Stories from RhyDin & The Rings

Valhelmi:

For a matrix maker I would suggest using Excel. You can save the spreadsheet as a web page from there.

Jake:

I don't know that running queries is necessary, but a rounds per match average per season for all the matches would be a pretty solid indicator if the assumption about increased duel length was accurate.

Kheldar wrote:Jake:

I don't know that running queries is necessary, but a rounds per match average per season for all the matches would be a pretty solid indicator if the assumption about increased duel length was accurate.

I'll see about running that sort of a query when I get a chance.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: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.

This. I stated it in my last post that increased feint usage would be the response to a floating/carryover advantage system. If this occurs, suddenly the lower ranks are combating not only fancies, but feints too. You don't have to look far to see the complaints that have already been lodged against using modifiers against low ranks. There's a whole thread *directly* beneath this one for it. Is introducing the carryover advantage system worth also having to introduce lower ranks to feints right out the gate as well? Suddenly you've made DoF even *more* complex at the start. A new duelist will have to learn feints, fancies, and the floating/carryover advantage system.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: Feints:

This is not much of an issue overall. As a Glass, I’ve only had a few used against me, have not heard other Glass complain much about this and only once that I can recall did I alter my choice of move due to the thought of a possible incoming Feint and it was in the final round of my most recent duel.

You stated yourself Velhelmi that before you tested this system, you virtually never saw feints. All of a sudden, you test this system out and you're seeing them left and right. Now you have to learn how they work if you don't know already so you can more effectively combat them. This is what I meant when I said the posters here see this from all perspectives. You haven't seen feints and you neatly dismissed them from your opening proposal as a non-issue. You can't really do that. You have to see and more importantly *understand* all the angles and how a tweak like this impacts *everything*.

Feints are the third strategic layer of this sport. They're also unique in the fact that they're entirely optional to learn. There are some Emeralds and above that don't use them and don't really know how, but they can still win with fancies. It's not going to make this sport any better or easier for a bottom rank if it's mandatory to learn every layer of the DoF system to start if they want to succeed or progress.

You also have to look at this several years down the line. Like Jake stated, those of us here now would likely pick up on this system fairly quickly. So after we've mastered the carryover advantage system, the fancy system, and the feint system, where is there an advantage for a newbie that shows up a year from now? There would essentially be three systems in place to learn, they're aware of zero, the Emerald they're dueling has all three down pat. How is that better for the lower ranks? Is the introduction of this system really going to lessen the gap between Emerald and Glass, or give the Emerald another advantageous wrinkle to exploit?

Seirichi wrote:More practice duels. I think the focus on Glass vs Emerald has taken over too much of this thread, so I decided to practice with Candy as Glass vs Glass.

Me ( Glass ) / Candy ( Glass )

Dodge / Jab - +0-0 ADV Me
Jab / Chop - 1-1
Jumpkick / Sweep - 1-1
Duck / Dodge - 1-1
Dodge / Sweep - 1-2 Candy
Armblock / Chop - +1-2 Candy ( ADV Me )
Legblock / Dodge - +1-2 Candy ( ADV Me )
Jab / Spinkick - 2-2
Flip / Jab - 3-2 Me
Sweep / Dodge - 4-2 Me
Snapkick / Duck - 5-2 Me

11 Rounds.

Me ( Glass ) / Candy ( Glass )

Jab / Sweep - 1 Me
Jumpkick / Jumpkick - 1 Me
Sweep / Jab - 1-1
Jab / Duck - 1-+1 ADV Candy
Dodge / Leap - 1-+1 ADV Candy
Jab / Legblock - 2-1 Me
Flip / Jumpkick - 3-1 Me
Jab / Sweep - 4-1 Me
Sweep / Dodge - 5-1 Me

9 Rounds.

We were both, obviously, playing to win. Winning POV > Testing moves. ADV Carry never scored in both fights. Candy said "It's like.. if we're using ADV carrying... I feel like I should try to use it.", which I was able to exploit during the second match. This brings up a learning curve sort of point.. if newer players see the ADV carry and feel the urge to use it, wouldn't that make them more easy to beat by Emeralds or Glasses who know the system? It isn't fixing anything for new players in my honest opinion, only making matches slower. It was easier to toss away ADV Carrying and defenses all together and just go straight offensive against her, and her against me at times.. which is what already happens in normal DoF fights with Glass vs Glass. Putting these, though only a small amount of duels, next to the Glass vs Emerald. It shows that.. 1: Emeralds will use more mods to combat the ADV Carry. 2: Fights will become more sluggish. 3: Glass vs Glass, Glasses will possibly toss ADV Carry out the window and go straight offensive to get the job done.

"I think the focus on Glass vs Emerald has taken over too much of this thread,"

I think there was another mention of this somewhere early in the thread so I'd like to point out that Glass vs Emerald didn't take over anything since it was the genesis of the thread. It is good to see how changes could affect other rank matchups, however and probably need more of that.

Your points with latching onto the ADV are becoming more visible. I know I did that last night. Eventually it was abandoned it after carrying it for two rounds. Worth repeating that if was carried over to successful offense, I would have more strongly considered an offensive move, for sure.

Another potential flaw with the IFL system. If the duels are indeed prone to being dragged out because of multiple defensive non-scoring rounds, it might run into the 5-point must for win system, currently in place. I didn't think about this last night, but when the score was 4-3 after 14 Seirichi, another tie round would have ended that fight in a draw. (This is still in place? I don't remember anything coming out of that other discussion concerning this)

It's possible that more of those kinds of matches would pop up, assuming the carry-over ADV isn't doesn't become something that is is abandoned in-duel due to being ineffective. It would also be nice to have other people testing duels as well, for additional perspectives.

Seirichi wrote:

Velhelmi wrote: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.

You might be thinking of Harris. I was the one saying that six is fine since there are both fancies and feints to think of. I've also told you many times that the current system, Glass vs Emerald, you'd want to waste your opponents fancies by defending when you believe they might fancy. After they fail a jab being a good example, they might want to fancy dodge thinking you'll jab them back. You can either risk sweeping to catch them with the possibility of being snapkicked, or jumpkick nulled, or you can throw out a dodge to catch their fancy dodge -- causing the round to null and one of their six mods to go away. That's basic Glass vs Emerald 101 tactic.

Also.. if you practice duel ( Especially when testing out a new style ), you should duel to win. Toying around the idea is fine and all, but it creates data in the end that can't be used.

"We were both, obviously, playing to win. Winning POV > Testing moves."

You have the benefit of both superior knowledge and having had used this style before.

Trying to win in Ignorance < Experimentation

When I started, we were told by the staff that we had to make our own matrix. Often times I had to try crazy things just to find out what would happen with something like Slash vs Duck and Slash vs Disengage or Disengage vs itself. It was better to know what I could do rather than ignore the blank spots in on my notebook paper and not know. Likewise, trying crazy things in a new system can be very beneficial. If you don't experiment, many times you'll end up doing to same thing over and over again and fail to evolve while others figure out how to work the system. Why use an old style in a new system? Sorry if you don't see the worth in what I was trying to do last night.

I think experimental duels offer plenty of worthwhile data. Like, is Leap/Leg Block a worthwhile combo? It didn't work, but it didn't hurt and the information I gathered is that it's at least worth another chance. I learned that it's possible to make rank pause in what they're doing when I nab an ADV. I knew you were playing to win, but studying your behavior as a rank and how you responded to the ADV was great stuff. It's why I initially thought you were uncomfortable. Perhaps I was mistaken, but at least I saw lots of changes in your decision making and would note that for future matches to see if that behavior continued.

As for the Harris/you comment. I'm fine with dropping that. You're could be right and I got it mixed up (I'm thinking about practice sessions, so it's very possible I'm getting you two mixed up), and I don't think it's worth arguing over for a second.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: You have the benefit of both superior knowledge and having had used this style before.

