Jake wrote:Velhelmi Torvald wrote:... I don't share your pessimism that it wouldn't make it easier for new duelists.
Skepticism. Not pessimism.
I'll certainly defer to actual beginners stating their opinions. (As you noted, even when dueling with Glass characters, we're not actually Glass duelers.) My feeling is they won't find the carry-over Adv easier.
Hopefully, more beginners will contribute to the thread.
ETA:
I've been participating in DoF for very nearly two decades. I'll be the first to say I'm not a beginner. However, I have had occasion to tutor duelers from time to time (including my wife, when I was explaining DoF to her). When I have to add extenuations like "except when" to my explanations about how things work, generally that's a sign it's not simpler.
I can envision trying to explain the carry-over Adv to a new dueler, and I can see myself having to walk through several explanatory examples to show how carry-over Advs work.
Hence the reason for my skepticism.
Forgive the word. After I posted it, I immediately felt that the way I phrased it was a bit strong (I have a tendency to use strong language and have been very careful with it on this thread) and thought I should have added the word "although" to soften it up a bit. Skepticism is better.
I am disappointed with the lack of novice opinion here. Making a huge case like this in their favor and the only opinions and rebuttals being offered are by the established and the elite. I don't know what to make of that, but I really want to hear more from them as well.
As for teaching a new player, I get very much what you're saying about "except when." When explaining a complexity, words often fail and you have to learn by doing (I remember trying to teach Minesweeper to my landlady years ago). I used to do amateur music journalism and I remember asking a vocalist who could do a bunch of different styles, all well, how he learned to do that. He said, "You learn by doing." Could you imagine him trying to explain how he gets his pitch high, his growls low, his screams to linger unwavering with words? He wouldn't be able to. But if you start to make those same sounds, he could show you were you're erring and how to fix it.
One trick I use is to forgo words like complexity. I like the word wrinkle.
This little euphemism has saved me a lot of heartache in the past because of it sounds friendlier.
(I came back to this about an hour after I wrote everything else)
I just thought that if Feints become common against new/inexperienced Glass rank, then yes, I could see difficulties teaching newcomers then. The floating ADV isn't nearly as much of a concern as Feints. The question would then be, is it better to introduce players to everything early or gradually? This is where I would give pause to consideration of my own proposal.
Although, I would argue that the floating ADV version I'm speaking of (floating with successful attacks) may favor more Glass offense then Glass defense, whereas the IFL version (no results, mainly defense/defense, but also JK/JK & JK/LS) may favor more consecutive rounds of Glass defense. More defense = more Feints. More things = more complicated. More complicated = more wrinkles to explain.
I was going to suggest maybe having multiple versions of the game available for anyone to duel during open hours, the idea being that people could pick the version the like to play (Standard, Fischer 960, Pawns in the Forefront, for a chess example) until I finally considered the callers and how difficult for them that would be for them to keep strait and then shot down my own idea like a giant clay pigeon.
I'm trying to find a matrix maker so I can create a DoF Feint Matrix so we can add it to the dueling zone.
I would really like to test both versions many times and see what the results are. And it's a shame there's no DoF toy as it's probably the game that needs it the most (but I bet it would be the most difficult to make).
May I ask how you teach the current ADV system, Fancies and Feints to newcomers now? I appreciate your concern a bit better now, I think.
Seirichi wrote:Velhelmi wrote:Third: It also felt like a different duel mostly because I felt like my opponent was tentative and unsure about what was going to happen next. It's the first time I felt like Seirichi'player was uncomfortable. That was the vibe I got, whether he was or not only he can say. Maybe he too was testing things out? For example: "10. Jab / Dodge - 1-+3 Me" Why not Fancy here? Fancy becomes 1-4 and the duel is near an end. In fact, there are two Dodges that are not Fancied.
I have only six mods. I wanted to keep some back for easy possible feints. Being 1-3 already, with you having the floating ADV at the time, it would of been a risk to waste a fancy dodge and see you throw out another defense. It was keeping my mods in check, not being uncomfortable. I felt, in all honesty, in control most of that fight. Even with failed feints, the mindgame was there that "Seirichi will use feints, I should probably watch out before I defend more". Wasting mods or not wasting mods isn't always about wanting to get the point; though it would be nice, the psychological bonus is a bonus as well. That's the difference between DoS and DoF, when I fancy in DoS -- I want it to hit. When I mod in DoF? If it nulls or works, I'm fine with it. As long as I'm still on top it's all good.
Only Six?
In this one instance, you were playing mindgames with yourself. I felt it more beneficial to learn the mechanic than to win the duel. The only thing I was concerned with was timing a defense to nab an ADV and holding it to test the mechanic. Sure, I was worried about Feint after I nabbed the ADV, but I didn't care, I wanted to see what would happen. I managed to hold on to that sucker pretty well. I also probably would have switched to offense earlier if it also have a positive carryover effect there, but since we were using the IFL rule, it made more sense to me to see what I could do with it. In this way, I was successful and maybe why I felt that you were uncomfortable because I certainly have never seen move selections like the ones you chose.
I concede that in this way you were in control and if it was sluggish, it's because I didn't want to attack you when I nabbed that ADV, I wanted to play with it like a new toy. If you recall, as soon and I Dodged the Jab I went "Hmmm..." because I didn't know what to do next. The expectation then was that there would be a Feint or Sweep to counter Duck/Arm Block, which is why I chose Leap. I wasn't trying to score as much as I was trying to see what I could do with the floater. Similar logic with the Leg Block follow-up.
And it's also worth noting that this is the first time I've heard you say "waste" in regards of a DoF mod, which you've said in the past you have so many you can use them pretty much whenever you want. I feel like I'm getting new responses from you in regards to new stimuli even if it doesn't seem like it.
If we had a second duel last night, I may have tried to win. I can't really say.
Jake wrote:No, Rd 9 is JK vs. JK, which means neither connected.
In the sample duels posted in this thread (and I was planning to comment on this), generally the Adv floated through a round where both duelers defended. However, in several rounds of the IFL duels, the Adv floated through a round where both duelers were offensive (LS vs. JK and JK vs. JK) but neither connected.
When one or the other dueler connects, the Adv is lost.
This is how we played it last night and I referenced that same R9. JK/JK. It never came up, but if it had, we would of followed this.
EDIT: Removed possible private information.