Fukuda Atsuhiko
Player #19
Too bad I cut my hair, otherwise I'd look like this guy.
Posts: 282
|
Post by Fukuda Atsuhiko on Aug 18, 2011 23:51:43 GMT
Can we get rid of them after this Revival Round ? I'll post reasoning if you guys don't get why, but in all honesty, I think they should be gotten rid of along with any thing that asks for a service in return for money *ahem* M-Ticket *ahem*. If you guys can't tell why, I'll tell (just post here). I don't care if I win this Revival Round or not, but they're extremely broken aspect of this game that should be fixed. Hell, I could lose the Revival Round, but I'd still vouch for them to be removed from this LGT and any further ones.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Aug 18, 2011 23:59:34 GMT
Don't use them. There is nothing in the rules saying you have to.
Edit: Misunderstood you. Sorry.
|
|
Fukuda Atsuhiko
Player #19
Too bad I cut my hair, otherwise I'd look like this guy.
Posts: 282
|
Post by Fukuda Atsuhiko on Aug 19, 2011 0:05:56 GMT
Write contracts that exchange money for services? Yeah, that's not how a game should work though. There shouldn't be such a broken-ass mechanic like this in the game. I mean, even in the manga, it's only used one time. It is EXTREMELY broken; if the idea that you just use a "broken mechanic to get on an even playing field", then the game turns into "who abused this mechanic the most?" Don't use them. There is nothing in the rules saying you have to. They are broken in a game-breaking way. And I don't mean like they have a negative effect, they have an extremely positive effect when you use them. It's broken, and it should be fixed. Contracts should be rid from this game altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Aug 19, 2011 0:24:20 GMT
How so?
|
|
Fukuda Atsuhiko
Player #19
Too bad I cut my hair, otherwise I'd look like this guy.
Posts: 282
|
Post by Fukuda Atsuhiko on Aug 19, 2011 0:56:37 GMT
You can quite literally control the game with contracts. And I don't mean in just a dominant fashion, like how the best man comes out on top in any fashion. For example, in Starcraft 2 or Poker or Chess or Go, there's no such broken game mechanic that if you just get it, you automatically win. Since this game could be more comparable to Poker or Chess or Go, I'll use those examples rather than Starcraft 2 (simply because Starcraft 2 is a game that has a meta-game and there are more infinite possibilities). This game is actually more closely related to Poker out of them all, but Chess/Go work to prove my point as well. Chess has no unit that is balanced. In fact, it's the most balanced game in the world because of the fact that both sides have units in the same position and the exact same units. And no, I've heard the argument that chess is imbalanced because white always starts, and that's completely untrue; the game is frickkin' turn based. If it was a real-time strategy that would have some relevance, but it doesn't in chess. Anyways, in chess, there is no unit in the entire game that can, by itself, win. In fact, chess is extremely strategy reliant. Because there are literally so many openers for each side which cause an infinite series of strategies possible, we can say that chess is balanced by it's own imbalances if there were any; or rather, imbalance in chess is counteracted by other imbalances. ^ Example is that imbalance can counteract itself, and cause balance. In this game, there is nothing that counteracts a contract, because if you break a contract, you're fucked. It's extremely imbalanced, and I'll further it in the Go example. In Go, the game is relatively harder for strategies, but there is in fact, no imbalance. Simply because there are no different units, it's all about strategy. So, the thing is in Go, there is no single strategy that you can rely on to win. In this game, however, there is; it's called contracts. ^Example is that contracts literally force an outcome; if the outcome is denied, you are punished, therefore, it makes no sense to break contracts. You can't break contracts, you can only circulate them, which relies on your opponent being stupid, and since I play SC2 and I hate those kind of strategies, that's pretty stupid. Anyways, if a contract forces an outcome, you've played out the game before it's even begun. That's dumb, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure Shinobu sensei thinks the same. The games he made were without contracts for the simple reason that they force the game in a certain direction if abused correctly. If you give players a contract, then they can create an outcome that can't be averted, because it has to come. If it doesn't come, you are punished. I mean, that doesn't make sense, since this is called the LIAR Game. And last example is Poker; Poker is similar in this game because it's a free-for-all. Not only that, the rules are clear and don't affect how players should play, only give guidelines. However, there are no contracts in Poker; they're game-controlling, and should be used for legal purposes, not for winning or losing; I don't think abusing a broken-mechanic should be rewarded. I would rather the best player win, not the guy who just kept abusing mechanics and getting through. This isn't called Cheater Game, so none of that nonsense of where I have to deal with it and learn to abuse mechanics as well. Games should be reasonable to play, and the rules should be reasonable as well and compliment the game. Simply put, contracts are game-controlling mechanics. If I make a contract with 4 people, designating them to do X, Y, Z, they cannot do anything BUT X, Y, Z. This makes the rest of the game lackluster. The past games, from my knowledge, have been like this: 1) Pre-determined teams by random players to help each other. 2) Make a contract or something like that to confirm what they'll do. 3) ? 4) Profit. Seriously, if you abuse contracts as much as that, the game turns into just who gets more people in their alliance and signs the most contracts. There's no betrayal or hidden agenda in this game. Just make sure you pull off your side of the contract, get it done, and then win. I personally don't enjoy that. That's not how the LIAR game should be. Contracts defeat the purpose of the LIAR game; they tell the truth previous to when it happens. We can compare this to the actual Liar Game. Actually, no we can't, because in the actual Liar Game, Fukunaga was able to break all the contracts because she lied about her real name. We can't even do that much in this game, and because we can't deceive a contract (a mechanic of this game), I believe they should be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Aug 19, 2011 1:36:01 GMT
You can quite literally control the game with contracts. Yes, but not in the way you think. And I don't mean in just a dominant fashion, like how the best man comes out on top in any fashion. For example, in Starcraft 2 or Poker or Chess or Go, there's no such broken game mechanic that if you just get it, you automatically win. Of course there are. And each team has to use them to the best of their abilities, while protecting their own. Since this game could be more comparable to Poker or Chess or Go, I'll use those examples rather than Starcraft 2 (simply because Starcraft 2 is a game that has a meta-game and there are more infinite possibilities). This game is actually more closely related to Poker out of them all, but Chess/Go work to prove my point as well. Yay! Long, lengthy examples. Chess has no unit that is balanced. In fact, it's the most balanced game in the world because of the fact that both sides have units in the same position and the exact same units. And no, I've heard the argument that chess is imbalanced because white always starts, and that's completely untrue; the game is frickkin' turn based. If it was a real-time strategy that would have some relevance, but it doesn't in chess. Anyways, in chess, there is no unit in the entire game that can, by itself, win. In fact, chess is extremely strategy reliant. Because there are literally so many openers for each side which cause an infinite series of strategies possible, we can say that chess is balanced by it's own imbalances if there were any; or rather, imbalance in chess is counteracted by other imbalances. ^ Example is that imbalance can counteract itself, and cause balance. In this game, there is nothing that counteracts a contract, because if you break a contract, you're fucked. It's extremely imbalanced, and I'll further it in the Go example. Chess is imbalanced. They just haven't found the way to do it yet, nor do they know how to find the way with current technology. But if you reduce it to a smaller number of pieces on each side, it becomes do-able. Read some game theory stuff before going further into this. In Go, the game is relatively harder for strategies, but there is in fact, no imbalance. Simply because there are no different units, it's all about strategy. So, the thing is in Go, there is no single strategy that you can rely on to win. In this game, however, there is; it's called contracts. ^Example is that contracts literally force an outcome; if the outcome is denied, you are punished, therefore, it makes no sense to break contracts. You can't break contracts, you can only circulate them, which relies on your opponent being stupid, and since I play SC2 and I hate those kind of strategies, that's pretty stupid. Anyways, if a contract forces an outcome, you've played out the game before it's even begun. I've got minimal experience with Go, but any belief that there is no sure-win strategy is flawed. It just so happens that one hasn't been found yet. This is a subtle difference you seem to be ignoring. No, it relies on you convincing your opponent that there are no loopholes. I've seen it happen, and it wasn't because of stupidity. It was because the opponent didn't know what to look for. That's dumb, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure Shinobu sensei thinks the same. The games he made were without contracts for the simple reason that they force the game in a certain direction if abused correctly. If you give players a contract, then they can create an outcome that can't be averted, because it has to come. If it doesn't come, you are punished. I mean, that doesn't make sense, since this is called the LIAR Game. Yes. In no game were contracts used and the people making the contracts ended up in a bad position. Definitely not the downsizing game. And last example is Poker; Poker is similar in this game because it's a free-for-all. Not only that, the rules are clear and don't affect how players should play, only give guidelines. However, there are no contracts in Poker; they're game-controlling, and should be used for legal purposes, not for winning or losing; I don't think abusing a broken-mechanic should be rewarded. I would rather the best player win, not the guy who just kept abusing mechanics and getting through. This isn't called Cheater Game, so none of that nonsense of where I have to deal with it and learn to abuse mechanics as well. Games should be reasonable to play, and the rules should be reasonable as well and compliment the game. Professional poker is actually quite different to what you think it would be like. Games are about statistics, maths, etc... Not bluffing or anything like that. Once again, learn what you are talking about. Simply put, contracts are game-controlling mechanics. If I make a contract with 4 people, designating them to do X, Y, Z, they cannot do anything BUT X, Y, Z. This makes the rest of the game lackluster. They can do lots of things. As long as they also do X, Y and Z. Once again, you'd be surprised what that allows. The past games, from my knowledge, have been like this: 1) Pre-determined teams by random players to help each other. 2) Make a contract or something like that to confirm what they'll do. 3) ? 4) Profit. Nope. Contract use was pretty rare. It was usually based on trust. Seriously, if you abuse contracts as much as that, the game turns into just who gets more people in their alliance and signs the most contracts. There's no betrayal or hidden agenda in this game. Just make sure you pull off your side of the contract, get it done, and then win. Of course there is. As I said, I've seen loophole usage be done pretty well. Not very often, admittedly, but it has happened. I personally don't enjoy that. That's not how the LIAR game should be. Contracts defeat the purpose of the LIAR game; they tell the truth previous to when it happens. They tell SOME truth. You seem to be confused on this. We can compare this to the actual Liar Game. Yep. Let's go. Actually, no we can't, because in the actual Liar Game, Fukunaga was able to break all the contracts because she lied about her real name. We can't even do that much in this game, and because we can't deceive a contract (a mechanic of this game), I believe they should be deleted. Fukunaga broke contracts in one game. And the downsizing game had lots. In fact, the first set of contracts signed was done so by the people who ended up losing. Not including the exchanges of votes for yen, Nao signed less m-tickets than Fukunaga, who would have won if Fukunaga hadn't been there.
|
|
Fukuda Atsuhiko
Player #19
Too bad I cut my hair, otherwise I'd look like this guy.
Posts: 282
|
Post by Fukuda Atsuhiko on Aug 19, 2011 1:52:39 GMT
You can quite literally control the game with contracts. Yes, but not in the way you think. Of course there are. And each team has to use them to the best of their abilities, while protecting their own. Yay! Long, lengthy examples. Chess is imbalanced. They just haven't found the way to do it yet, nor do they know how to find the way with current technology. But if you reduce it to a smaller number of pieces on each side, it becomes do-able. Read some game theory stuff before going further into this. I've got minimal experience with Go, but any belief that there is no sure-win strategy is flawed. It just so happens that one hasn't been found yet. This is a subtle difference you seem to be ignoring. No, it relies on you convincing your opponent that there are no loopholes. I've seen it happen, and it wasn't because of stupidity. It was because the opponent didn't know what to look for. Yes. In no game were contracts used and the people making the contracts ended up in a bad position. Definitely not the downsizing game. Professional poker is actually quite different to what you think it would be like. Games are about statistics, maths, etc... Not bluffing or anything like that. Once again, learn what you are talking about. They can do lots of things. As long as they also do X, Y and Z. Once again, you'd be surprised what that allows. Nope. Contract use was pretty rare. It was usually based on trust. Of course there is. As I said, I've seen loophole usage be done pretty well. Not very often, admittedly, but it has happened. They tell SOME truth. You seem to be confused on this. Yep. Let's go. Actually, no we can't, because in the actual Liar Game, Fukunaga was able to break all the contracts because she lied about her real name. We can't even do that much in this game, and because we can't deceive a contract (a mechanic of this game), I believe they should be deleted. Fukunaga broke contracts in one game. And the downsizing game had lots. In fact, the first set of contracts signed was done so by the people who ended up losing. Not including the exchanges of votes for yen, Nao signed less m-tickets than Fukunaga, who would have won if Fukunaga hadn't been there. No, there really is no such thing as an unbeatable strategy in Chess or Go, because they have a thing called a meta-game, in which the "unbeatable strategy" is only unbeatable for a short amount of time. It's literally impossible for them to beat it. And, actually, in Poker, there is bluffing. It's a mechanic, but you can hinder it with maths, since there are other resources. And I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to get rid of all those resources at your disposal, you just shouldn't be allowed to pay to avoid that mechanic. And, no, there weren't contracts in the Downsizing Game; it was a game of trading. They weren't handing around services for X amount of money.
|
|
|
Post by Aitou Kaichi on Aug 19, 2011 1:59:26 GMT
Actually, sorry. I was partially off. Chess and Go MAY HAVE an unbeatable strategy. But the requirements for a computer to find it are currently unfeasible. I apologize. But the point still stands. Go learn some game theory before making such a claim.
I said professional poker. What amateurs do has no bearing on the best way to play.
There was a trade of services for money. Fukunaga got 5 million off each player other than Nao for the rotation of votes.
|
|
Fukuda Atsuhiko
Player #19
Too bad I cut my hair, otherwise I'd look like this guy.
Posts: 282
|
Post by Fukuda Atsuhiko on Aug 19, 2011 2:22:30 GMT
Actually, sorry. I was partially off. Chess and Go MAY HAVE an unbeatable strategy. But the requirements for a computer to find it are currently unfeasible. I apologize. But the point still stands. Go learn some game theory before making such a claim. I said professional poker. What amateurs do has no bearing on the best way to play. There was a trade of services for money. Fukunaga got 5 million off each player other than Nao for the rotation of votes. She did? I'mma have to reread that part then. But Chess and Go DO NOT have unbeatable strategies, regardless of computers finding them or not. You can keep saying "it just hasn't been discovered!" But, think like this: Chess has been around for thousands of years. Same with Go. I'm pretty sure someone would've found an unbeatable strategy by now with that wealth of knowledge. Not only that, each side has the same capability of using a strategy. In Starcraft 2, there was this "unbeatable strategy", about 6 months ago, where Terran players would rush into getting their workers and marines and send the workers ahead of the marines to tank damage for the marines. It seemed unbeatable, but there was this new invention of micro called "kiting". When that didn't work, a guy named oGsMC revealed that Protoss (the other of the three races) has a method even better than kiting, called force fields which he used defensively and offensively. By using this mechanic, he defeated the best of the best in Korea, and achieved a GSL title (Global Starcraft 2 League). Right now, he's still considered one of the best players. However, Terran players discovered a counter to this unbeatable mechanic of forcefields by picking up their units in medivacs and flying them to safety behind the forcefield so the forcefield couldn't be used for anything but retreating on the Protoss side. You know what Protoss did? They got a new standard army composition vs. Terran which revolved around High Templars using Feedback on a medivac to kill it (HTs have an ability to take away as much health from a unit as it has energy stored). If the High Templars missed, they'd fuse to make an Archon. Terrans countered this by Ghosts. The current counter to Ghosts is Feedbacking them before the Ghosts land a spell on the Protoss army. You get it? It keeps going back and forth. A new strategy which seems to have a lot of merit comes and passes with the meta-game, as more people play, the greater wealth of knowledge comes. There is no such thing as an unbeatable strategy, as long as everyone is given the same tools. There will always be something that can at least contend with this strategy, if not totally demolish it. But, there is nothing to counteract contracts. Please, tell me, if you're competent at writing contracts, how do you counter it? You can't, you can't exploit a contract unless someone left a weakness, which isn't how a contract should be. What is balanced about contracts, that you argue for them, by the way?
|
|
|
Post by Kindai Ichii on Aug 19, 2011 2:34:56 GMT
The very fact you brought up, that both sides has the same tools. Sometimes, for the meta-game to exist, it is the same tools that both sides have that is used differently (and some might say intellegently) that forces any form of gameplay on another person.
Here, we use contracts much to the same purpose. X could sign with Y, but X could also sign with Z. Z could sign with Y for that matter. And that's only a three person game, imagine with 9 (the horror). What Aitou said was right, there is no one sure-win strategy when you're talking about such a complex and massive game of strategy, anyone could do anything similar to what you have in mind at any time.
|
|
|
Post by Aisuke Setsuna on Aug 19, 2011 3:03:29 GMT
It seems that you believe that our contracts are "holeless" and meant to be so...
Kukuku, it's not quite so...
Very few of us here are actually lawyers, Fukuda. We don't do this for a living, and it's nigh impossible to think off all possible outcomes. Without a doubt, there will be holes. Not to mention, there is a simple sad thing known as "making holes on purpose."
|
|
Fukuda Atsuhiko
Player #19
Too bad I cut my hair, otherwise I'd look like this guy.
Posts: 282
|
Post by Fukuda Atsuhiko on Aug 19, 2011 8:33:54 GMT
The very fact you brought up, that both sides has the same tools. Sometimes, for the meta-game to exist, it is the same tools that both sides have that is used differently (and some might say intellegently) that forces any form of gameplay on another person. Here, we use contracts much to the same purpose. X could sign with Y, but X could also sign with Z. Z could sign with Y for that matter. And that's only a three person game, imagine with 9 (the horror). What Aitou said was right, there is no one sure-win strategy when you're talking about such a complex and massive game of strategy, anyone could do anything similar to what you have in mind at any time. No. If I added a unit in chess that could move anywhere for both sides, is that balanced? Hell no. It seems that you believe that our contracts are "holeless" and meant to be so... Kukuku, it's not quite so... Very few of us here are actually lawyers, Fukuda. We don't do this for a living, and it's nigh impossible to think off all possible outcomes. Without a doubt, there will be holes. Not to mention, there is a simple sad thing known as "making holes on purpose." I guess, if something hasn't been abused yet, we shouldn't worry about it! Well, at least we know, that even though they may end up as a major issue, it isn't yet! That's the attitude I'm receiving from you. If not removed totally from further games, I'd like contracts to at least be looked at by the dealers. And none of this argument where you have to agree to his contract. That's like saying you have to lose all defense for your king to get checkmated. It's a pre-requisite, but only that much.
|
|
|
Post by Kindai Ichii on Aug 19, 2011 14:42:31 GMT
Yes it will be balanced, I don't see why not. It might mess the entire game mechanic up, but it is still balanced.
However, my counter-argument is pointless as your analogy is irrelevant. The equivalent of contracts here in a chess game is if the board is filled with numerous tiny human beings whom you have to speak to separately and convince them to do your bidding. All moves can be decided before hand there is incomplete information.
|
|
|
Post by Barbaro on Aug 19, 2011 15:45:01 GMT
Note that BOTH sides have to consent to that. If someone is willing to sign something like that, they must be getting mega compensated, because that's a terrible move to make.
So far I've seen some very interesting use of contracts. The only way we're willing to completely outlaw contracts is for a game that functions best if there are no guarantees (like Chun from the previous tournament*, in my opinion)... but contract loopholes make for some fun exploitable consequences.
Not to mention, sometimes we'll include horrific costs to use contracts. Sometimes we won't. Depends how we want the game to run. Because Stockpile has roots in the Downsizing game, we made M-Tickets unlimited because it is ultimately a purchasing game, and there's no way we'd stop players from being able to purchase multiple times.
Also, your issue of balance is moot. While chess is the ultimate strategy game, balance ultimately comes from players being able to start with the same resources. We've done our best to ensure that the games do not place a disadvantage on a player from the outset. Imbalance in chess is created when strategies are played to give oneself an advantage. There is no difference here, even with the contracts existing; contracts are one of the strategies available to you to bargain with players, not to mention the infinite possibilities that come with using contracts. The only thing that is never balanced are the players' Bank Accounts and their alliances, but we all know this is a Tournament-long meta-game... and you should never be devoid of either in the Liar Game if you know what's good for you. Although there's always a way around that.
Take it or leave it. Rules are rules. Like I've said before: we give you the rules, and you use them to your advantage. But that being said, I do appreciate the debate being brought up and seeing the point of view players have on this subject.
*For those who don't know the rules to Chun, the rundown is: a 4 player game, each player starts with tiles numbered 1-9, and a Chun tile. Each round, all players place one of their tiles face down, trying to outrank all of the tiles. 9 is the highest ranking tile, but a Chun can beat it. A Chun loses against every other tile if no 9 is played. You can never play the same tile twice in a future round. Beating tiles collects points in your name, and the player with the most points wins.
|
|
|
Post by player41 on Aug 21, 2011 2:04:49 GMT
If there were no contracts, all rounds would end up like they did in The Final Round, Garden of Eden.
|
|