Prerequisite for Dice Complainers

[bb82]

Are you serious about Prince? You really think he is so freakin' good, that if he played the 2nd-51st seeded expert here, 1 game as allies and the other as axis [for a total of 100 games], with a 90/5 time limit & regular dice, that he would win 80%+ of his 100 games?

Yes.

Another part of the issue is each game setting can change the game and means each specialization will have its own best players. It really is more about preferences sometimes. For example. NecOne was one of the best pbem players. FP was one of the best live players. Neither would even want to play the other in their specialization, especially not competitively. One minimizes time and allows for more thought (strategy). The other is more about studying, memorization, and who trained the best/most.

If you are good enough and have it down to a science exactly what you will do in most cases then just lower the live timers even more to ensure a win. I can see a live player putting enough time into practicing and such that they could easily win 80%+ against talented players in a live setting. But that has a lot more to do with time than strategy/skill. Time is a limiting factor to many and does impact the game. Another example is LL or regular dice. They are drastically different games that can't be played in the same fashion. OR if you try to play regular dice like LL you will likely be a huge dice whiner and be more likely to lose against skilled regular-dice opponents (because you attempted to ignore risk). There are many other examples concerning specializing for high-level play.

Forcing a set bid can restrict strategies and makes the game more inflexible while also possibly giving a player an advantage over another before the games even start. We are talking about the "best" here where every little thing can make a difference. For example. G6 and above gives axis an advantage and why many expert axis almost never lose with a G6. It can also force a more aggressive allied strategy. That means the victor is more likely the one that can play the allies better or the one that dices the axis early. By allowing them to bid you will see lower than G6 bids in the top games and strategies will be more flexible, same with game-play. The issue shouldn't be about forcing players to play both sides. At the top players will already know how to play both sides very well. Having flexible bidding allows more specialization too.

You want to see the best AND what the win % is? Create a tourney with a couple hundred dollar reward and make time no issue. PBEM with decent timers. Only allow players in if they say they are one of the best at the game under those game settings and at least a 100 coin entrance fee. Also force the players to do important battles live. Maybe tell them they can each declare up to 10 battles live that the opponent can't say no to. Also say no gaming the system and such. For example a PM should be sent to the opponent during a pause in a battle if a player is attacking a stack and thinks it's time for the other to kill the bombers. Same goes for subs and such. And of course regular dice is a must or once again it's more about studying, practice, and memorization than it is about adapting/strategy. Anyone if they have the time can study/practice/memorize. Few can adapt or strategize well, no matter how much time they have.

It's about preferences and semantics though. Opinions on the above will drastically differ depending on their preferences and semantics of certain topics. So of course the above is just my opinion too.

If you put the money up and define very well what your looking for and under what settings, you will see one of the best for that specialization and of course in a tourney setting it would probably be 80%+.

[rockismyreligion]

Are you serious about Prince? You really think he is so freakin' good, that if he played the 2nd-51st seeded expert here, 1 game as allies and the other as axis [for a total of 100 games], with a 90/5 time limit & regular dice, that he would win 80%+ of his 100 games?

Yes.

Another part of the issue is each game setting can change the game and means each specialization will have its own best players. It really is more about preferences sometimes. For example. NecOne was one of the best pbem players. FP was one of the best live players. Neither would even want to play the other in their specialization, especially not competitively. One minimizes time and allows for more thought (strategy). The other is more about studying, memorization, and who trained the best/most.

If you are good enough and have it down to a science exactly what you will do in most cases then just lower the live timers even more to ensure a win. I can see a live player putting enough time into practicing and such that they could easily win 80%+ against talented players in a live setting. But that has a lot more to do with time than strategy/skill. Time is a limiting factor to many and does impact the game. Another example is LL or regular dice. They are drastically different games that can't be played in the same fashion. OR if you try to play regular dice like LL you will likely be a huge dice whiner and be more likely to lose against skilled regular-dice opponents (because you attempted to ignore risk). There are many other examples concerning specializing for high-level play.

Forcing a set bid can restrict strategies and makes the game more inflexible while also possibly giving a player an advantage over another before the games even start. We are talking about the "best" here where every little thing can make a difference. For example. G6 and above gives axis an advantage and why many expert axis almost never lose with a G6. It can also force a more aggressive allied strategy. That means the victor is more likely the one that can play the allies better or the one that dices the axis early. By allowing them to bid you will see lower than G6 bids in the top games and strategies will be more flexible, same with game-play. The issue shouldn't be about forcing players to play both sides. At the top players will already know how to play both sides very well. Having flexible bidding allows more specialization too.

