| Welcome Guest | Login |
Index
| Recent Threads
| Register
| Search
| Help
| 
| View Unanswered Threads
|
 |
Forums » List all forums » Forum: Sage Parley » Thread: Is it time for player mods? |
|
Thread Status: Normal Forum Status: Locked Total posts in this thread: 60
|
[Add To My Favorites] [Watch this Thread] |
| Author |
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
Yeah, I know I sometimes take what I say to the extreme but what I meant is the previous statement. I've not logged on in 6+ months and to do a bilge off against you I'd need to ban evade, which is something I will never do. Sorry man. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
|||||||||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
|||||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
You're lucky Epo doesn't really read the forums. He'd tear you a new one for a comment like that. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
|||||||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
You're right. It takes years of practice to perfect the skill of being saddled with the better starting position and playing the optimal combination of the first 3 moves before defaulting into the rest of the game. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
Yeah that'd be awesome if it were accurate. It's not though. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
|||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
 The game is an algorithm that hinges on a coinflip. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
You ever calculated the number of possible moves each TD game can have? Also, it doesn't hinge on a coinflip at all. You really have no idea about the inner workings of the puzzle, do you? You just run your mouth based on a rumour spread around by another bunch of idiots. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by teabagbill at Jan 17, 2012 12:16:26 PM] |
|||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
No, does it even matter? The board is loaded up until one player is forced to concede and give the other player the side slot. Which player has to concede depends on starting position because at the highest level players will play near-optimally until the tipping point is reached. Playing optimally just requires sufficient memorization of lever combinations that can and cannot be played and the series of moves that are played on them. I know
---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by kenjennings at Jan 17, 2012 12:21:55 PM] |
|||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
That's not true. At all. I've spent years playing TD with the top players you are talking about and every single one of them would tell you you are an idiot for saying that. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
|||||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
I don't need ten people to call me an idiot and not back it up with an actual argument, I already have one here. Edit: Reposted in a new post to keep this linear. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by kenjennings at Jan 17, 2012 12:42:55 PM] |
||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
We do have an argument. It's been said countless times by all of us on these forums, usually to Stevensam, who is another proponent of your idiotic theory. What is your proof anyway? You're trying to claim that a human is capable of analysing about 40'000 different possible outcomes. It really is ridiculous. How much actual experience do you have with the puzzle? ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by teabagbill at Jan 17, 2012 12:42:27 PM] |
|||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
Reposted edit: What I'm trying to get at is, nobody has ever tried to counter the notion that TD isn't essentially an algorithm. I'm not the only one who has dropped the crack that started our little joust and I've never seen it properly argued. If you want, (you or Epo can) try to convince me otherwise, I'm open to it. But yeah, just saying no and calling me names or dumb isn't going to cut it. -- A human doesn't need to analyze 40,000 outcomes in a TD match, that would be silly. You already know, based on the initial board, where the game is going to go. You just need to know, based on whether you're on the front foot or the back (again, depending on your position), how to corner your opponent into conceding the better opening or put off conceding the better opening and hoping your opponent misplays. I don't have a lot of experience with the puzzle, I haven't bothered with it because it's boring after a few games, sorry. I know what the board looks like and how it plays. Are there some special coins that you get when you hit ultimate that I don't know about that shake the board and toss everything about and throw some randomization into the game? (speaking of which, I remember the hilarious butthurt that ensued when this was introduced via holes because hurrrrrrr something unpredictable zomg; people still complained about holes in familiar tourney settings years later trololol) ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
Ok, I'll explain it loosely because I can't be bothered getting into detail, as I'd need to write pages and pages. TD at the top end is largely about board control and counting. Occasionally you get boards where it is essentially impossible for one person to win , but it's rare. Take it as being akin to someone entering an alchemistry competition and getting the luckiest board ever. Excluding these, it's all about board control. Yes someone will start with board control, but you will not win if you keep it. You need to continuously score points and that's where counting comes in. You need to know what you can and cannot give away, where and when. You need to factor in round changes to maximise your point acquisition when switching. You need to be exact with what you count multiple moves before you make the move. For example, if I had a very bad board, I'd give away a chunk of points in one of the lower scoring rounds to try and turn the board in my favour, or I'd make sure I was enough ahead by round 4 that I could take a smaller final round to my opponent and still win. It's easily the most tactical puzzle in the game. And no, it's not possible at all to know who is going to win from the start. If 2 top end players were to play each other, the difference at the end of the game in scores won't be over 10 points and they won't know who will win until mid way through round 4. I've not explained this too good as it's pretty impossible to explain everything on a forum. I'd need to talk to someone on msn or something to get the point across but seriously, you need to get good at the puzzle before you are going to actually understand the inner workings of it. I understand where you are coming from as it really does seem that way but it's wrong. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by teabagbill at Jan 17, 2012 1:21:49 PM] |
||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
That was a pretty good explanation, don't worry about it.
