Glass vs Emerald: Something of a Study

[Jake]

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.

But...

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

Why would you Duck in this situation? Duck after an opponent Jab isn't a strong move. You lose to LegSweep, SnapKick, and Chop, which are arguably the strongest offensive moves in this situation.

In this situation, the Dodger (whom we'll refer to as Leftside) has the superior position. The Jabber (whom we'll call Rightside) can't block against both the Jab and the LegSweep, so he's got to guess whether Leftside is going to go with one of those two moves.

I think you have to discount the two Duck interactions as tactical errors.

Of the remaining five interactions:

• They simultaneously score once.
  Leftside wins twice.
  Rightside wins once.

Also, I think you've left out some tactically important combinations. Such as:

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

Leftside has good reason to consider LegSweep since the only offensive moves Rightside can hit him with are LegSweep (which would leave both with points) or SnapKick.

Sometimes the power of an Adv isn't that you might be able to convert in the following round, but in gaining the tactical advantage (or to put that another way, in setting up the following round). Having both Jab and Legsweep in your stable when your opponent doesn't leaves you in the stronger position.

ETA: After reading Candy's follow-up, I revise my note about the stronger position. Rightside has three main worries. Leftside's Jab, LegSweep, and the possibility of conversion. Rightside is in a world of hurt here. He can try Flip, and lose to both LS and the Leap conversion. Or he can try JumpKick, which might hit Leap, but will negate with the LegSweep and lose to the Jab. Or he can try SnapKick which loses to Jab and Leap, but does beat LegSweep. Or he can try LegSweep, and tie with LegSweep, and lose to both Jab and Leap. He could also try Chop, but while that beats Leap, and ties with Jab, it still loses to LS.

Rightside's in a bad position after missing that Jab.

[Goldglo]

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.

I totally won't deny that it's better (I think) to have fancies and feints than not. Well, no, I should clarify. Fancies and feints make dueling easier, or at least open up more potential tactical doors. Sure, those doors can be dangerous, because with so many options at your fingertips you've got an increased chance of overthinking and screwing something up but, by and large, having modifiers makes dueling, and by extension winning a duel, potentially easier.

Now, that being said, I've met, at least in part, your challenge. Though admittedly it was many many years ago, I have ranked up a character (my 2nd dueling character I do believe) from Glass to Emerald without ever using a modifier, not once. I will also admit that I did use a modifier once (maybe twice?) on that character once I reached Emerald, simply because I forgot which character I was playing but aside from those one or two times, that character has never used a fancy or a feint. I don't remember how long it took me to reach Emerald and those records are probably long gone, but I don't recall it taking a very long time.

I also won an Opal on that character, again with no mods being used. I lost my defense (no mods used), but I did actually win a title.

As far as I am aware, I'm the only person to have ever ranked up a character to the top non-challengable rank in any sport without using modifiers. If someone else has done it (and is still around, and reading this thread), please, share your experience!

I write that not to brag or in any way say 'I'm the best dueler ever' or anything like that. I write that to demonstrate that it is possible to win, to gain rank, even to win a title, all without ever using a modifier. Ranking up that way was hard as hell and it's definitely easier to rank up when using modifiers.

Yes, it's true that Glasses have 0 modifiers; a mentored Glass has 1 modifier (and I think, personally, the mentoring system is under-utilized; the whys for that are a topic for another thread and I don't want to take that tangent within this thread) at their disposal and yes, while getting those first 2 WoL can be somewhat daunting and take a while, there's probably something to be said for everything you (generic you) learn as a player about tactics during that period of time. Some folks stay Glass for months or longer and then boom! - they shoot up the ranks like a rocket into the sky. I believe, when I started, it took me 6+ months during AOL's 5-hours-only-per-month period to gain Emerald with Matt, my first dueling character.

I know I'm off topic a bit from the whole Emerald vs. Glass issue, but to go back to the purpose of this post, to summarize:

TL;DR = Modifiers can, and in most cases do, make dueling and possibly winning, easier. But they are not the end-all-be-all of winning, or winning big, or with ease.

--Matt

[Jake]

Sometimes the power of an Adv isn't that you might be able to convert in the following round, but in gaining the tactical advantage (or to put that another way, in setting up the following round). Having both Jab and Legsweep in your stable when your opponent doesn't leaves you in the stronger position.

For those that remember him, Procyonn's Gambit (in DoS) was to open the duel with Dis.

The logic behind his manuever was that after Dis, the dueler still has ALL of the moves available to him in Round 2, whereas the opposing dueler would be at a disadvantage having given up the option of at least one move.

If DoF is viewed like a Chess game, sometimes the Adv isn't because you're seeking the point (i.e., intending to try a conversion), but because you're setting something up.

Adapting this logic to DoF, sometimes the opening moves in a duel aren't because you are trying to hit, but instead to open with something weaker in order to see what your opponent opens with, and to put yourself into a stronger position for Round 2.

[Seirichi]

As far as I am aware, I'm the only person to have ever ranked up a character to the top non-challengable rank in any sport without using modifiers. If someone else has done it (and is still around, and reading this thread), please, share your experience!

