Report playtest thread for TOTAL PACIFIC US strategy

@Imperious:

Just a side note: This is not a proper thread title because it does not lend itself to identify what the topic is about and further puts people posting on another site.

Good point.

where are yours question?

@questioneer:

HA HA- Nice try- “because my ideas didn’t gain support”- LOL- I could care less about that pal.  I just want the game balanced the way it should be.  Like the thread says pal- JUST FREAKIN TRY IT

Still avoid my question???  Where are your game reports???
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right?  So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.

Why?

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.

@mantlefan:

Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right?  So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.

Why?

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.

@ehenry:

@mantlefan:

Still avoid centuries of logical discourse? The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Cool, you want the game balanced. So do I. So why haven’t you proven the game is unbalanced? You made the claim. This alleged imbalance is news to me (Note I did not say it didn’t exist, I just haven’t discovered yet, if ever, if it exists at all) But you, you are a genius who has discovered how lacking in balance the game is. You hold the key to showing it is unbalanced in your hands, otherwise there is NO WAY you would EVER suggest that a change be made for reasons of balance, unless you were absolutely sure that it was right?  So you’ve already discovered that this problem exists. You already know. You are the enlightened one. But, you won’t share it.

Why?

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.

That’s really funny. I never said the game was balanced. Somehow you are the expert of logic but equate my asking for proof of someone else’s claim as refutement of the claim.

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?

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

@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

@TheDefinitiveS:

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

i think that is for balance purposes  :-D

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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!

@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.

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.