Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Suggestions on improving the site or comments in general?

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby jay65536 » 25 Sep 2018, 20:57

I started a thread about this exact topic in Lore awhile ago--how to try to make a new draw rule for deadlocked games. My original idea was no good but I got no feedback on my revised idea. If anyone here cares, it's over there, or I can re-post it here.
jay65536
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby super_dipsy » 26 Sep 2018, 07:30

jay65536 wrote:I started a thread about this exact topic in Lore awhile ago--how to try to make a new draw rule for deadlocked games. My original idea was no good but I got no feedback on my revised idea. If anyone here cares, it's over there, or I can re-post it here.

Jay could you repost here? I had a quick search and look, but I couldn't get to it so it is probably more efficient for everyone if you put it here :)

I would love to see it.
User avatar
super_dipsy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11632
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1000)
All-game rating: (956)
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby jay65536 » 26 Sep 2018, 16:22

Sure.

My idea is this: any player can unilaterally declare a DIAS (i.e. invoke automated deadlock rule) at the end of any Fall turn in which:

(1) That player has played the same movement orders for (at least) the past 6 turns;
(2) The majority of those orders were not move orders;
(3) All of those orders were valid; and one of the following:
(4a) No centers changed ownership in the past 4 game-years, or
(4b) The number of game-years since the player played different orders is at least 3 more than the number of unique centers that changed ownership since the last time the player played different orders (including centers that changed ownership in a fall turn right after the player played different orders).

As I said, so far no feedback on that idea.
jay65536
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby condude1 » 26 Sep 2018, 17:19

jay65536 wrote:Sure.

My idea is this: any player can unilaterally declare a DIAS (i.e. invoke automated deadlock rule) at the end of any Fall turn in which:

(1) That player has played the same movement orders for (at least) the past 6 turns;
(2) The majority of those orders were not move orders;
(3) All of those orders were valid; and one of the following:
(4a) No centers changed ownership in the past 4 game-years, or
(4b) The number of game-years since the player played different orders is at least 3 more than the number of unique centers that changed ownership since the last time the player played different orders (including centers that changed ownership in a fall turn right after the player played different orders).

As I said, so far no feedback on that idea.


I really don't like the idea. A three center Turkey orders holds for 3 years and unilaterally claims his draw. The only part that's relevant is part 4, which means that the first three points are just extra, unnecessary confusion. Part 4 is similar to the current suggestion (3 years without a province changing hands - sometimes non-scs are as or more important than scs)
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 26 Sep 2018, 17:23

jay65536 wrote:Sure.

My idea is this: any player can unilaterally declare a DIAS (i.e. invoke automated deadlock rule) at the end of any Fall turn in which:

(1) That player has played the same movement orders for (at least) the past 6 turns;
(2) The majority of those orders were not move orders;
(3) All of those orders were valid; and one of the following:
(4a) No centers changed ownership in the past 4 game-years, or
(4b) The number of game-years since the player played different orders is at least 3 more than the number of unique centers that changed ownership since the last time the player played different orders (including centers that changed ownership in a fall turn right after the player played different orders).

As I said, so far no feedback on that idea.


I'm not entirely sure orders-not-changing is actually a useful measurement, especially when it means that you're using those orders for at least three years. There are scenarios where an opponent might be toggling a unit back and forth and you have to switch who is supporting who in order to deal with it, but in either case your line holds.

I'm not sure we need anything that programmatically declares DIAS (outside of a limited-year game variant option, but that's a separate matter entirely). The current standard as written isn't a bad one, but it would help to make it clear in a game when that standard is even potentially applicable and a GM can be contacted.
NoPunIn10Did
Moderator (Forums only)

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1401
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby Jack007 » 26 Sep 2018, 18:46

Me too I like the procedure as it is actually. I don't think an automation is necessary.

Reasons:

1. The condition occurs rarely, maybe in 1 of 500 games or even less. So the moderators aren't overloaded with looking at a game if asked to.

2. What is especially beautiful with the present solution is that the involved players are to be heard prior of a enforced DIAS. There may be cases, where there are reasons to continue the game, also if the formal conditions for an automated procedure would be fulfilled.

3. Another beauty lies in the fact, that the players get a second chance to solve their problem themselves, after having expressed their opinions in presence of an external judge.

4. Conditions like n turns without differing orders or without centers changing ownership can get undermined. Orders might be varied without change of the overall situation. Or - what relatively often is the case - two players oppose to the DIAS, because e.g. they see a 3 way draw possible, whereas the other two insist on the 4 way draw. The two opposing players can then swap centers behind the front without altering the stalemate line. The can maybe even circling around in order to alternate between 3 or more positions. In such a case, a mod needs anyway to be called to solve the situation, so why not do it already in first line.

