acka-research Digest Tuesday, January 26 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 021 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Duncan C. \"Slakko\" Richer" Subject: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:53:46 -0500 (EST) A lot of people have been talking about the appropriateness of the "winning" paradigm with regard to playing Acka. I have noticed the following regarding "winning": Cycle wins are by no means the only guide to who has done the most good work for Acka, or had the most fun playing it (obviously). Removal of cycle wins might reduce the desire for players to spend time thinking up fun ideas, as their "value" falls slightly. Suggestions for changes to make: Part the First: Changes to Points Wins 1. Magic Number is "permanently" fixed at 500. Pros: No more messy rules fiddling around with prime numbers and the Magic Number every cycle. Cons: Makes achieving a points win significantly harder. 2. At end of Cycle scores are reset to half previous score, except for the winner. Each player receives A$ equal to their change in income. Pros: Encourages players to submit stuff even in a "dead" Cycle (i.e. one in which a CWCFJ is awaiting the end of its appeal period). Cons: More difficult for the Scorekeeper. Makes achieving a points win easier. Part the Second: Halls Aplenty The Hall of Elders becomes the Hall of *. It contains three areas: the Hall of Elders, the Hall of Champions, and the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Elders rules remain unchanged. All Cycle Winners have their likenesses enshrined in the Hall of Champions, with appropriate symbols (e.g. a Piece of Cheese, a Hat, a likeness of the Museum, etc). to indicate the number and type of their wins. Each player has a Fame Rank (based on things such as the number of cycles they have won, whether they are an Elder, and what Medals they have). At any time, the 10 most Famous players are the ones enshrined in the Hall of Fame. People can get in the Hall of Fame without even winning the game once, just for their efforts (rewarded through the choices of others). Suggestions? Comments? -- Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer - http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Queens' College Cambridge, 2nd Year Ph.D. (Pure Maths) - Graph Theory Ackanomic - Web-Harfer, ChessUmpire, Map-Harfer, Clerk of the Court ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:04:19 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: >A lot of people have been talking about the appropriateness of the >"winning" paradigm with regard to playing Acka. I have noticed the >following regarding "winning": > >Cycle wins are by no means the only guide to who has done the most good >work for Acka, or had the most fun playing it (obviously). >Removal of cycle wins might reduce the desire for players to spend time >thinking up fun ideas, as their "value" falls slightly. > >Suggestions for changes to make: > >Part the First: Changes to Points Wins > >1. Magic Number is "permanently" fixed at 500. >Pros: No more messy rules fiddling around with prime numbers and the Magic >Number every cycle. >Cons: Makes achieving a points win significantly harder. This parallels something I've been considering for a while which would make each player have a 'magic number' dependant on how many cycles they had already won. Pros: makes points wins easier for new player. (and all of Slakko's pros) Cons: makes points wins harder for older players. (for sake of explanation, use the following terminology) Level = # of cycle wins a player has + 1 Points for win = 300*(Level)*(Level). (or some other similar function which gets progressively harder. Maybe not exponential) (suggestions?) >2. At end of Cycle scores are reset to half previous score, except for the >winner. Each player receives A$ equal to their change in income. >Pros: Encourages players to submit stuff even in a "dead" Cycle (i.e. one >in which a CWCFJ is awaiting the end of its appeal period). >Cons: More difficult for the Scorekeeper. Makes achieving a points win >easier. At the end of the cycle points don't change at all, so they accumulate linearly and no player's winning is dependent on any other players. A$ are paid based on overall point change per player per cycle (same as now). Other winning conditions just raise the 'level' but don't add any points so has a small deterrant toward winning via other means if a person is near to winning by points. Other win types become more interesting for players with a large number of levels as the points needed get too high. Pros: same as Slakko's. Slightly less work for the scorekeeper. Cons: the deterrant toward other win types. >Part the Second: Halls Aplenty > >The Hall of Elders becomes the Hall of *. >It contains three areas: the Hall of Elders, the Hall of