderstanding what I actually said,so I'll rephrase:
    People who play mostly other people who aren't reporting battles will not report anything but wins because if they report a loss the WAAC crew in their own team will say nasty things about them. This has already been done even without the negative consequences in place.

    I never intended to imply that the current method is good, but the reductive system you suggest is worse in my opinion.
    It's been a flawed application, but the actual concept is solid, if the point bonus was calculated based on the number of players per faction every day rather than a guess that is used for all 4 weeks it would be a far better option.

    If you want to math it out you can, but I'm just going to project based on the win/loss ratios, which means that Ariadna would still be winning, and since the rewards have been given on the Ricky Bobby system that makes the rest pointless...

    Incidentally it would pretty much delete the Combined Army entirely...


    Those are the positive aspects of your suggestion, they could be achieved by other non reductive means, such as giving a bonus to the points earned when facing the defending faction...

    Was that sarcasm or did you actually agree?

    Except when people don't report their loses...
    And if how many people bought icestorm was the deciding factor pano would not be 4th and the nomads would be a bit higher than 6th...
    Exactly. If it doesn't solve the problem we already have, it's not actually a better solution it's just a different way of doing it wrong ...
     
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    I believe that that's happening. My solution would be to have writing up a loss ameliorate some of the point loss from it, and the loss having already been applied when someone reported their win.

    That solution you propose would encourage report hoarding, to try to misrepresent the actual size of your faction, which is bad. My solution basically adjusts on the fly for the number of games played.


    If someone wins more, they should win the campaign.

    That's fine. If a faction fails to make an impact they fail to make an impact.


    That would create a circumstance where the two most populous factions would have runaway points totals at a given location. It would actually give a benefit to the most populous factions.


    I agree but wanted to move on to the stuff that wasn't super obvious.


    That already happens.

    Whatever the deciding factor is, it should put the factions on even footing compared to each other.

    Well the way to fix "winner picks zone" would be to make it so each zone actually only allowed one mission, and if the mission writeup showed them playing a different mission, it should be discarded. Otherwise there's going to be no way to prevent it. That's *not* the only problem facing these campaigns they set up, your solutions would actually make the player population issue worse, and my solution was not meant to solve this particular problem.
     
    #36 Hecaton, Jul 21, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2018
  17. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    So exactly what happens now only with immediate negative consequences for losing. At least you've changed your tune on the AI historian...

    No it would encourage spreading out reports since you'd be giving a bonus to the other side by lumping them all in together, plus the system already abhors hoarding and everyone knows it. If you work out players per day like I said then it's adjusted on the fly as well..

    Well so far that's what has happened every time...

    And this also... So why change anything?

    Only if they fight the right faction. The defender would also earn a bonus for facing the next in line. There are knock on effects to any changes made that will have to be addressed.


    So any changes that make it worse are a bad idea...

    Well they're not. Mission accomplished?

    The reductive system would create or exacerbate other problems. One of those is active player population, since only the hardcore bloody minded people will keep playing after 4 weeks of stagnation and accusations...
    Ad to that every time before when you suggested a reductive system @warzan has explained that negative modifiers are something that should be avoided.

    The bonuses for wins need to be looked at in a situation where they actually apply to the smaller factions, they're just broken and silly this year by the fact that they've been given to one of the largest.

    The human factor plays a major role that has been mostly overlooked. Any campaign set on the home turf of a faction will (and maybe should) cause that factions numbers to swell. The fluff will change how people view the campaign, some people will never see the actual results of the campaign as relevant, and will claim railroading or the fluff being decided ahead of time...
     
  18. AdmiralJCJF

    AdmiralJCJF Heart of the Hyperpower

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,532
    Likes Received:
    4,594
    It's already the case that there is little to no reason to report losses.

    If anything we need, as has been suggested, higher personal XP, special awards and some kind of faction payoff for reporting lost games.
     
    cazboab likes this.
  19. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    Yeah, it's way more effective to encourage people to play the preferred way by positive reinforcement than to apply a negative modifier to everything on the assumption that people aren't doing the right thing 100% of the time so why bother...
     
  20. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Eh. You have to filter out fake reports somehow. But it's better if the rules for what is required in a report are known.


    So are the amount of points a victory is worth indeterminate until the day is over and you look at how many players actually played that day? What kind of system are we talking about here.


    By "wins more" I mean actually performs well i.e. higher win percentage. Not raw number of wins.


    Because the current system is bad and everyone except for BoW's fan club'll admit it.


    The point is that the most numerous factions will have more games against the other more numerous factions, and if there's a benefit for playing them then it will create a runaway effect where the factions already scoring high will score even higher.



    Which is why I suggested an amelioration of loss mechanic by posting a writeup for a loss. Let's make it *better*, not worse.


    I mis-typed. Meant "should" not shouldn't. The factions should be on even footing with each other.


    If you don't put negative modifiers in there, you'll never solve the problem. And you'll hem and haw... but unless you're willing to actually incentivize the behavior you want, your "solution" means nothing.

    Yup. And a 15 minute meeting between people with a couple of brain cells to rub together would have seen that problem coming; I know I did. CB/BoW doesn't care.

    The fluff in Wotan, at least, *was* railroaded and decided ahead of time. But deciding the handicap for a faction based off of *last* campaign's numbers is either lazy or disingenuous - maybe CB *wanted* the campaign to be unfair between the factions.


    I provided a solution for the faction payoff for reporting lost games - have writing up a loss ameliorate some of the loss of points a loss would survive.

    Honestly the "XP grinding" aspect of the campaign is just dumb and I'd like to see it go. People who chase that too much just come off as tryhards/pathetic/batrep fabricators.

    That's nothing like what I proposed. What situation are you talking about?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation