Report playtest thread for TOTAL PACIFIC US strategy

[ghr2]

@TheDefinitiveS:

Sweet, now we have 2 threads talking about the same crap. Efficient.

Because question does not want to post his thoughts on the other thread apparantly

[special forces]

@TheDefinitiveS:

Sweet, now we have 2 threads talking about the same crap. Efficient.

i think that is for balance purposes  :-D

[questioneer]

SHUT UP AND TRY IT :-D

[Variable]

@Trisdin:

I like the game the way it is, I prefer the huge challenge of playing the axis and the jubilation of winning with the axis. On the other side, playing the allies is a operation of perfect execution, sure it’s easy to win, if you do everything perfectly. And finally, how can we say that an allied victory is a sure thing every game when every battle is based on the random outcome of little six sided game changers. I played a game recently where I had incredible odds to destroy the entire Japanese fleet, I never hit once in 2 rounds of combat and I had to retreat with 2 empty carriers a damaged battleship and 1 cruiser, just saying.

This is the most enlightened quote in this thread… I agree with Trisdin. I’m gonna go have fun.

[ehenry]

@mantlefan:

@ehenry:

@mantlefan:

A true logician would be gracious to his audience and note the fallacy employed. A poser merely steals the words of a logician with no explanation and no understanding.

Does logical discourse require that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Why? The 211 logic class i took discussed true vs not true and valid vs invalid. There was no discussion of burden of proof.

You are likely confusing logic with debate, specifically NFL debate. In this case the affirmative has the burden of proof to explain that the status quo is insufficient to resolve a given problem.

In this case mantlefan claims the game is balanced and that those who say otherwise bear the burden of proof. This is an error. The game is indeed unbalanced. The very existence of an Alpha2 bears this out. If balance existed then this forum would not. Logic would diagram the argument as If A then B. If B then C. Therefore If A then C.

All of which means that the game is indeed unbalanced until proven otherwise.

Your “analysis” ignores the fact that a claim was made. Your statement that because Alpha 2 exists the game is unbalanced means that because changes were made to make the game balanced, the game is automatically unbalanced. What you ignore is whether or not the game is balanced.

You state that according to what you call logic, there would be no discussion of imbalance if balance existed. Why does the act of discussing whether or not something exists have direct impact on the existence of that which is being discussed?

Does the sky change color based on whether or not we are discussing what color it is? Isn’t the color independent of whether or not it is discussed?

Essentially, you are saying that saying that imbalance exists means imbalance exists, because if balance was the case, then no one would think there is imbalance. Why then does saying there is balance (which I have never done), not mean that it is balanced?

mantlefan, you fail to grasp the very meaning of words. Therefore you flail against the very trees which define the forest you fail to accept.

Alpha 2 exists because oob is unbalanced. This is a given, a tautology. Heap on all the invalid infantile analogies you wish, the game remains unbalanced. An adult response would be to find a solution. What’s yours?

[Guest]

@mantlefan:

Is balance… EVER attainable for AA global?

Maybe if a completely new setup not just a few modifications here and there. And maybe we need different victory condition instead of victory conditions.

[ehenry]

@mantlefan:

Is balance, in your mind, EVER attainable for AA global?

Ah. An adult question.

Yes. Balance is attainable. After lots of testing. Ideally players will test alpha2 and report their experiences. If players find a specific strategy for one side yields a consistant successful result regardless of opponent strategies then the game remains unbalanced. It is up to playtesters to  continue offering alpha2 modifications, and playtesting those modifications, until a previously consistantly successful strategy becomes uncertain.

Any modifications to alpha2 may in turn create new consistantly successful strategies. This is expected and should result in new mods or rejections of old mods. If however no new consistantly successful strategies emerge from a set of alpha 2 mods then we could reasonably claim the game is balanced. At this point a final round of testing from all testers, without further mods, should yield 50% results for each side. If it doesn’t, the game remains unbalanced and new modifications are required and the process repeats.

To conclude, the game remains unbalanced until demonstrably proven otherwise.

[questioneer]

Folks please, save the philosophy for another thread and just TRY the strat please-stay on topic.

[Daedelus]

@special:

@TheDefinitiveS:

Sweet, now we have 2 threads talking about the same crap. Efficient.

i think that is for balance purposes  :-D

Bwahh haa ha ha!!! LOL!

[ehenry]

@mantlefan:

Come on now, that’s the first fallacy you should have learned in the class that made an expert out of you.

Inability to prove the contrary (balance) does not prove the claim (imbalance).

The only thing that can be attempted to proven is IMBALANCE. Why?

Because we can look at a game and see that X side won, and conclude that there was nothing side Y could have done to have a fair chance of winning.

Yet to prove that balance exists, we would need to look at EVERY game and find NO cases where one side was totally incapable of having a fair chance with the moves the other person made.

Essentially, to prove balance exists, you need to prove that EVERY game was balanced (since if one game was imbalanced, balance does not exist), whereas to prove imbalance exists, you need to show only ONE game where imbalance exists.

I don’t claim omnipotence or omniscience, so I can’t see or know every game played. The only thing that can be attempted to be proven is that there exists an effectively unstoppable strategy. It cannot be proven that there does not exist an effectively unstoppable strategy, because EVERY strategy would need to be known to determine that not one was effectively unstoppable.

“Since it has not been proven that the game is not unbalanced, it is unbalanced.”

“Since it has not been proven that Mars does not have beautiful palm beaches, Mars has beautiful palm beaches.”

In terms of logical discourse, what is the fundamental difference between these statements? (None.)

Back to the infantile invalid analogies again. Pity. I briefly thought there was hope for you. Look up straw man.