While you might argue that we have experience (about two years worth for myself). Neither Seiri nor myself were present/involved in IFL. We have no experience in using this ADV Carryover style. As Seiri included in the post, I feel like with these testing duels I should experiment with it.... but as far as my dueling style goes, more often than not it feels counter intuitive. Maybe that would change if I got more experience dueling in this fashion.

As a friendly reminder, IFL also had a forced parity rule in place.

"Fighters are restricted to two more fancy/feint moves than their opponent."

Which obviously needs to be considered when comparing that system to how DoF works normally. Forcing parity has a HUGE impact on the style of play between top and bottom ranks.

Lots of good stuff here, in this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't currently have time to write too much at the moment.

One thing I do want to touch on was mentioned a bit earlier - Glass vs. Emerald.

While yes, it's a focal point of discussion because it was the genesis of this thread and because it's 6 mods vs. 0 mods, DoF is not all about Glass vs. Emerald. No matter what changes are under consideration, we need to weigh how they will affect the entirety of DoF.

Balancing things for a Glass vs. Emerald duel may cause an unbalancing in, say, Jade vs. Ruby, or Ruby vs. Emerald or, heck, Diamond vs. Emerald/Opal. Hence, why things like practice dueling and beta testing are important - and I'm glad that some folks here have been practice dueling with some of the ideas brought forth.

It's just something we all should keep in mind; it's totally fine to discuss and perhaps focus on Glass vs. Emerald, but we need to be mindful of the game as a whole, not just a specific section of it.

Lastly, it's also been mentioned that there's been a lack of 'newcomer' opinions thus far. In part, that's because there aren't too many truly "new" DoF players of late (there are some, but there aren't droves, and I don't know how many of the newer folk read these boards and/or feel they have anything to contribute to a discussion like this).

New or old, veteran or rookie, please, if you want to weigh in on this thread, please do.

--Matt

Goldglo wrote:New or old, veteran or rookie, please, if you want to weigh in on this thread, please do.

--Matt

I don't know where I qualify on this, since I maintain that my rank is due to a clerical error in my favor.(I earned it, just don't remember how, when, or anything about it.)

I, personally, don't think there's anything wrong with the way the mod system is. I have some logical aspects in regards to how some feints react -vs- other feints/fancies that don't make sense to me, but that's entirely different.

The way the current "advantage" system is seems fine to me. Cause for that one round, you have the advantage, but if you don't/fail to capitalize on that advantage, it's nullified.

For example, say you're in a battle. Your army suddenly surprises another army from the side, going "BOO!" But then your army just stands there laughing. The next moment, the surprised army is all "Oh they surprised us, but didn't do anything. Let's set up." Now, both armies are set up and any advantage of surprise is gone.

Basically, I don't see a reason to change something that isn't broken. I see a lot of "We should try this, and what if we did this?" But no real reasons why.

I’m going to hit up some of the early posts I didn’t get to yet that I wanted to, but first…

Goldglo wrote: “Lastly, it's also been mentioned that there's been a lack of 'newcomer' opinions thus far. In part, that's because there aren't too many truly "new" DoF players of late (there are some, but there aren't droves, and I don't know how many of the newer folk read these boards and/or feel they have anything to contribute to a discussion like this).

New or old, veteran or rookie, please, if you want to weigh in on this thread, please do.”

I cannot second this more. I’m happy to be a lone “new” voice here (even if I’m something of a hybrid), additional voices of newcomers would be more beneficial than me talking for everyone in the new player camp. Likewise, additional thoughts, concerns, opinions and ideas are usually a boon. Finding flaws in the IFL system as well as Harris reminding that it had a forced parity system is a good example.

Goldglo wrote:“While yes, it's a focal point of discussion because it was the genesis of this thread and because it's 6 mods vs. 0 mods, DoF is not all about Glass vs. Emerald. No matter what changes are under consideration, we need to weigh how they will affect the entirety of DoF.

Balancing things for a Glass vs. Emerald duel may cause an unbalancing in, say, Jade vs. Ruby, or Ruby vs. Emerald or, heck, Diamond vs. Emerald/Opal. Hence, why things like practice dueling and beta testing are important - and I'm glad that some folks here have been practice dueling with some of the ideas brought forth.”