5. If you automate the process, you would introduce a new rule to the ruleset of the game, which I think has to be considered VERY carefully. We don't want a plethora of new rules adhered to the game with the time. Diplomacy has been designed as a game with a GM - though normally it can be played without - who's duty is in just the cases of unsolved problems to decide as a referee. I think a stalemated game is a typical such case.

6. The present procedure works well. I haven't ever seen disputes coming up from a weakness of this procedure. So why change something that works well?

Just my 2p.

Jack
Jack007 (xxxx.) unbanned for dubious reasons
Member of the Honorables
There is no greater solitude than the samurai's,
unless it be that of the tiger in the jungle… perhaps…
-bushido
User avatar
Jack007
Premium Member
 
Posts: 915
Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 17:34
Location: Tyrrhenian Sea (Bastia, Corsica)
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1238
All-game rating: 1569
Timezone: GMT+1

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby jay65536 » 26 Sep 2018, 23:29

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
jay65536 wrote:Sure.

My idea is this: any player can unilaterally declare a DIAS (i.e. invoke automated deadlock rule) at the end of any Fall turn in which:

(1) That player has played the same movement orders for (at least) the past 6 turns;
(2) The majority of those orders were not move orders;
(3) All of those orders were valid; and one of the following:
(4a) No centers changed ownership in the past 4 game-years, or
(4b) The number of game-years since the player played different orders is at least 3 more than the number of unique centers that changed ownership since the last time the player played different orders (including centers that changed ownership in a fall turn right after the player played different orders).

As I said, so far no feedback on that idea.


I'm not entirely sure orders-not-changing is actually a useful measurement, especially when it means that you're using those orders for at least three years. There are scenarios where an opponent might be toggling a unit back and forth and you have to switch who is supporting who in order to deal with it, but in either case your line holds.

I'm not sure we need anything that programmatically declares DIAS (outside of a limited-year game variant option, but that's a separate matter entirely). The current standard as written isn't a bad one, but it would help to make it clear in a game when that standard is even potentially applicable and a GM can be contacted.


To the first point, I've never seen a scenario where that has happened, and I'd argue that even if that is the case, I'm not sure we should want to include that in a draw rule, since it's not technically a stalemate (similarly to how in chess, we don't have an auto-stop when the game is a forced draw, only an actual stalemate).

To the second point, as I said in my other thread, the current standard is fine except for exactly one problem--it requires an appeal to an outside authority. To me it cheapens the game when the house rules are such that the players cannot self-enforce them if necessary, especially when the original rules are self-enforceable. Wouldn't it be good to come up with a rule that any group of players could theoretically institute as a house rule in any game, anywhere?

(P.S. condude, do you actually understand my proposed idea? Because your "counterexample" doesn't make sense to me, nor does the rest of what you wrote. Ordering the same moves for 3+ years would be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, for a forced draw under my proposed rule. And have you interpreted those conditions as 1, 2, 3, *or* 4? Because it's meant as an "and".)
jay65536
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby condude1 » 27 Sep 2018, 00:43

Jay: THe first three criteria are irrelevant to drawishness. Holding for a few years straight is neither sensitive nor specific for stalemates. There are much less clunky ways of going about it.

And chess DOES have draws outside of stalemates. 3-fold repetition and the 50-move rule are perfect examples. Repeating a position three times causes a draw, as does 50 moves without a pawn move or capture. Both of which ARE auto-stops on forced draw (perpetual check?)
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby jay65536 » 27 Sep 2018, 16:16

The point of the first 3 conditions is not that anyone who holds for 3 years should be able to declare a draw. The point of all 4 conditions combined, though, is that the game should be so deadlocked (as per 4a or b) that one player is ALLOWED by the other players to play identical moves for all that time while simultaneously there are few or no centers changing hands. And the proposal needs to have some kind of automated trigger condition for someone to declare a draw, so I think that's as good as any.
jay65536
 
Posts: 289
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 18:13
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1124)
All-game rating: (1130)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposed - Timing Out Stalemates

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 27 Sep 2018, 17:28

jay65536 wrote:The point of the first 3 conditions is not that anyone who holds for 3 years should be able to declare a draw. The point of all 4 conditions combined, though, is that the game should be so deadlocked (as per 4a or b) that one player is ALLOWED by the other players to play identical moves for all that time while simultaneously there are few or no centers changing hands. And the proposal needs to have some kind of automated trigger condition for someone to declare a draw, so I think that's as good as any.


What I'm saying is that the no-moves condition isn't a good measure of whether the stalemate has happened or not. It'd be too easy to get into a scenario where the stalemate is never called. I'm less worried about someone exploiting it.
NoPunIn10Did
Moderator (Forums only)

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1401
Timezone: GMT

PreviousNext

Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest