Style:    Language:

Author Topic: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior  (Read 2947 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« on: December 19, 2009, 08:38:47 PM »
just to take people's temperature on the idea....

theoretically it would work like this:

- when you file a report, there would be an option to denote if someone died to a warrior prematurely.
- it would only be for those players who had an empty capital.  ie. 1 warrior dying to 2 attacking warriors wouldn't count.  we have to draw the line somewhere.  it has to be a blatant, empty capital.
- teammates would still get a minor penalty, but 2-3x the penalty on the person who dies.

also note:

if this were added to the report logs/code, it might allow for a nice tracking statistic on individual player's warrior death rate...


Offline Tony[UYP]

  • Infantry
  • *********
  • Posts: 1396
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2009, 09:14:50 PM »
I get just as frustrated as the next person about people dying very cheaply.  But this solution doesn't solve anything for a number of reasons:

1) It doesn't stop people dying to warriors
2) A lot (not all) couldn't careless about their skill value.
3) Do we want a situation where some players are building a billion archers?  Some already do this and it drives me up the wall.

A better solution is for the players to have a blacklist, which means no one plays a teamer with that guy for 3 days or so ... But tbh when you're waiting 40 mins for a game, this is not really workable.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 09:17:27 PM by Tony[UYP] »

Offline SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2009, 09:38:25 PM »
How about one of our elite writing a post, "How Not to Die to One Warrior" and putting in our Advice to New Members forum section?

Of course as soon as they do that they'll probably die to a warrior in their next game, but such is life.

SPM

Offline Lestat

  • Creator of Legendary Topics
  • Knight
  • *******
  • Posts: 942
  • Gender: Male
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2009, 09:49:06 PM »
How about one of our elite writing a post, "How Not to Die to One Warrior" and putting in our Advice to New Members forum section?

Of course as soon as they do that they'll probably die to a warrior in their next game, but such is life.

SPM

dude SPM, most players which die by warrior are
so called ELITE ...

roger


Pic of WOUMANS

Bantams-tk-tk2: dude stop spamming it is lame

Offline SirPartyMan

  • Head Tournament Director
  • Global Moderator
  • Ironclad
  • *****
  • Posts: 1197
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2009, 10:19:12 PM »
I just want to mention another thought that crossed my mind as an undesirable side effect of this skill calculation change.

Envision a 5v5 teamer and you've got crappy land/civ/rng etc. Let's also imagine the other team is stellar and likely to overpower your Team of Noobs.

Let's say your teammate to one side is a weak player and likely to be rushed.

Should you come to their aid?  Well with the status quo skill system there's an incentive for you to aid your teammate, as there's no gain for you unless you win.

Issue 1) However, under the proposed rule, you can be viewed as benefitting (in terms of a reduced hit on skill) by letting your teammate go it alone and lose. 

Issue 2) This would have a major impact on the decision right after the first "warrior death" whether the team now stuck in a 4v5 wants to concede or continue.

I believe it would cause a very high percentage of your warrior death games to end early via concession. If I can "settle" for 1/2 or 1/3 the loss in skill points, why risk it and play on?

Issue 3)  I have a problem with the assumption in your proposal that the team with the noob dying to warrior will automatically lose.  But what if that time your team turns it around and ultimately wins? Do they get 2x or 3x the skill points for an upset win? Actually a good argument can be made that they should and that it would counterbalance the downside adjustment by providing an upside one, as well.

It's bad enough *NOW* with the status quo, how often people quit/scrap when a teamer goes 4v5.  Why make this worse by further incentivizing the quit?

Issue 4) Isn't really the problem our insistance with random ANCIENT SS with shuffle?  It's a love/hate relationship.  It's a high adrenalin, but also a high risk game where even "elite pro" level players can die to the warrior as well as the noob? Think about it - it's that map, that ruleset which *INCREASES* the likelihood of an early kill.   

There are eras (e.g. classical); maps (e.g. HUB); game options (e.g. START TOGETHER) and land/water sizes which are much less conducive to early kills. 

Making changes in one or more of these areas would allow teammates more time to assist their more endangered teammates.  As a consequence games would last longer.  I wonder if it were put to a vote, what the preference would be, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least experiment with some game variations. Come on hosts, be more creative as to teamer options.

My 2 cents.