Fair enough and I’d like to point out that no part of me wants to sacrifice one part of the game for another, the hope is to improve it for everyone, if it is possible. If the topic is going to evolve from there, that’s perfectly fine, though I would hope that the seed isn’t stepped on in the process.

Mur wrote:“Its bad news but not that bad. This sounds like the strategy of an Emerald against what they think is a new player. If Sweep misses, sure FDO is a good move along with FDU. But so are Jab/Sweep still for the Emerald.

“It just means the glass should mix in a healthy amount of Chop/Snapkick/Spinkick. While they are at a disadvantage, so are Emeralds that miss a LS versus another Emerald. An Emerald that chooses FDO/FDU/FAB 9/10 times against glass-failed-sweep is exploitable.”

Mur,

The folly of this argument is that the Emerald vs Emerald is not at nearly as severe a disadvantage because they have the option to Feint that Fancy Dodge. It neglects the pain I went through to break down the three powerhouse defensive moves, Fancy Arm Block/Dodge/Duck. It also neglects that you’re a healthy dose of Chop/Snap Kick/Spin Kick is still a bad investment of a move.

Forget that mess… I have something better.

I have a challenge for you. Let’s say that the round is…

Emerald vs Glass
Jump Kick – Leg Sweep 0-0

I’ll pick between Fancy Arm Block, Fancy Dodge, Fancy Duck, Jab and Leg Sweep only via use of a random number operator. You pick any move you want, any time you want, other than Sweep, from rank Glass. We’ll do this 100 times and see what the score is and if you can find a way to consistently beat five moves with . Early prediction… you will start picking offensive moves and your losses will pile up, then you’ll defend a lot, but since you’re Glass, you won’t have any points to show for it by the end. I’ll bet money you’re going to lose and lose by a lot by using “a healthy amount of Chop/Snapkick/Spinkick” because any amount in this situation is unhealthy because this is casino dueling.

Then we’ll make it Emerald vs Emerald with the same set up and the same rules, you can use any move you want, including Feints, and see what the difference is.

What do you say? Up to see if “Its bad news but not that bad,” like you say or a “horror show” like my own hyperbole? I’m ready to put this test into action because I feel certain that I’ll win big. Feint Jab alone gives you a 60% chance of hitting, 20% of drawing and 20% of winning the round. I like those odds far more than anything on Glass has. What’s their best percentage? 40% hitting and 60% missing with Flip and Spin or to use defense and, even if successful, will probably not have anything to show for it the following round, which I’ll break down again in the following post.

On a side note, I disagree with you about your comment about Fancy Lateral Parry and would have fun arguing that on a separate thread. I’m really interested in this because I think you’re wrong but I want to see if you have an insight that’s I’ve missed.

Harris wrote:

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: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.

This. I stated it in my last post that increased feint usage would be the response to a floating/carryover advantage system. If this occurs, suddenly the lower ranks are combating not only fancies, but feints too. You don't have to look far to see the complaints that have already been lodged against using modifiers against low ranks. There's a whole thread *directly* beneath this one for it. Is introducing the carryover advantage system worth also having to introduce lower ranks to feints right out the gate as well? Suddenly you've made DoF even *more* complex at the start. A new duelist will have to learn feints, fancies, and the floating/carryover advantage system.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: Feints:

This is not much of an issue overall. As a Glass, I’ve only had a few used against me, have not heard other Glass complain much about this and only once that I can recall did I alter my choice of move due to the thought of a possible incoming Feint and it was in the final round of my most recent duel.

You stated yourself Velhelmi that before you tested this system, you virtually never saw feints. All of a sudden, you test this system out and you're seeing them left and right. Now you have to learn how they work if you don't know already so you can more effectively combat them. This is what I meant when I said the posters here see this from all perspectives. You haven't seen feints and you neatly dismissed them from your opening proposal as a non-issue. You can't really do that. You have to see and more importantly *understand* all the angles and how a tweak like this impacts *everything*.

Feints are the third strategic layer of this sport. They're also unique in the fact that they're entirely optional to learn. There are some Emeralds and above that don't use them and don't really know how, but they can still win with fancies. It's not going to make this sport any better or easier for a bottom rank if it's mandatory to learn every layer of the DoF system to start if they want to succeed or progress.

You also have to look at this several years down the line. Like Jake stated, those of us here now would likely pick up on this system fairly quickly. So after we've mastered the carryover advantage system, the fancy system, and the feint system, where is there an advantage for a newbie that shows up a year from now? There would essentially be three systems in place to learn, they're aware of zero, the Emerald they're dueling has all three down pat. How is that better for the lower ranks? Is the introduction of this system really going to lessen the gap between Emerald and Glass, or give the Emerald another advantageous wrinkle to exploit?

Forgive me if I didn't read your first post or if it got lost in my head along the way and wasn't appreciated until the topic turned more into a conversation (posts were frequent). When I first read this, it made me a little angry, but stepping away from it a bit, I can see what you're trying to do a bit better.

What I think is important, I cannot yet have an Emerald POV of the game as you can no longer have a new person POV of the game. The question then becomes, do we both see an area that needs fixing. If so, how do we move forward, if not, what then?

And that's not to say there is something wrong with DoF being considered the "hard" of the three duels. Is it not perfectly valid to have a challenging game? If that's the case, maybe nothing should be changed. I would suggest that it be labeled as such.

However the discussion has been very good so far and personally speaking, it's been better than I originally thought. Certainly didn't think we'd be testing a system days after the post.

G wrote:“The way the current "advantage" system is seems fine to me. Cause for that one round, you have the advantage, but if you don't/fail to capitalize on that advantage, it's nullified.

For example, say you're in a battle. Your army suddenly surprises another army from the side, going "BOO!" But then your army just stands there laughing. The next moment, the surprised army is all "Oh they surprised us, but didn't do anything. Let's set up." Now, both armies are set up and any advantage of surprise is gone.

Basically, I don't see a reason to change something that isn't broken. I see a lot of "We should try this, and what if we did this?" But no real reasons why.”

Hmm…

There is nothing wrong with ADV by itself. The problem as I see it is ADV vs Fancy. The scoring potential between the two is much higher on its own and the number of mods in addition to this is overkill. Your opponent gets a point while you maybe get a point but also maybe nothing. Add in the number of mods and what is proving to be a lack of new people (I did not think there was a shortage when I first posted) and I'm still not convinced that the tilt isn't high.

After this and what Kalamere said earlier, I’m going to break it down again, hopefully better this time.

Velhelmi wrote:Emerald vs Glass
Jump Kick – Leg Sweep 0-0

Sup. I went to the Outback last night. I fought two Emeralds. Beat Matt, lost to Candy. Here's the results of my win.

Me ( Glass ) Matt ( Emerald )
Dodge / Jab - +0 ADV Me
JUMPKICK / SWEEP - 0-0, ADV Lost
Dodge / Snapkick - +0 ADV Me
Duck / Sweep - 1 Matt
Dodge / Uppercut - +0-1 Matt
Jab / Fancy Dodge - 2 Matt
Snapkick / Uppercut - 1-2 Matt
Sweep / Fancy Dodge - 2-2
Dodge / Jab - +2-2 ADV Me
Armblock / Fancy Armblock - 2-2
Sweep / Jab - 2-3 Matt
Snapkick / Fancy Armblock - 2-4 Matt
Jab / Feint Jumpkick - 3-4 Matt
Snapkick / Hook - 4 All
Flip / Jab - 5-4 Me

15 rounds. 4 Fancies / 1 Feint.

Uphill climb, but a win is a win. Proper usage of defenses to attempt and null fancies.

