Intelligence has nothing to do with gifs on the Internet.

Intelligence has nothing to do with gifs on the Internet.

That's exactly why I expected you to respond with a GIF.

Edited 8/22/2015 04:58:10

No. I mostly wrote it because I expected you to respond with a GIF like that (or maybe some really shitty "rap" lyrics that prove you passed pre-K and know how to rhyme) and exit the discussion. I mean, it was pretty clear you didn't read my first comment either.

This is why you're going to hell, knyte. You can't stop insulting. With the same amount of rudeness:

Genghis is implying that you should shorten your answer as not everyone has as much life lack as you do, and it's annoying to read long descriptions on Warlight format, which you'd know if you could read past pre-K levels.

I made my response as succinct as I could while still conveying what I felt needed to be conveyed. I'm not going to take out important sections (and lengthen the discussion as Genghis then retorts with something I've already pre-empted) just because a few people are going to complain about a few paragraphs. The actual discussion matters a lot more than that.

Unfortunately, not every discussion can be carried out using dank memes and overused GIFs. You don't have to read it if you don't want to- it wasn't written with you in mind, anyway.

You certainly don't have to complain about the length and derail the discussion- your discomfort with lengthy posts doesn't make your feelings special.

Edited 8/22/2015 05:33:47

In my defence, I'm a dope rapper for a white guy.

I do have to agree with Xy though. Your post was incessantly long. You only need 1 reason, and then say more if people want more.

That one reason was already in my original post. Your response was non-responsive because it merely reiterated something acknowledged in the original (of course calculations are a part of the game). So I just gave you a full response because short comments clearly didn't work since it's easier to pretend to read them and throw out something completely non-responsive. Figured that you'd either completely to fail to read it or decide not to respond.

As I've already stated, that wasn't intended for you or Kapy. I'd much rather read a response from people who actually play and understand the strategic side of the game- people who, in my experience, are much more likely to read and even enjoy discussions on game mechanics. I did my part to try to raise the discussion above Genghis-and-Kapy level and maybe one day reach MOTD-and-Math-Wolf level.

If you knew how to write "succintctly", you would never use the word succint.

Let me shorten your dissertation, knyte.

Well, for big player majority, one can plan ahead for the next few turns while making overall strategy for the game. Even if you're calculating very fast, you still won't have advantage over one who calculates slowly.

If players have more calculations to do, two bad things can happen:

1. RT games would have really less decision-making time - playing would be poorer, but more varied. Players with supermaths skills or high experience with map will always have advantage. Competition would be less inclusive.

2. Games are chosen by luck, as players must (semi) randomly pick best choice in set. Whichever player randomly finds better goings would make the better choice mostly since luck.

WL should have some basic arithmetic and probability in games, but only if simple enough to focus on decision making rather than maths.

Don't get me wrong, I think strategic decision-making is mathematical, too, but it's different; the difference between solving a maths problem in high school and solving an engineering problem in real life.

When figuring your best strategy for a game, you will build a (nonexplicit) game model based on assumptions; what datum kind is important, how to use the data, how to erase your opponent(s), so on. Under current system, these assumptions have much greater impact on WL skill than to just compute and input data on known expressions. In short, you must build assumption models to figure how to deal with X.

Edited 8/22/2015 06:30:06

Unfortunately, not every discussion can be carried out using dank memes and overused GIFs. You don't have to read it if you don't want to- it wasn't written with you in mind, anyway.

Actually, they can, but that would get repetitive quickly.

You certainly don't have to complain about the length and derail the discussion- your discomfort with lengthy posts doesn't make your feelings special.

Do not see Genghis really complaining, just telling you - if you can't write well, I'm not going to read your stuff.

As I've already stated, that wasn't intended for you or Kapy.

Actually, it really looks like you were talking to Genghis.

Genghis: hate to break this but calculations are a part of the game.
knyte: Yes, calculations are part of the game.

You didn't shorten my post so much as convert it into Engrish, leaving out some major parts and making about half of the content in your summary confusing and lacking context. It looks like you just went through and dropped random words. Thanks for the attempt, however.

Actually, it really looks like you were talking to Genghis.

I was responding to Genghis' point. That doesn't mean my intended audience was Genghis.

That said, this thread isn't a discussion of my writing ability. It's unfair to OP to further derail this discussion. Let's keep it to the idea of territory-based kill rates only, and keep the GIFs and personal shit on OT.

Edited 8/22/2015 06:38:09

I'd much rather read a response from people who actually play and understand the strategic side of the game- people who, in my experience, are much more likely to read and even enjoy discussions on game mechanics.

I actually play 3/4 normal WL games, and I'd say I have "understand the strategic side of the game", please.