You want to see the best AND what the win % is? Create a tourney with a couple hundred dollar reward and make time no issue. PBEM with decent timers. Only allow players in if they say they are one of the best at the game under those game settings and at least a 100 coin entrance fee. Also force the players to do important battles live. Maybe tell them they can each declare up to 10 battles live that the opponent can't say no to. Also say no gaming the system and such. For example a PM should be sent to the opponent during a pause in a battle if a player is attacking a stack and thinks it's time for the other to kill the bombers. Same goes for subs and such. And of course regular dice is a must or once again it's more about studying, practice, and memorization than it is about adapting/strategy. Anyone if they have the time can study/practice/memorize. Few can adapt or strategize well, no matter how much time they have.

It's about preferences and semantics though. Opinions on the above will drastically differ depending on their preferences and semantics of certain topics. So of course the above is just my opinion too.

If you put the money up and define very well what your looking for and under what settings, you will see one of the best for that specialization and of course in a tourney setting it would probably be 80%+.

PBEM with live timers somwhat borders on what I posted in one of our recent PBEM request threads. Also, notification by e-mail or private message during battles would maximize the live effect for PBEM when it came for casualty selection. Essentially, you'd make PBEM a live situation, and a live situation PBEM.

Geez, that would be like merging two dimensions. Before you know it this post will fade out as I will be typing the text coming out of my mouth.

[bb82]

PBEM with live timers somwhat borders on what I posted in one of our recent PBEM request threads. Also, notification by e-mail or private message during battles would maximize the live effect for PBEM when it came for casualty selection. Essentially, you'd make PBEM a live situation, and a live situation PBEM.

The problem is that pbem with live timers is just savable live. Live is more like RTS while PBEM is more like a turn-based strategy game. They are just different and really just depends on players preferences. Savable live is pretty much here anyways in that you can save it and then setup a time for both to play a couple more hours until you save it again.

An in-game box to tick, which pauses the game to wait for your input on casualties, would be nice. Only one player would be needed in the game at a time. PBEM games could be a lot longer if this is abused but playing non-live PBEM isn't about speed anyways.

[BKBrawler]

Back to the topic of dice, and "complaining..."



Just about every player who plays A&A can agree that sometimes the dice go your way, and you can do no wrong rolling, and sometimes it is 100% the opposite. Even the "best" strategies can be completely hindered by dice, and any attack, no matter how good or bad it may be, or any defense, no matter how strong or weak it is, can be completely affirmed or negated by red or white rolls here at GTO.

No one player is right or wrong about GTO's dice engine, but players who gripe are not without cause. Games and sports were meant for competition, and competitions have winners and losers.

The complainers can certainly limit their bitching, and the non-complainers can dismount their high horses.

Perfectly said.

[UtzChips]

Back to the topic of dice, and "complaining..."



Just about every player who plays A&A can agree that sometimes the dice go your way, and you can do no wrong rolling, and sometimes it is 100% the opposite. Even the "best" strategies can be completely hindered by dice, and any attack, no matter how good or bad it may be, or any defense, no matter how strong or weak it is, can be completely affirmed or negated by red or white rolls here at GTO.

No one player is right or wrong about GTO's dice engine, but players who gripe are not without cause. Games and sports were meant for competition, and competitions have winners and losers.

The complainers can certainly limit their bitching, and the non-complainers can dismount their high horses.

Perfectly said.

Please! Don't encourage him!! He'll go postin' all night lookin' for that next compliment!

[rockismyreligion]

Back to the topic of dice, and "complaining..."



Just about every player who plays A&A can agree that sometimes the dice go your way, and you can do no wrong rolling, and sometimes it is 100% the opposite. Even the "best" strategies can be completely hindered by dice, and any attack, no matter how good or bad it may be, or any defense, no matter how strong or weak it is, can be completely affirmed or negated by red or white rolls here at GTO.

No one player is right or wrong about GTO's dice engine, but players who gripe are not without cause. Games and sports were meant for competition, and competitions have winners and losers.

The complainers can certainly limit their bitching, and the non-complainers can dismount their high horses.

Perfectly said.

Please! Don't encourage him!! He'll go postin' all night lookin' for that next compliment!