Happy holidays, SPM





« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 10:28:00 PM by SirPartyMan »

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2009, 10:36:04 PM »
I get just as frustrated as the next person about people dying very cheaply.  But this solution doesn't solve anything for a number of reasons:

1) It doesn't stop people dying to warriors
2) A lot (not all) couldn't careless about their skill value.
3) Do we want a situation where some players are building a billion archers?  Some already do this and it drives me up the wall.

A better solution is for the players to have a blacklist, which means no one plays a teamer with that guy for 3 days or so ... But tbh when you're waiting 40 mins for a game, this is not really workable.

I can agree with a lot of this, but figured it was worth putting it to a vote to see people's feedback.  Anytime I've brought it up, at least 2 people have said its a good idea.  Maybe the majority dislike it, but I figured it was worth looking at.

I just want to mention another thought that crossed my mind as an undesirable side effect of this skill calculation change.

Envision a 5v5 teamer and you've got crappy land/civ/rng etc. Let's also imagine the other team is stellar and likely to overpower your Team of Noobs.

Let's say your teammate to one side is a weak player and likely to be rushed.

Should you come to their aid?  Well with the status quo skill system there's an incentive for you to aid your teammate, as there's no gain for you unless you win.

However, under the proposed rule, you can be viewed as benefitting (in terms of a reduced hit on skill) by letting your teammate go it alone and lose. 

I disagree with almost everything you've written.

1.  What you describe isn't accurate, because the rule only applies to people who have EMPTY capitals.

Also I have a problem with the assumption in your proposal that the team with the noob dying to warrior will automatically lose.  But what if that time your team turns it around and ultimately wins? Do they get 2x or 3x the skill points for an upset win? Actually a good argument can be made that they should and that it would counterbalance the downside adjustment by providing an upside one, as well.

This would also influence the post-warrior death decision to concede or not?  I believe it would cause a very high percentage of your warrior death games to end early via concession. If I can "settle" for 1/2 or 1/3 the loss in skill points, why risk it and play on?

It's bad enough *NOW* with the status quo, how often people quit/scrap when a teamer goes 4v5.  Why make this worse by further incentivizing the quit?

2.  it's up to the players.  some people feel it is a waste of time.  some people like the challenge.  i typically try to play it out to try to even up 4v4.  I've comeback 4v5 and won on both points and kills.  Most people have.  it's up to the players.  They get to choose between pursuing the 1x skill gain or taking the 0.5x skill hit.  It's not a "no-brainer".

3.  I'm sorry.  But I find your constant 'dislike for pre-mature quitting' to be over-the-top and very one dimensional.

Isn't really the problem our insistance with random ANCIENT SS with shuffle?  It's a love/hate relationship.  It's a high adrenalin, but also a high risk game where even "elite pro" level players can die to the warrior as well as the noob? Think about it - it's that map, that ruleset which *INCREASES* the likelihood of an early kill.   

There are eras (e.g. classical); maps (e.g. HUB); game options (e.g. START TOGETHER) and land/water sizes which are much less conducive to early kills. 

Making changes in one or more of these areas would allow teammates more time to assist their more endangered teammates.  As a consequence games would last longer.  I wonder if it were put to a vote, what the preference would be, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least experiment with some game variations.

again I disagree.  people die with empty capitals to archers on classical, longbow on ren starts (one city only).  it happens all the time, particularly w/ less of these era games being played.  people make the mistakes even more, i find.

empty capital, dying in the first ~15 turns.  that is what this rule is about.  nothing else...

« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 10:36:55 PM by weaksauce »

Offline weaksauce

  • Warrior
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2009, 10:39:25 PM »
- reset the poll back to 0
- added option #4 - "current equal skill pts, but request to add code/statistics of warrior deaths to track player behavior."

Offline miL0

  • Global Newb
  • Civ4 - TD
  • Infantry
  • ****
  • Posts: 1328
  • Gender: Male
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2009, 10:49:09 PM »
I think you have great ideas ws, BUT...

why on earth are we not able to pay someone to code the easy things? What we have here basicly since slaughter left is called stalement. That's definitly not how you run a business. I know for a fact that imhotep would do anything for money. Ask scottishfury!  ;)
[11:15 PM]  Moineau : bemep want to make a try without hamachi
[11:20 PM]  Bemep2 : i can reload by direkt ip
[11:20 PM]  Moineau : no
[11:20 PM]  Moineau : HAMACHI

Offline Spyro

  • Archer
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Gender: Male
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2009, 11:39:51 PM »
How about one of our elite writing a post, "How Not to Die to One Warrior" and putting in our Advice to New Members forum section?

Of course as soon as they do that they'll probably die to a warrior in their next game, but such is life.