Casino dueling is basically all dueling. If you don't think DoS is based on choosing %'s and trying to make a lucky choice, something is wrong. You make choices based on your opponent and how they react. It's all a guessing game. Did I know Candy was going to start Feint Flip during our challenge last night? Hell no. I thought she'd FAB, FDO, Feint Flip, Flip. So I went "AYO, I'LL SPINKICK THIS CHICK!" That was casino dueling. The same choice that helped me lose the challenge in the end. The final round I thought she'd FDO / FDU / FLIP. My choices were Spinkick and Snapkick. Do I risk her possibly sweeping or snapping me? I rolled the dice and went with snap and she Fancy Dodged.

Also. It doesn't matter if you duel 100 or 200 or 1000 duels and make the numbers to see what's better, even more if it's a random number generator. A computer doesn't make up for human error and thought process. What's better comes from the situation AT THE TIME. When the pressure of the title is breathing down your back, or a loss of a rank whispering in your ear. Things are situational.

Edited to add my sig because I think it's cute.

Kalamere wrote: I think that your analysis of duels is flawed. I say this because there is no reason to believe that, when reversing the ranks of 2 duelists, the moves they selected would have been the same sans fancy.

I admitted to this in the post. I don’t think they’re conclusive at all. Using the rank reversal was to illustrate how dramatically the score can be altered by the use of the Mods. This is because the difference between ADV and 1 is much larger than .5 to 1. If you think of ADV as 0 and probably not 1, as I do, then you see the game mechanic as one that makes alters how the matrix is used between the ranks who have the mods and the ranks who do not have it. I don’t see this in either DoS or DoM.

Consider this then: You don't like the illustrations of rank reversals, well let's then strip it down...

I've scored many conversions, but I've lost a lot many more advantages. Let's look at some hypotheticals... same moves for the first two rounds and the score differences with every scoring scenario I can think up inside the matrix.

ADV

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Duck - Leg Sweep 0-1

Defense was Hit: Behind

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Jab - Leg Sweep 1-0

Offense Switch, Hit: ADV lost but leading.

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Jab - Flip 0-1

Offense Switch, was Hit: Behind

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Jump Kick - Jump Kick 0-0

Offensive Switch, Both missed: Tied

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Jab - Jab 1-1

Offensive Swith, Both hit: Tied

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Duck - Dodge 0-0

Both defend: Tied

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Dodge - Jab 0+-0
3. Leap - Leg Sweep 1-0

ADV Converted: Leading

In only one of seven scenarios does the ADV matter. In all others it is lost. In only two scenarios does Player A lead.

Fancy

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Fancy Duck - Leg Sweep 1-1

Defense Hit: Tied

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Jab - Leg Sweep 2-0

Offence Switch, Hit: Leading by 2.

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Jab - Flip 1-1

Offense Switch, Got Hit: Tied

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Jump Kick - Jump Kick 1-0

Offensive Switch, Both missed: Leading

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Jab - Jab 2-1

Offensive Swith, Both hit: Leading

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Fancy Duck - Dodge 1-0

Both defend: Leading

1. Flip - Flip 0-0
2. Fancy Dodge - Jab 1-0
3. Fancy Leap - Leg Sweep 2-0

ADV Converted: Leading by 2

In each of the seven circumstances, the Fancy gives a point and leads in five of the scenarios.

ADV…

3. Duck - Leg Sweep 0-1
3. Jab - Leg Sweep 1-0
3. Jab - Flip 0-1
3. Jump Kick - Jump Kick 0-0
3. Jab - Jab 1-1
3. Duck - Dodge 0-0
3. Leap - Leg Sweep 1-0

Ahead: 2
(both by 1 point)
Tied: 3
Behind: 2
(both by 1 point)
Only one of these seven scenarios does the ADV help the duelist, score-wise, and only two scerarios in which the duelist leads.

Fancy
3. Fancy Duck - Leg Sweep 1-1
3. Jab - Leg Sweep 2-0
3. Jab - Flip 1-1
3. Jump Kick - Jump Kick 1-0
3. Jab - Jab 2-1
3. Fancy Duck - Dodge 1-0
3. Leap - Leg Sweep 2-0

Leading: 5
(Leading by 2: 2
Leading by 1: 3)
Tied: 2
Behind: 0

What’s catches your eye here? Is it the number of scenarios in which the duelist is leading by 2 points or the big goose egg behind the scenarios in which the duelist is behind? In fact, there are just as many scenarios in which the duelist leads by with 2 points as there are scenarios in which the duelist leads by 1 with the ADV.