I'd like to point out that Local Deployments, Multi Attack and the luck/kill ratio settings make Warlight unbelievably complex already, but the game isn't melting. I don't see why more optional but complex features would change anything.

Here's a thought :
Mapmakers could cater their maps to be compatible with territory "terrains". New mapmakers need not worry.

You didn't shorten my post so much as convert it into Engrish, leaving out some major parts and making about half of the content in your summary confusing and lacking context. Thanks for the attempt, however.

Tell me the major parts I left and which parts are confusing. I write "succinter" English than you do, for an Engrishman. Also, I analysed my edits and your original, here is what it came up with.

9 schooling years to read mine, 1151 characters, 246 words, 16.4 words per sentence.

15 schooling years to read yours, 3510 characters, 745 words, 31 words per sentence.

In general, if your writing has more schooling years on it, that's bad.

Edited 8/22/2015 06:46:44

Thanks for getting back on topic Genghis.

I'd like to point out that Local Deployments,

LD doesn't make attack calculations particularly complex. In fact, the optimal strategy for adapting to LD (making sure you move your armies and having some particular approaches to expansion, aggression, and defense) is fairly consistent between different LD templates. LD isn't tough to do in your head- it scarcely adds any math to the equation.

Multi Attack

Likewise, MA just requires you to separate long-distance and long-term planning. With 0% SR (and even 0% WR), the calculations are still not complex enough to make MA unusable and most people can adapt pretty well to it.

and the luck/kill ratio settings make Warlight unbelievably complex already,

Luck above 16% is rarely used anymore- but fortunately implementing luck at 17% and above required no additional time on Fizzer's part. Luck 16% and below is incredibly easy to calculate with. Similarly, kill ratios just require you to plug in different variables- not come up with entirely different expressions or make any more calculations than you would be otherwise. Analyze Attack takes care of it for the most part, anyway.

These are not unbelievably commplex features to anyone who knows how to play. All of these are usable in a wide enough variety of templates to make up for the cost of implementation, imho.

but the game isn't melting.... I don't see why more optional but complex features would change anything.

My issue isn't with the game melting. With any feature, Fizzer has to invest time with implementation. This time cost isn't worthwhile if the feature is game-breaking enough to not be widely used- obviously, it's not going to affect games where it's not used, but that doesn't matter. It's about whether people actually use the feature enough to make implementing it worth Fizzer's time.

So I have two issues:

- This would likely be a huge time-investment on Fizzer's part (which of course has significant opportunity costs) because he would have to revise key game and map mechanics

- This wouldn't be usable in a large enough set of situations to make up for that time investment and the opportunity costs (i.e., what Fizzer could implement instead)

I'm going to ignore the off-topic stuff but I chuckled at this part:

15 schooling years to read yours

Weird, since I'm just about to start my 14th year of schooling in 9 days. Guess I shouldn't be able to read my own comments. (And yes, I know how reading levels work. This is facetious, in case you couldn't tell.)

Edited 8/22/2015 06:51:59

Weird, since I'm just about to start my 14th year of schooling in 9 days. Guess I shouldn't be able to read my own comments.

Would you expect it to be that precise? It's an average. There are dumb university graduates and insightful primary schoolers.

Well knyte, I'll point out i almost never use LD and Multi Attack. I've tried MA, but the issue is that there is no medium between lose everything 1 turn or slowly lose ground 1 territory by q territory. I want to see the careful maneuvering, the refueling so to speak.

As for local deployments, mostmaps i would use it for are too large ģ have too many bonuses. If you've ever seen a fee of my larger and more provoking scenarios,you'd know what i mean precisely.

We have come to this crossroads for about 2-3 years now : Should Fizzer work to monetize the game, but in the process might not get a lot of cash, or should he invest into a new groundbreaking feature, that might not get much playtime? The worst thing i can think of is that people ķ and especially the strategic players) keep playing the same schlocked out things, but refuse to bridge the gap between diversity and complexity & simplicity.

Looking back on it, i think this game i composed long back might be the thing many people would love to see.

https://www.warlight.net/Forum/56027-birth-civilization-roleplaying-scenario

I'm up for new groundbreaking features. I just don't think this would be one.

Instead, I think it'd be best for Fizzer to allow people to create their own game mechanic extensions (no work on his part to create the mechanics themselves) so we can permanently open up the game to that sort of modification. That would be hella groundbreaking and allow us to just test suggestions like this one out.

Because I'd honestly want to try this one out- I'd find it interesting as a way to balance double borders (by, say, having a lower kill rate for something like the westernmost Antarctic territory in Strat ME). I just don't think that it's going to be big or widely used enough- it'll take a lot of effort to use it in a non-game breaking way- or worth Fizzer's time to implement because there's a backlog of like 500 ideas he's already not gonna get around to.

Edited 8/22/2015 14:37:55