I'm already there.

[UtzChips]

Dammit Brawler!! Look what you've done!!!!!
The forum won't be the same for months now.

[rockismyreligion]

Dammit Brawler!! Look what you've done!!!!!
The forum won't be the same for months now.

I'm quite content as of right now.

[UtzChips]

Dammit Brawler!! Look what you've done!!!!!
The forum won't be the same for months now.

I'm quite content as of right now.

ahhhh, ain't that special!

[rockismyreligion]

Dammit Brawler!! Look what you've done!!!!!
The forum won't be the same for months now.

I'm quite content as of right now.

ahhhh, ain't that special!

Do you want to play another game?

[UtzChips]

Yes I do! Join the World Series & we may just cross paths again.

[rockismyreligion]

Yes I do! Join the World Series & we may just cross paths again.

How about we do a PBEM.

[BKBrawler]

Utz and rock, can you guys please save it for PM- friggin annoying to see you guys spamming up threads with your flirting.

Back to the topic: would love to see the first round- maybe even first two rounds- allow for LL and then a switch to regular dice after that. While dice are very manageable, the effect dice have on the game can be very pronounced in the opening round, and such an advantage will often be increased exponentially by a skilled player who knows how to lean on opponents who fall behind early. I think many players would agree that early dice that heavily favor russia or germany, for example, will have a pronounced effect on the chances of who will win between roughly evenly skilled players. Its something that can be frustrating in competitive play, such as the ladder league, where you will face players of roughly equal skill for the most part.

Thoughts on LL or Middle Luck for first round or two and then a switch to regular?

[bb82]

There does seem to be an awful amount of spam lately.

Thoughts on LL or Middle Luck for first round or two and then a switch to regular?

At this point I'd rather just see players getting better through trying different openings, being more conservative, and doing smaller bids in general. For bigger bids I'd prefer an inf from the g6 and g7 bid to be in ukr to help force players to look for different options on R1 or to just actually block ukr attacking on R1. I think that those approaches have a better chance at helping with the root issue that leads to dice complaining.

I see the issue as less about the opening dice and more about players' styles. I've started to really like the dice BUT I do agree that usually there is an advantage early on due to starting dice AND mainly players' styles. How big that advantage is just depends. Rarely is it so huge that the game is hopeless for the other, meaning at least a couple other battles left to really decide things. Most quit way too early to really know.

If LL for a round was implemented I'm not sure that I'd use it. I use to want it but now look at the game differently than then. It's a great game with regular dice. It's a great game in general. Implementing LL just at the start wont really change players' styles which is the root issue imo. It might be real nice for some, more options the better, but I do think that most that complain about the dice would still complain about the dice later in the game. They would even if the whole game was LL. The issue is generally the players' gaming style and how they view the game in general. Nothing is going to change that except for themselves AND only slowly if open to change.

[BKBrawler]

Rarely is [the beginning of the game dice] so huge that the game is hopeless for the other, meaning at least a couple other battles left to really decide things. Most quit way too early to really know.

I agree. As bad as dice can get for russia or germany to start the game, there is at a minimum an entire theatre of war still to be decided in the pacific. If the UK gets hot on T1 the Allies might have retaken Egypt, killed the Baltic fleet, sunk the Japan transport and sub, and put Japan in a position where it has to go thin in a number of attacks or not hit everything it wants to. Its a great opportunity for the Allies to consider a KJF switch if the dice do present themselves, so the flexibility of the dice really allows for an equally flexible strategy if one arena goes wrong.

For bigger bids I'd prefer an inf from the g6 and g7 bid to be in ukr to help force players to look for different options on R1 or to just actually block ukr attacking on R1.

And this is something we talked about in one of our recent games and I think its a great idea. If I take G6, I'd much rather land one of the infantry in Ukraine and really open up an aggressive Russia Ukr/WR opening to cascade dice failure. I think the ability to customize bid placements would really add a tremendous new dynamic to the game. Replay value, already very high, would go through the roof.

If LL for a round was implemented I'm not sure that I'd use it...It might be real nice for some, more options the better...

Yeah, I'd have to see it first before whole-heartedly committing to it. For example, we may see an even more aggressive Russian opening with the Russian Triple, or Germany air more willing to commit to a 12 counter when LL will insulate them from the worst of the results. But I think I'd be curious to at least try it. "More options the better" I agree.