I’d like to remind you that this is only a 3 Round Scenario and would hope that you could appreciate the implications of this over a full duel. I hope this is a better display of what I’m talking about.

For fun, what if it was .5?

.5
3. Duck - Leg Sweep .5-1
3. Jab - Leg Sweep 1.5-0
3. Jab - Flip .5-1
3. Jump Kick - Jump Kick 5.-0
3. Jab - Jab 1.5-1
3. Duck - Dodge .5-0
3. Leap - Leg Sweep 1.5-0

Leading: 5
(by 1.5 – 2)
(by 0.5 – 3)
Tied: 0
Behind: 2
(both by .5)

Conclusion:

ADV < .5 < Fancy
ADV << Fancy

This is what I'm talking about.

The results cannot be more obvious. Look at the difference in compensation for BEING RIGHT. How discouraging is it to waste one of your correct rounds if you’re not going to be compensated for it, but your opponent will be by a good deal more? You get 0 many times while your opponent has the equivalent of an offensive move. Is my chasm better explained now?


That’s just the difference in scoring potential for three rounds of a specific circumstance in which you already have an ADV. Add in more available mods and more efficient moves to the equation and I’ll go back to the playing cards with an experienced dealer playing using a stacked deck analogy.

If mind games are such a great boon as some like to argue, then I challenge those who make these claims to permanently trade their Fancies for ADV and mind games. They wont, because mind games are already part of every single round of every single duel and fancies are better. Much better.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: If mind games are such a great boon as some like to argue, then I challenge those who make these claims to permanently trade their Fancies for ADV and mind games. They wont, because mind games are already part of every single round of every single duel and fancies are better. Much better.

Despite not having my question answered, Why should anyone trade their fancies for ADV and Mind Games? I'm not given Any reason for there to be a change. Not that I have a say in making changes in DoF.

Basically, it comes down to you have to learn how to play. You have to learn how to outsmart your opponent. Not ask for rule changes to make things easier.

You think it's too hard to win? Ask every person who ever made Emerald if it was too hard for them. Even I made it to an Emerald.

What it is coming down to, is that you're thinking that everything should be made easier because you can't do it.

If you THINK you can't do it, you can't. You need to just hunker down and do it.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote: There is nothing wrong with ADV by itself. The problem as I see it is ADV vs Fancy. The scoring potential between the two is much higher on its own and the number of mods in addition to this is overkill. Your opponent gets a point while you maybe get a point but also maybe nothing. Add in the number of mods and what is proving to be a lack of new people (I did not think there was a shortage when I first posted) and I'm still not convinced that the tilt isn't high.

You have to learn how to deal with fancies at some point. Even as a Emerald you don't always go modifier crazy. Sometimes it's beneficial to not use modifiers if someone expects you to do so or vice versa.

I would also say that the conversion point is a much as a mind game. A glass just got an advantage... will they try to convert? A higher rank could do a defense to nullify the conversion or try a feint to steal the point, but a glass (or any rank) could also consider the chance of a higher rank doing this and then, rather than try to convert the point--get a full point by hitting the modifier (sweep vs fancy dodge/jab vs feint jab).

It's part of a learning curve.

I started dueling in 2008 and had a total of 12 duels that evened out 6-6.