The point of the exercise is the testing. You cannot test for martian palm trees. You can play a decent number of games and determine outcomes based on those games. The amount of testing you perform will determine if your conclusion is 9% correct,  99% correct, or five nines correct.

Please start testing and leave the debating to the adults.

[Imperious Leader]

Mantlefan: Pipe down and actually play a game with Jennifer so you can see what she is talking about. Stop all the semantics and circular reasoning and avoiding any effort to play a game evoking what Jennifer is saying. You are not proving any point to anybody and just frustrating efforts to validate the claims with broken kitchen sink references or avoiding any effort at seeing the problem.

In short, its not working.

[ehenry]

@mantlefan:

However, playing 10 games, 100 games, 1000 games, etc., where they all seem balanced proves nothing, since only one game needs to be imbalanced to prove that an imbalanced strat exists. One would need to examine EVERY game ever played to prove that imbalance does not exist. Do you agree?

The key here is that Jen has allegedly already proved that imbalance exists, and since she has said that she plays pretty much only on the forums, she probably has this proof somewhere on the forums. All we need is the link to the game where the axis did everything they could and still lost, and then we can conclude that there exists an unbalanced strat.

Dude, if only one game is all it takes then play the game. You are capable of playing one game yes? Why would you accept someone else’s results? In fact you haven’t accepted Jens or mstephens results because you’re still Sisyphussing at failed analogies.

So engage some intellectual curiosity and play a game. Engage in the discussion instead of being oh so proud of stringing some stolen sentences together. Act like an adult. Offer something testable and quit crying that nobody is listening.

[Imperious Leader]

Since you don’t seem to understand, I’ll simplify it.

You only need 1 game to prove that imbalance exists. Did one player do everything they could against a particular strategy and still lose? If so, then imbalance exists.

However, playing 10 games, 100 games, 1000 games, etc., where they all seem balanced proves nothing, since only one game needs to be imbalanced to prove that an imbalanced strat exists. One would need to examine EVERY game ever played to prove that imbalance does not exist. Do you agree?

The key here is that Jen has allegedly already proved that imbalance exists, and since she has said that she plays pretty much only on the forums, she probably has this proof somewhere on the forums. All we need is the link to the game where the axis did everything they could and still lost, and then we can conclude that there exists an unbalanced strat.

All we need is to see the one game where Jen  allegedly proved that imbalance exists (if there is more than one, all the better, but we only need one). Since Jen has already allegedly proved that it exists, logically, there is no need to do more testing; all she needs to do is share the proof. It’s as easy as looking back through her games to find the thread she is talking about and posting a link. No typing is even necessary, just copy/paste.

(BTW I see IL has joined in. Point out what is circular reasoning since you say it’s here. Point out what’s “semantics” since you say it’s here.)

Since you don’t understand , play Jennifer a game so she can show you whats going on. Stop avoiding playing her and posting off topic posts…

Jennifer will teach you about all the issues you ask about.

[TheDefinitiveS]

MANTLEFAN    VS    COMMNADER JENNIFER

time and venue tba

[TheDefinitiveS]

sigh……didnt have the effect i wanted!

[stormafro]

Since I am new to this forum it is entirely possible that there is an online history between you guys to which I am not privy.

However, in my country we have a saying.  Man up.  Just battle her dude. You have decided to go on a pseudo-philosophical rant.  Have you read David Hume?  One of the great analytic geniuses of the Enlightenment.  He placed great emphasis on the role of experience in providing understanding.

So man up and dig in.

And post results as I am curious :)

[stormafro]

@mantlefan:

Nonsense? Nonsense is demanding a test of a game take place that requires a well-informed and experienced axis who has seen this strat enough to know the best options for the axis be done by an axis who has never seen the strat before.  At least by studying some games, I can get a better idea for when I run a test whether it’s with Jen or not, even if I don’t become the best player ever out of it.

…

Are you claiming that by playing just one game I can FULLY grasp what her idea is? (well yes, because that’s exactly what you said). Do you not admit that is ludicrous? One game against a strategy, and a person can fully understand everything about it. Lol.

…

So one game involving myself allows me to fully grasp the idea (asinine), so what does looking at play reports allow me to grasp? Absolutely nothing?

So let’s say I improve my  strat each game I play. Which will be better, the strat in the first game of the series where I have seen no play reports, or the strat in the first game of a series after I have seen play reports (that according to Jen already exist, mind you.) ?

Here’s the key question, it’s yes or no, if you don’t answer it I see little reason to continue to respond to your posts as long as they continue in this line you have started.

Will seeing the game reports of this “broken” USA strat in action give a person who has never seen the strat in action before a better idea of the strat?

If I have a better idea of the strat, I think we can both agree that I will need to play less games to figure out the best way I can try to defend against it.

The less information axis goes in with the more games are wasted. I really don’t feel like spending dozens of hours playing the first few games when the number of games could have been cut down with only several hours of studying game reports. Call that an excuse, but if  I do this, it won’t be with an idiotic methodology just because glorious IL says so.

…

It would also be nice to see that Jen would be more interested in seeing IF the game is imbalanced instead of setting out to prove the game is imbalanced.

dude, i think these sections of your rant are fair…

so, if jen provides you with bat reps you will battle her???

[questioneer]

Jen’s already playing a bunch of games.  You need to bite the bullet and ask her.  She has given you more than enough info and reasoning- YOU NEED TO TRY THE STRATEGY THATS WHAT THIS THREAD IS FOR.

Otherwise your just TALK- BOK BOK, BOK!!!

[stormafro]

This forum amuses me greatly :)

[Defiance]

If the links were posted the entire community could playtest the US strategy. More importantly, Larry and the playtesters would be in a better position to determine what changes they should or shouldnt make. The main goal here is balance afterall.