Equalized Dice OPTION

[docdurdee]

In addition to the current dice options that favor the attacker, it could be cool to add an option that makes the dice completely even. ie. attackers and defenders can roll 3 dice and no armies are lost for ties. The 3v2 model works well when you actually have to physically roll dice, but an equalized dice OPTION is doable since it's all computational.

Concise description:

• Added option of equalized dice for defenders and attackers

Specifics:

• both attacker and defender have same number of dice available, no armies lost for ties
• not suggesting replacement of conventional dice
• computationally doable, though slightly more "expensive"

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Fresh game play
• more options for play
• could be cool
• adds one more step away from that other game

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

The key advantage of the 3v2, with defender winning ties, method is that the attacker ends up with a slight probability edge. Your idea however is literally just a coin flip for each attack - decidedly less strategic.

[docdurdee]

Your first sentence is understood and implied in the OP. I'm not so sure that the "strategical space" is reduced with equalized dice; rather, the point is that it is slightly different and adds another flavor to the game via another option. I'm not suggesting replacement.

D

[BaldAdonis]

I think the strategy point is important, in that you'll win more if you attack than if you leave armies to defend. Equalized dice would mean there's no difference, so your best move (with less than say 10 territories) would be no moves.

[docdurdee]

I think the strategy point is important, in that you'll win more if you attack than if you leave armies to defend. Equalized dice would mean there's no difference, so your best move (with less than say 10 territories) would be no moves.

Perhaps. so what? Does this mean there's no strategy with equalized dice? I'm arguing that strategy will be different not reduced; it will clearly shift the game a bit towards defense, but defense is still strategy. You may be arguing that this would paralyze the game; I'm not so sure... it's possible. I imagine it would indeed slow games down a bit, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It could really mix up those escalating games. It'd be a fine experiment! The main point is that it's a different and conceivable, additional option.

D

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

I think the strategy point is important, in that you'll win more if you attack than if you leave armies to defend. Equalized dice would mean there's no difference, so your best move (with less than say 10 territories) would be no moves.

Exactly what I meant - boredom quickly sets in when when the "correct" thing to do is always to do nothing (unless you're AAFitz )

[BaldAdonis]

boredom quickly sets in when when the "correct" thing to do is always to do nothing (unless your AAFitz )

I heard he once beat a rock with eyes painted on in a staring contest.

[docdurdee]

Though you've both failed to articulate anything clearly; I gather your belief is as follows:

All the strategy in this game stems from a slight imbalance between attackers and defenders.

Intuitively, this does makes sense as it provides a driving force, but within such dice games such pragmatism is silly. Winning the game is also a driving force. It's incredible that you, BENJIKAT IS DEAD, have a 78% winning record with such slight imbalances; clearly there's more to it.

D

[BaldAdonis]

Nope, just slight advantages on big maps.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Though you've both failed to articulate anything clearly; I gather your belief is as follows:

All the strategy in this game stems from a slight imbalance between attackers and defenders.

Intuitively, this does makes sense as it provides a driving force, but within such dice games such pragmatism is silly. Winning the game is also a driving force. It's incredible that you, BENJIKAT IS DEAD, have a 78% winning record with such slight imbalances; clearly there's more to it.

D

Clearly not ALL the strategy derives from the dice imbalances (which aren't all that "slight" - actually about 10% in favour of the attacker).

The clearest way I can put it is this:

Very often the best way to win is to make sure you are the last to lose. With the dice favouring the attacker there is an incentive to try to actually win, without that many many more games would become about not losing instead. This is fine in it's own right, but I just don't see it being very popular at all.

[greenoaks]

equalised dice, what a great idea. i propose the number 4 should be on all dice rolled.

[docdurdee]

equalised dice, what a great idea. i propose the number 4 should be on all dice rolled.

There's nothing better than malformed sarcasm!

[KLOBBER]

equalised dice, what a great idea. i propose the number 4 should be on all dice rolled.

???!

That ridiculous statement makes no sense, as the number 4 is already on all dice, along with the other five numbers. DUH!

The OP is proposing a variation on the dice as an option only. The strategy of the OPTION is different than the present strategy, and so his proposal, far from decreasing strategy, would INCREASE the overall strategy available to players on this site. He's proposing an ADDITIONAL strategy be offered to us, and as a member who gathers my points by applying my superior intelligence to available strategy, I think it's a great idea!

Those individuals whose low intelligence is already stretched to the breaking point on the presently available strategy and unable to cover anything additional, whose low intelligence level precludes the application I mentioned in the previous paragraph, will no doubt disagree. Let them disagree; their low IQ speaks for itself.

Whether the new option will be more or less "popular" is both unpredictable and irrelevant; if it turns out to be less popular, there is still no loss as it is proposed as an OPTIONAL setting, and nobody would ever be compelled to play using this option. For all we know at this point, it could very well turn out to be more popular than the present available setting -- of that possibility there is an equal likelihood as any other.

There is no doubt whatsoever that implementing additional options, such as this one, would increase the overall popularity of the site.

[BaldAdonis]

Did you have any thoughts before you wrote that rhetorical ramble, or does it all just spew out involuntarily?

[kerntheconkerer]

Interesting Idea but it would completely change the game. you know in risk, theres nothing like this...

[KLOBBER]

Did you have any thoughts before you wrote that rhetorical ramble, or does it all just spew out involuntarily?

A rambling mind considers intelligent posts to ramble due to lack of intelligence to comprehend them. Welcome to my ignore list, and have a nice life.

[Thezzaruz]

In addition to the current dice options that favor the attacker, it could be cool to add an option that makes the dice completely even. ie. attackers and defenders can roll 3 dice and no armies are lost for ties.

Sounds like crap to me, would only promote camping and defensive strategy.
In speed games I could see the rule of "both players choosing how many to attack/defend with before each roll" working (won't work for casual games obviously).

There is no doubt whatsoever that implementing additional options, such as this one, would increase the overall popularity of the site.

Adding options just for the sake of having more is hardly the same as increasing popularity. Adding poor ones like this is clearly not the same as increasing popularity.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Welcome to my ignore list, and have a nice life.

[yeti_c]

Welcome to my ignore list, and have a nice life.

(Although I'm surprised you weren't on there already!)

C.

[TeeGee]

Am I reading this wrong or does the OP want to take the skill out of the game and just leave it up to the dice to decides who wins?

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I am reading this idea

[Thezzaruz]

Am I reading this wrong or does the OP want to take the skill out of the game and just leave it up to the dice to decides who wins?

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I am reading this idea

Nothing to correct, you've got it...

[KLOBBER]

Sounds like crap to me, would only promote camping and defensive strategy. In speed games I could see the rule of "both players choosing how many to attack/defend with before each roll" working (won't work for casual games obviously).

The reason it sounds like crap to you and not to others is that you are listening to the crap inside your own brain, and not to the actual proposal as presented. You are right, it will promote defensive strategy, as an ADDITIONAL OPTION. This means that total number of strategy options available on the site will be increased, which can only be a good thing for those with the intelligence to comprehend additional strategy.

There is no doubt whatsoever that implementing additional options, such as this one, would increase the overall popularity of the site.

Adding options just for the sake of having more is hardly the same as increasing popularity. Adding poor ones like this is clearly not the same as increasing popularity.

Nobody suggested adding options for the sake of having more, unless by begging the question, you mean to suggest that -- is that your intention?

It is only a poor option in your mind due to poor comprehension. Had you the intelligence to comprehend this option correctly, you would understand that additional options would increase popularity of the site by attracting people more open-minded and intelligent than yourself.

In short, you are wrong.

[KLOBBER]

Those individuals whose low intelligence is already stretched to the breaking point on the presently available strategy and unable to cover anything additional, whose low intelligence level precludes the application I mentioned in the previous paragraph, will no doubt disagree. Let them disagree; their low IQ speaks for itself.

I love it when my predictions come true. Thanks for your cooperation, guys!

; )

[KLOBBER]

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the way I am reading this idea

Another good prediction! Yes, you are wrong. Take a smart pill and re-read the actual proposal.

[Thezzaruz]

You are right, it will promote defensive strategy, as an ADDITIONAL OPTION. This means that total number of strategy options available on the site will be increased, which can only be a good thing for those with the intelligence to comprehend additional strategy.

It won't add additional strategies to the existing games but rather create separate games with a single dominant (and IMO boring) strategy. I can't see it bringing any added value to the site and hence I don't think that the site managers should spend any time on it.
Obviously you are of a different opinion.