Re: [VANILLA-LIST:3149] Re: Continuous scoring

[Tom Holub <tom@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>]

On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 08:56:36PM -0400, Dave Ahn wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 04:36:36PM -0700, Tom Holub wrote:
> > > 
> > > Yes, I am.  But so do you.  Shortening the gametime to 60 minutes also
> > > makes the game results more predictable because irrelevant portions of
> > > the game are simply cut out.  Both ideas yield the same result: a more
> > > interesting game.
> > 
> > No, as I said in my initial message, shortening the gametime to 60 minutes
> > makes game results LESS predictable.  The greatest level of variability
> > is 5-10 minutes into the game; the lowest level is 90 minutes in.  
> > The shorter the game is, the higher the variability.
> 
> I disagree.  Why?  In a 90 minute game, the first 30 minutes are the most
> volatile because both teams start with so many armies.  In a 60 minute
> game, the first 20 minutes might be the most volatile.  However, the
> degree of volatility in the shorter game will be smaller because both
> teams start with fewer armies to drive the variability.

Who said anything about starting with fewer armies?

> > > > You have a fallacy in your thinking here.  A team that is behind 15-5 in
> > > > planets but has 25 armies is not behind by 5 planets in the same way that a
> > > > team with no armies is.
> > > 
> > > I intentionally said "successfully delivering 25 armies" as opposed to
> > > "being up by 25 armies" to avoid this misunderstanding.  Oh well.
> > 
> > It's not really possible to come back from 5 planets in 10 minutes if you
> > don't have a stash.
> 
> The point was that a team sitting down 5 planets for 80 minutes while the
> enemy rewls their front due makes for an extremely dull game when it is
> far easier for the losing team to regain those 5 planets than it is for
> the winning team to hold on to them.  This is why stronger teams collapse
> into passive mode even though they should be pushing the advantage.

I don't understand your point here.  Teams which are ahead collapse into
passive mode because the game is too dull?  Is passive mode less dull?

> Personally, I find it absurd that teams are sitting on 60 armies for 60
> minutes maintaining 10-10 only to push in the end to win 11-8-1 with a
> 30 army stockpile still in their posession.

Some people found it absurd that people were winning by ogging constantly.
Some people found it absurd that SC dropping was so powerful.
Some people found it absurd how strong space control was.

Strategy shifts.  I don't see anything which indicates that sitting on
armies is the One True Strategy.

> > The point is, it's nearly impossible to go up 12-7-1 against a team which
> > is trying to keep the game at 10-10 and no more.  They can hoard armies
> > and reinforce or retake planets in their own space; what are you going
> > to do against that?
> 
> Assuming a half planet handicap advantage, if a team loses two rounds of
> handicap, then they shouldn't be able to win unless they get 12-7-1.  Yes,
> this may be almost impossible, but that is the penalty they pay for
> conceding the first 2/3 of the game.  Perhaps next time they would alter
> their strategy so that they won't sit in core + 60 armies waiting for
> the last 15 minutes to start.  Which is the whole point of this discussion.

You miss my point.  NOT ONLY does your system not really work, it makes your
STATED problem (too many teams stashing armies) even MORE pronounced, because
once you're ahead there's PRACTICALLY NO ADVANTAGE TO GETTING ANY FURTHER
AHEAD.  You're ahead, all you have to do is avoid falling behind and you win.
Why waste your armies trying to take enemy core?
 -Tom