My initial point still stands as far as the puzzle is concerned though. I suppose the element of randomization comes from tactics or strategy, specifically the points at which the trading of position occurs. Although I guess it's a bit rash to say the entire game can be predicted, I think the segments that the game is divided into by the points where trading of positions occurs are predictable. It's still not fully-algorithmic but I think it has the least amount of randomization (which I think is the key to there being any requirement of skill) of all the puzzles. I concede that this doesn't mean there is no skill in the puzzle, but it's far different and seemingly less apparent than in any other puzzle. Of course, in hindsight there'll also be an optimal strategy based on the very limited number of random factors, but that's not really feasible in a game setting, especially if it's turbo. Experience will certainly help identify (near-)optimal ones though. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
|||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
Yeah, it's different as opposed to less skilful to the other puzzles I'd say. It involves quick calculations and thinking as far ahead as possible, instead of say building large combo's. Experience is a huge factor in TD. I guess it is predictable, although no human as far as I'm aware is capable of factoring far enough ahead or factoring deeply enough for the puzzle to not be competitive. It's a fast paced tactical puzzle and it's fun to outsmart your opponents and scrape a win. It can just be frustrating to learn. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by teabagbill at Jan 17, 2012 2:26:22 PM] |
|||||
|
|
helppr
|
I actually loved reading this debate.
Hence why it's one of the two puzzles I haven't attempted to learn properly (the other being Drinking). I'll get to it one day when I desire my Ultimate of Ultimates, and I can sit around Renowned/Grand-Master in both puzzles...but I'm still quite terrible. ----------------------------------------
|
|||||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
I'm actually starting to think Cabinnaw is correct. From my experiences of playing with top end TD'ers and having watched hundreds of games, it was always sort of random who would win. It's likely that the board was always going to play out that way because a certain number of people had reached the level where they do play perfectly. I'd need to look into it more and see if it's feasible because the amount of variation possible kinda makes me think otherwise but I do know that considering all of the factors when playing a move, you tend to play the optimum move available at that time and if done continuously by both players it's inevitable that one person was always going to win. Human players aren't machines though. Even if it is accurate, it doesn't change anything because it is literally impossible for a human to know the inevitability of winning or losing earlier than mid 4th round. Saying that, it doesn't take away from the ability of the players who reached this level. I'm pretty sure there have only ever been about 8 players to ever play the game who reached this level and my point in the lack of TD skill left in the game still stands as all of these players have over a period of time stopped playing completely and I'm pretty sure the current crop of players aren't capable of this. Certainly when you consider people like Purcell and Truman have sat at #1 on Sage for a long period of time recently. Edit: I realise I'm probably the only one who cares now but screw you lot, it's interesting and I'm quite happy to talk to myself. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by teabagbill at Jan 17, 2012 4:10:02 PM] |
||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
Go ahead, consider my interest piqued. I even hopped on and screwed around in TD on an alt. I guess it's not that boring, but I'm in the same boat as helppr, it's frustrating and obnoxious, especially if you lose a few in a row. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
I'll try and convince Epo to throw in his two cents. He knows a bit more about it than me and would probably explain things better too. And yeah, TD is always that way. It's one of the few puzzles where it's solely down to player ability. There's no luck and no bullshit. Unless you play holes. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
||
|
|
Siggy
Joined: Jun 7, 2004 Posts: 1238 Status: Offline |
Strange... I was under the impression that OMs where chosen by people applying to a 'help wanted" ad on their website. Almost like being an OM was a job, not a pink named social club with a special channel which has one or two people get their collective panties in a bunch because someone says, "Good evening." ---------------------------------------- Sig Owner: Sig Supply Network What happens when you beat whiny sword fighters with overpowered trash swords...
|
|||||
|
|
sweetnessc
Joined: Nov 10, 2004 Posts: 16105 Status: Offline |
I think you're overlooking the effect of parity, which is a question of luck and I understand with perfect play is determinative of the result. Check the discussions from ages ago, roughly a year after TD came out. Though perfect play isn't a human trait. Edit: I think this was the first thread on it, though there were more.... maybe it was fixed? I dunno http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?p=400388 ---------------------------------------- My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. ~ Jack Layton Sublime is shame. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 2 times, last edit by sweetnessc at Jan 17, 2012 5:22:26 PM] |
|||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
I think more was made of that than there should have been. It's only occasionally as far as I know that it actually completely determines the result and I think it's what makes most games so close. You need a few things to happen on the board at the start for it to be gamebreaking and there are ways to combat it. I think it's accurate that one player does have an advantage all of the time though, but it makes the puzzle fun trying to win despite that. It's kinda like one person attacking and one defending I guess. I'll ask around and get back to you though, as I'm really not sure. I just know when the board sucks for me and when it doesn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I92-W5f7DXk&feature=plcp&context=C3c7490aUDOEgsToPDskLqIi4j62z25sfLm5wCdQNE The board favours Eyedea massively here. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
|||||
|
|