SPM

There are many helpful posts regarding that issue on http://fastmoves.wordpress.com/
which is run by Jobe
There is only ONE truth out there. That truth will be revealed in any case. The only question is the time.

Offline Tony[UYP]

  • Infantry
  • *********
  • Posts: 1396
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2009, 12:28:26 AM »
Just been in a game where a player dies to warrior, empty cap turn 11.

So we are 5v4 - With Aztec and Rome.

Buddy2x decides its a good idea to upgrade 2 warriors to dogs and send it to a guy that has horses - Resulting in us getting AH at turn 22 and Iron working at turn 34 ROFL. No one could work pigs/sheep until turn 22 also 2/4 of us had iron in cap (including Rome).

It gets worse ... He builds his second city on horses, which gets taken instantly.  So about 20 turns later he re-builds it and GG.

In a situation like this I'm far less annoyed with the warrior death; so if a warrior death (normally 1 mistake) justifies 4xskill loss, then play like buddies (literally every click was a mistake) justifies 100xskill loss?
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 12:32:03 AM by Tony[UYP] »

Offline Lestat

  • Creator of Legendary Topics
  • Knight
  • *******
  • Posts: 942
  • Gender: Male
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2009, 01:14:21 AM »
Just been in a 5v5 medieval game
where a player dies to archer, empty cap turn 5.

 :bow: Tony


Pic of WOUMANS

Bantams-tk-tk2: dude stop spamming it is lame

Offline CanuckSoldier

  • Owner/Global Admin/Operator
  • Global Admin
  • Commando
  • ******
  • Posts: 6736
  • Gender: Male
    • Civilization Players Leagues
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2009, 03:48:05 AM »
I think you have great ideas ws, BUT...

why on earth are we not able to pay someone to code the easy things? What we have here basicly since slaughter left is called stalement. That's definitly not how you run a business. I know for a fact that imhotep would do anything for money. Ask scottishfury!  ;)

Because we are not running a business technically, we make no substantive profit, since we started we tuned our revenue to match our expenses, this avoids us having to deal with the IRS or Revenue Canada etc.  I guess we could still hire a programmer, but who here is going to pay for that, frig there are people here that won't pay the small $5 fee, let alone a $25 fee(just an example) so we could build up the funds to pay the hourly rate of a professional programmer.

CS
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 03:49:01 AM by CanuckSoldier »
Owner/Global Admin/Operator
Civilization Players Leagues
www.civplayers.com

[CC]Bantams

  • Guest
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #12 on: December 20, 2009, 09:50:53 AM »
I think you have great ideas ws, BUT...

why on earth are we not able to pay someone to code the easy things? What we have here basicly since slaughter left is called stalement. That's definitly not how you run a business. I know for a fact that imhotep would do anything for money. Ask scottishfury!  ;)

Because we are not running a business technically, we make no substantive profit, since we started we tuned our revenue to match our expenses, this avoids us having to deal with the IRS or Revenue Canada etc.  I guess we could still hire a programmer, but who here is going to pay for that, frig there are people here that won't pay the small $5 fee, let alone a $25 fee(just an example) so we could build up the funds to pay the hourly rate of a professional programmer.

CS

how much £ are we talking? ;)

Offline OT4E

  • Civ4 - Admin
  • Knight
  • ****
  • Posts: 951
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #13 on: December 20, 2009, 10:06:50 AM »
How about one of our elite writing a post, "How Not to Die to One Warrior" and putting in our Advice to New Members forum section?

Of course as soon as they do that they'll probably die to a warrior in their next game, but such is life.

SPM
There are a lot of such posts.

I answered that it might be useful to keep such statistic or some extra else. I doubt that it must affect skill distribution, since there are a lot of newbness could be treaten same as warrior death and circumstances, such as leaving cap against 2x1 or empty at all.
Oh, damn! I have just lost 51%. How could that happen? Where is firaxis complaint section?

Offline tamijo

  • Maceman
  • ******
  • Posts: 571
Re: increased skill penalty for those dying to warrior
« Reply #14 on: December 20, 2009, 12:16:43 PM »
Would be more appropiate that you could X a Box - Quitter, and that cost extra
skill.
Besides that, why not +100% skill loss, loosing an empty city, will allways be a stupid way to die. No matter what situation or gametype.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 12:21:06 PM by tamijo »
They talk, and talk and talk and talk, about individual freedom. They see one free individual and it scares the shiiit out of them

 

League