Champions, and >the Hall of Fame. > >The Hall of Elders rules remain unchanged. >All Cycle Winners have their likenesses enshrined in the Hall of >Champions, with appropriate symbols (e.g. a Piece of Cheese, a Hat, a >likeness of the Museum, etc). to indicate the number and type of their >wins. Since we already keep track of how many cycles a player has won, I don't see the need for this other than merely as a formalization of that. >Each player has a Fame Rank (based on things such as the number of cycles >they have won, whether they are an Elder, and what Medals they have). At >any time, the 10 most Famous players are the ones enshrined in the Hall of >Fame. > >People can get in the Hall of Fame without even winning the game once, >just for their efforts (rewarded through the choices of others). Seems like the Honour characteristic checks these things already :) Use what's already there. >Suggestions? Comments? I would also like suggestions and comments. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:21:30 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, JT wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: > >A lot of people have been talking about the appropriateness of the > >"winning" paradigm with regard to playing Acka. I have noticed the > >following regarding "winning": > > > >Cycle wins are by no means the only guide to who has done the most good > >work for Acka, or had the most fun playing it (obviously). > >Removal of cycle wins might reduce the desire for players to spend time > >thinking up fun ideas, as their "value" falls slightly. > > > >Suggestions for changes to make: > > > >Part the First: Changes to Points Wins > > > >1. Magic Number is "permanently" fixed at 500. > >Pros: No more messy rules fiddling around with prime numbers and the Magic > >Number every cycle. > >Cons: Makes achieving a points win significantly harder. > > This parallels something I've been considering for a while which would > make each player have a 'magic number' dependant on how many cycles they > had already won. > Pros: makes points wins easier for new player. (and all of Slakko's pros) > Cons: makes points wins harder for older players. > > (for sake of explanation, use the following terminology) > Level = # of cycle wins a player has + 1 > Points for win = 300*(Level)*(Level). > (or some other similar function which gets progressively harder. Maybe > not exponential) (suggestions?) Welcome back Victory Eggplants! (A similar idea was tried before my time, and lasted for a while IICTWPC). > > >2. At end of Cycle scores are reset to half previous score, except for the > >winner. Each player receives A$ equal to their change in income. > >Pros: Encourages players to submit stuff even in a "dead" Cycle (i.e. one > >in which a CWCFJ is awaiting the end of its appeal period). > >Cons: More difficult for the Scorekeeper. Makes achieving a points win > >easier. > > At the end of the cycle points don't change at all, so they accumulate > linearly and no player's winning is dependent on any other players. A$ > are paid based on overall point change per player per cycle (same as now). I dislike the possibility of every player achieving a winning condition within a week just by coincidence of points. I think that there should be some level of competition between players, otherwise some point-based moves lose their sense of urgency. > > Other winning conditions just raise the 'level' but don't add any points > so has a small deterrant toward winning via other means if a person is > near to winning by points. Other win types become more interesting for > players with a large number of levels as the points needed get too high. > > Pros: same as Slakko's. Slightly less work for the scorekeeper. > Cons: the deterrant toward other win types. > > >Part the Second: Halls Aplenty > > > >The Hall of Elders becomes the Hall of *. > >It contains three areas: the Hall of Elders, the Hall of Champions, and > >the Hall of Fame. > > > >The Hall of Elders rules remain unchanged. > > >All Cycle Winners have their likenesses enshrined in the Hall of > >Champions, with appropriate symbols (e.g. a Piece of Cheese, a Hat, a > >likeness of the Museum, etc). to indicate the number and type of their > >wins. > > Since we already keep track of how many cycles a player has won, I don't > see the need for this other than merely as a formalization of that. The existing page relies on tracking which rules players use. The first 32 cycles now refer to outdated rules thanks to a new system, and in some cases no appropriate rules exist. I think a new Hall, with more information, would be a good idea. (There is also the possibility that, given such formalisation, the job of maintaining the Halls, and perhaps the Portrait Gallery, could become a new Office). > > >Each player has a Fame Rank (based on