Week 1: 1-0-0
Candy Hart .def. Capistrano 5-4 in 11 (glass vs glass)

Week 2: 4-2-0
Candy Hart def. Capistrano, 5-1 in 5 (glass vs glass)
Candy Hart def. Capistrano, 5-4 in 12 (glass vs glass)
Candy Hart .def. Vinny, 5-4 in 9 (glass vs emerald)
Bran Bale .def. Candy Hart 5-3 in 8 (emerald vs glass)
DamienRavnos .def. Candy Hart 5-3 in 9 (glass vs glass)

Week 3: 5-4-0
Goldglo .def. Candy Hart 5 - 0, in 6 (emerald vs jade)
Grayson .def. Candy Hart 5-3 in 6 (emerald vs jade)
Candy Hart .def. Capistrano 5-3 in 9 (jade vs glass)

Week 4: 6-6-0
Candy Hart .def. DamienRavnos 5-3 in 9 (glass vs glass)
Soerl Lute .def. Candy Hart 5-4 in 11 (glass vs glass)
Locke DVestavio .def. Candy hart, 5 - 2 in 5 (jade vs glass)

I took a long break from dueling, not due to anything having to do with dueling but entirely due to issues I was having with my RP on RDI under other characters.

I brought Candy back in 2011, three years later, as a means to distract myself when I felt like playing and couldn't do so on my main character (for the sake of linear progression being kept in order and other such things). That character is now dead and Candy is my main. I dueled with a copy of the matrix beside me cause I didn't have everything down and wanted it for reference.

Week One: 1-0-0
Candy Hart .def. Bleys Bashire, 5-4 in 11 (glass vs glass)

Week Two: 3-0-0
Candy Hart def. Sayuri Hisamatsu, 5-4 in 8 (glass vs glass)
Candy Hart def. Rachael Wynter, 5-4 in 10 (glass vs glass)

Week Three: 5-0-0
Candy Hart .def. Dyarhk 5-1 in 8 (jade vs glass)
Candy Hart .def. Goldglo, 5-4 in 10 (jade vs emerald)

Week Four: 15-5-0
Jochin Nagadari .def. Candy Hart, 6-5 in 12 (ruby vs ruby)
Candy Hart .def. Rachael Wynter, 5-1 in 6 (ruby vs glass)
Candy Hart .def. Rhiannon Brock, 5-3 in 9 (ruby vs glass)
Gork292 .def. Candy Hart, 5-4 in 9 (emerald vs ruby)
Koyliak .def. Candy Hart, 5-3 in 8 (emerald vs ruby)
Candy Hart .def. Sayuri Hisamatsu, 5-3 in 9 (ruby vs glass)
Candy Hart .def. Teagan, 5-2 in 6 (ruby vs ruby)
Candy Hart .def. Miranda Branson, 5-1 in 5 (ruby vs glass)
Candy Hart .def. Rachael Wynter, 5-2 n 8 (ruby vs glass)
Teagan Rielea .def. Candy Hart, 5 - 3 in 7 (ruby vs ruby)
Candy Hart .def. Gork, 5 - 2 in 6 (ruby vs emerald)
Candy Hart .def. Gork92 5-4 in 11 (ruby vs emerald)
Rachael Wynter .def. Candy Hart, 5-3 in 7 (glass vs ruby)
Candy Hart .def. Daniel Jones, 5-1 in 8 (ruby vs jade)
Candy Hart .def. Harper, 5-3 in 6 (ruby vs jade)

Velhelmi Torvald wrote:What I think is important, I cannot yet have an Emerald POV of the game as you can no longer have a new person POV of the game. The question then becomes, do we both see an area that needs fixing. If so, how do we move forward, if not, what then?

To clarify, I'm not talking about *looking* at it from a perspective, I'm talking about *experiencing* it. Every Emerald has experienced being a Glass, along with every rank leading up to that. You've just experienced being a Glass. A complete understanding of the game is paramount to making changes.

This discussion is basically about how wide the chasm is between Emerald and Glass and if something needs to be done to lessen it. In my opinion, it's as wide as it should reasonably be. I've seen no evidence presented that it's impossible to overcome. In fact, I've seen duels posted proving that to the contrary.

Velhelmi Torvald wrote:If mind games are such a great boon as some like to argue, then I challenge those who make these claims to permanently trade their Fancies for ADV and mind games. They wont, because mind games are already part of every single round of every single duel and fancies are better. Much better.

Knowing the system > Fancies > Mind Games