shipperthree
Joined: Oct 20, 2008 Posts: 135 Status: Offline |
In TD, one person always has the board as there is an even number of levers (paddles or whatever) at the top of the board. Some people have argued that having an odd number of levers would make for a fairer game - but this would completely ruin the game, as you'd just had to figure out whether you had an advantage on the right or left side of the board, then just overload the opposite side with coins in round one. Ok, so it seems the main discussion here is whether high-end TD involves skill or whether the outcome is pre-determined depending on the board. Firstly, for the outcome to be pre-determined, both players must make the correct move every single go (I'm assuming a mistake allows the other player to capitalise and therefore win the game). There are eight possible moves a player can make every go (there are 8 places to drop the coin). Obviously, some of these will clearly be stupid moves, so, for the sake of this example, I will presume a player has an option of what appears to be two reasonable moves per go. Assuming one of the two available moves is the correct move, the probability a person selects the correct move every go in a 50 turn game is 1 in 1,125,899,907,000,000. Secondly, the arguement that the game is won or lost at the very start depending on the board doesn't hold any real weight. In treasure-drop there are 1,073,741,824 possible starting boards. I think it is reasonable to assume that at the start of a game, a player doesn't exclaim, "finally, board #743,682,004! I know which 50 moves out of the possible 1,125,899,907,000,000 moves to make this time! This game is MINE!" Okay, now regarding the discussion of parity. Having board control is only ever an advantage below top-tier play. You will always win if you have control of the board unless your opponent traps you (i know this is a broad and simple suggestion but it is relatively accurate assumption). In top-tier play, trapping your opponent is key to winning, especially before round four, and, to some extend, round two. Infact, some moves are much, much easier to do if you DON'T have the board. I'd say parity is only an issue if you don't really understand the mechanics fully, as to all top end players it is fair the way it is. The forums support me here... it seems the only people who ever argue otherwise don't play TD, play holes, or play but aren't very good at it. I haven't played TD in a while, but I used to be pretty good. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 7 times, last edit by shipperthree at Jan 18, 2012 12:35:50 AM] |
||
|
|
helppr
|
This made me laugh quite hard. ----------------------------------------
|
|||||
|
|
teabagbill
Joined: Nov 4, 2006 Posts: 2208 Status: Offline |
Aye what he said. ---------------------------------------- MC MundanCe, SPC |
|||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
After writing this, I want to specify that this applies to top-level TD. This all goes out the window if you take into account non-(near-)optimal (/awful-to-very good) play. I still think the concept of 'total number of possible moves' is irrelevant. The concern in any given game is the possible moves based on a given board. Like you said, most of the time the possible inputs will be narrowed down to two or three 'good' moves based on the given board conditions. Depending on how you split the board up or determine which section you want to play on (whether you look at one, two, or three adjacent columns; just throwing out the concept of scanning the board), you'll see familiar board conditions and you'll be able to judge based on this the set of moves you can or cannot play on them. So really, rather than thinking of the game in terms of a near-infinite set of possible moves, it is vastly narrowed down to a far smaller number of sets of moves/procedures to deal with the board's features. I'm not trying to dumb down the puzzle, but I think that you're overcomplicating it. This will be a stretch analogy but I'll try it anyway. Take SF as an example. You could say that there's a huge number of possible drops but when you get to high-level puzzling, board conditions (namely breaker spawns and the presence of one "heavy"/more frequent color) will steer drops in a certain direction. It's a stretch analogy because SF isn't constrained to 8 possible inputs for every given token (coin, piece), but you get the point. Essentially, game involving two highly-skilled players won't have some absurd number of possible moves. I'm not disagreeing with the overarching point that isn't pre-determined given board conditions, though. I think TBB's point about tactics and strategies of trading board position did it more for me than just citing the absurd number of possible moves a game can have where a large part of them won't even be considered given the board. Tactics and strategies introduce randomization via human error/choice whereas numbers are still solvable, particularly when narrowed down given the board. I know nobody's going to solve boards or board segments in real-time, but like I said before, experience will really help identify the optimal sets of moves required to win these segments, so to speak. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by kenjennings at Jan 18, 2012 1:06:56 PM] |
||
|
|
helppr
|
I'm sick of Treasure Drop. Let's talk about Sailing, Alchemistry and Distilling because they're better puzzles. ----------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
shipperthree
Joined: Oct 20, 2008 Posts: 135 Status: Offline |
Sailing, Alchemistry and Distilling aren't skill, because for each puzzle there is a limited amount of boards and a limited amount of variables or moves in each puzzle, so everything can be memorised. /sarcasm. Knowing what to do next is part of every puzzle. It's experience, and greater experience enhances skill, as you become familiar with a larger amount of situations. It's the same for every puzzle (well.. nearly every puzzle). |
|||
|
|
kenjennings
Joined: May 25, 2005 Posts: 7497 Status: Offline |
And you've gotten me off my initial TD skills lolz opinion, so you don't have to rehash that one. :P You're not forced to deal with what the puzzle throws (assuming the ability to trade positions which I presume is present in every game) at you but what the opposing player does. ---------------------------------------- [removed by SOPA] |
|||||
|
|
shipperthree
Joined: Oct 20, 2008 Posts: 135 Status: Offline |
yep! agree completely |
|||
|
|
[Show Printable Version of Thread] |
Powered by mvnForum
mvnForum copyright © 2002-2006 by MyVietnam.net