Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" > mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first > implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for > figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due > to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, > otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time > that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a > loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full > win. For Clairvoyant Roshambo in particular, what if the first version said you gain 2 Coins for winning a round and lose 2 for losing a round, and once that seems to be working, switch to Roshambo Score and some big reward (maybe winning Agora) if your Score reaches 10? More specifically, I suggest Playing Roshambo be a fee-based action costing 2 Coins, and 4 days after playing, you earn 0, 2 or 4 Coins depending on what the outcome was. -- - Falsifian
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:14 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> How exactly would the Rules specify different methods of victory? I've
> seen that Victory Conditions were a thing in the past, but they don't
> exist any more.
It's ultimately up to the Herald's discretion and some degree of
consensus, but the "winning method" can be strongly suggested using
"by" the way we do for methods in general. Since it's a "suggestion",
you can do it by putting it in the title ("Win by Apathy", "Win by
Paradox") or we could edit it into a rule: "If a winner of a
tournament is determined within within 3 months of its initiation,
that person or persons win the game by Tournament".
It's also worth mentioning that these titles group common "types" of
wins over a long period of time. For example, "Tournaments" used to
be called "Contests". So for a long time, that category was
"Contest". When the Tournament rules were adopted (there was a break
in between with no win type in that sort of category in the Rules) the
old Contest category was re-labeled "Tournament" including
retroactively.
-G.
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:56 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > wrote: > > A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been > > placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to > > adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the > > more common winning techniques at BlogNomic. > > Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to > actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them > until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really > discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in > play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in > "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain > set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that > clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome > of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring. > > Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put > a "judge by the intent" clause in there. BlogNomic normally (not always) starts its subgames without any victory condition, and only adds one after they've had several iterations of nomicky changes applied to them. It works a bit better than what we normally do in Agora, but has problems of its own (especially in relation to people positioning themselves in an attempt to anticipate what the victory condition would be). Perhaps what we need is some sort of escalating milestone system: run games in multiple iterations, with the first "win" (which may be trivial) being worth one point, the second two points, the third three points, and so on, with the rules for the subgame being amendable only between iterations. A scam could give you an advantage, but consistently good gameplay would be worth more. -- ais523
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On 8/2/19 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common winning techniques at BlogNomic. Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring. Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a "judge by the intent" clause in there. I think subgames should be pausable somehow. I think right now sometimes people 'crash the game' because they see a thing and want to do it before anyone else does, assuming someone else *will* if they don't. Pointing out a problem publicly, even in a fix proposal, just makes it more likely someone else does it. The pausing method could vary from game to game, whether it's an Office that doesn't get to play and can do it on eir own, or maybe a vote of a few trusted players. Either one lets the coordination happen privately so the game can be paused until it's fixed.
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed > there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy > victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common > winning techniques at BlogNomic. Rant: This right here is the reason we almost never get around to actually playing by the intent of many subgames. We just crash them until we're sick of all the CFJs and then repeal. It really discourages me from bothering to write a long sub-game - debugging in play-mode is usually necessary, and I don't see much pride/point in "hey, I won because there was a misplaced comma or because a certain set of moves is fundamentally completely imbalanced, isn't that clever." I mean it's fine on occasion but having that be the outcome of Every. Single. Subgame. just gets tiring. Well, I guess the test mechanism is "Tournament" - where you can put a "judge by the intent" clause in there.
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 14:02 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" > mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first > implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for > figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due > to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, > otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time > that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a > loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full > win. > > (Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in > concept but really squishy to hard-code). A bug exploit could /be/ a win as intended, if the bug had been placed there intentionally by the proposer. "Convince people to adopt a buggy victory condition and win immediately" is one of the more common winning techniques at BlogNomic. -- ais523
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On 8/2/19 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Fair point, and it's a matter of preference. This just seemed a bit experimental for a full win mechanism to me. Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full win. (Now that I've written this, it's the sort of thing that's clear in concept but really squishy to hard-code). I'm ambivalent about this - I see the case for a person deserving a win if they find a bug, but I also see the case that bugs happen and all of the consequences of a win shouldn't necessarily happen for a bug. It feels artificial to restrict it to the first win (time limit is fine, though) - there can be multiple bugs in a subgame or copycats (although it seems to me, in my limited time here, that copycats don't really happen). How exactly would the Rules specify different methods of victory? I've seen that Victory Conditions were a thing in the past, but they don't exist any more. Jason Cobb