things such as the number of cycles > >they have won, whether they are an Elder, and what Medals they have). At > >any time, the 10 most Famous players are the ones enshrined in the Hall of > >Fame. > > > >People can get in the Hall of Fame without even winning the game once, > >just for their efforts (rewarded through the choices of others). > > Seems like the Honour characteristic checks these things already :) > Use what's already there. The Honour characteristic does not cope with players who won Cycles before it was introduced, or who got the Goose before it was introduced, etc. I was also looking for something which would be a non-decreasing value - nothing you can do diminishes your fame - at worst you become infamous. I also think that Duelling your way into the Hall of Fame is not particularly appropriate. However, Duelling your way to become Honourable is. I would therefore not wish to amend the Honour Characteristic (besides, to make it a fair Fame system I would need to reset it completely), and that is why I feel Fame rank is necessary as a separate concpet for this idea. -- Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Ackanomic | U. of Cambridge Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa) ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Winning Isn't Everything Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:56:35 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Duncan Richer wrote: >> This parallels something I've been considering for a while which would >> make each player have a 'magic number' dependant on how many cycles they >> had already won. >> Pros: makes points wins easier for new player. (and all of Slakko's pros) >> Cons: makes points wins harder for older players. >> >> (for sake of explanation, use the following terminology) >> Level = # of cycle wins a player has + 1 >> Points for win = 300*(Level)*(Level). >> (or some other similar function which gets progressively harder. Maybe >> not exponential) (suggestions?) > >Welcome back Victory Eggplants! >(A similar idea was tried before my time, and lasted for a while IICTWPC). Not familiar with them. Don't suppose you have a prop or whatever where I can see how they worked :) >> At the end of the cycle points don't change at all, so they accumulate >> linearly and no player's winning is dependent on any other players. A$ >> are paid based on overall point change per player per cycle (same as now). > >I dislike the possibility of every player achieving a winning condition >within a week just by coincidence of points. I think that there should be >some level of competition between players, otherwise some point-based >moves lose their sense of urgency. I don't see a problem with point based moves losing their urgency :) I prefer to compete on number of cycles won or whatever, rather than quickness of the wins :) >> Since we already keep track of how many cycles a player has won, I don't >> see the need for this other than merely as a formalization of that. > >The existing page relies on tracking which rules players use. The first >32 cycles now refer to outdated rules thanks to a new system, and in some >cases no appropriate rules exist. I think a new Hall, with more >information, would be a good idea. Fair enough. >(There is also the possibility that, given such formalisation, the job of >maintaining the Halls, and perhaps the Portrait Gallery, could become a >new Office). Fair enough again. >> >Each player has a Fame Rank (based on things such as the number of cycles >> >they have won, whether they are an Elder, and what Medals they have). At >> >any time, the 10 most Famous players are the ones enshrined in the Hall of >> >Fame. >> > >> >People can get in the Hall of Fame without even winning the game once, >> >just for their efforts (rewarded through the choices of others). >> >> Seems like the Honour characteristic checks these things already :) >> Use what's already there. > >The Honour characteristic does not cope with players who won Cycles before >it was introduced, or who got the Goose before it was introduced, etc. >I was also looking for something which would be a non-decreasing value - >nothing you can do diminishes your fame - at worst you become infamous. > >I also think that Duelling your way into the Hall of Fame is not >particularly appropriate. However, Duelling your way to become Honourable >is. I would therefore not wish to amend the Honour Characteristic >(besides, to make it a fair Fame system I would need to reset it >completely), and that is why I feel Fame rank is necessary as a separate >concpet for this idea. Okay, that's a reasonable argument. I'd just like Honour to be more integral in the game and this seemed like a way to make this the case. --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #21 **********************************