I think I'll make an alt and try this..

[Jake]

As far as I am aware, I'm the only person to have ever ranked up a character to the top non-challengable rank in any sport without using modifiers. If someone else has done it (and is still around, and reading this thread), please, share your experience!

I think I'll make an alt and try this..

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

[Candy Hart]

As far as I am aware, I'm the only person to have ever ranked up a character to the top non-challengable rank in any sport without using modifiers. If someone else has done it (and is still around, and reading this thread), please, share your experience!

I think I'll make an alt and try this..

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

I'm disappointed Seiri didn't say "Challenge Accepted!"

[MurOllavan]

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.

Something that stood out to me was this versus the overhaul of magic. In DoM we had no less than half the active mages at times, plus 4-5 non-apprentice others arguing for change. In other words there was experience, and those of us with rank had no dog in the fight either. Of course it was an extreme change, but I thought that aspect stuck out.

I don't mean to say this discussion is not worthwhile at all. But it does make me a little skeptical of fists/swords changes due to my own experience.

[Seirichi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7cW2nMf1gk

This is how I want DoF to be. Can we implement a parry system?

[Jake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7cW2nMf1gk

This is how I want DoF to be. Can we implement a parry system?

In what respect?

ArmBlock and LegBlock are the direct analogs to the DoS parries.

ETA:

Loosely:
Thrust = Jab
Low Cut = LegSweep
Lat Parry = ArmBlock
Circ Parry = LegBlock
SideStep = Dodge
Stophit = Flip
Duck = Duck

That's most of what's left from the original matrix...and some of the interactions are different due to balance tweaking over time. The rest of the moves on the DoF matrix don't translate as well any more.

[Seirichi]

I was joking.. but, I still want to be Daigo.

[Jake]

Ah, sorry. I claim illness for blunting my humor detection skills.

[Kalamere]

As far as I am aware, I'm the only person to have ever ranked up a character to the top non-challengable rank in any sport without using modifiers. If someone else has done it (and is still around, and reading this thread), please, share your experience!

I think I've mentioned it before, but the weekend leading to the June 6th, 1995 DoS standings Ian MacKenzie went 18-3-1 and jumped from commoner to warlord, hence, making top rank without ever using a fancy. Unfortunately, I have no way to tell you who he fought.

As far as I know Ian isn't around anymore, so no way to get him to share insights. 1995 was a very different time for the sports though.

[Kalamere]

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?

I don't believe it was suffering a lack of clarity before. I think, however, that it does suffer from a lack of relevance.

I don't mean that perhaps as harsh as it sounds. What I mean is that in the end I feel we have to judge this in terms of wins and losses. We can tear apart duels and put up hypothetical round by round sequences to show the disparity between fancy and non-fancy all day long, but it all ultimately comes down to who wins the duel.

I don't think anybody is going to argue that fancies make no difference. Of course they make a difference and of course the Emerald is going to have a leg up in this scenario. My point is that the Emerald is *supposed* to have that leg up. The game mechanic is designed that way.

How do we tell if the mechanic is TOO powerful though? Round by round breakdowns? I don't think so. I think the most important statistic you need to look at here is wins and losses.

What do you feel the win rate for Emeralds should be when fighting Glass?

Personally I think that anywhere from 70-90% would be ideal. It shouldn't be so bad that the Emerald just automatically wins the duel and there's no point even fighting it. I also don't think that it should be anywhere near a 50/50 proposition. If a Glass can win 1 in 4 times against an Emerald, I think that's fine. More than that and I think perhaps the mechanic isn't doing its job.

If there were no Glass duelists around and you were forced to suffer though taking on Emeralds, then maybe that discussion would have to change. As I showed in my first post in this thread however, that is far from being the case.

Being that (a) you personally see a 30%+ win rate vs. Emeralds and (b) Glass rank duelists make up the majority of the duelists fighting; I don't see a legitimate cause for change. The chasm is, in my view, no more wide than it ought to be.

[Candy Hart]

Everyone loves numbers!

Since I'm still relatively new (as compared to some) it wasn't too hard to go through my fight logs to get the numbers. I have everything in a word document so I could prod the standings keeper when my numbers were off.

At emerald rank I have fought 118 duels against duelist at glass rank. I have won 74%, lost 25%, and tied 1% of the time.

ETA: Of the 29 duels that I lost, I'd estimate at least 13 (45%) were against new duelist (not alts of active duelists) and maybe 5 (17%) were duelist that hadn't been active in years.

[Kheldar]

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.

((As I went back to look at things I realized this was a more wordy version of a point Jake made earlier talking about Procyonn's Gambit))

A few points on this.

These situations are the point. This is how you win long term dueling. Setting these situations up in your advantage, and getting out of these situations when you're on the wrong end. A jumpkick isn't as strong as sweep in the round leading up to this one strictly speaking on a moves it hits vs moves that get hit basis. Is it nice if you hit with it? Yes but the hidden value of it there is neutralizing the other guys sweep and putting them in this situation.

The system rewards more precise dueling and not always choosing the highest percentage move. If you expect anti jab defense the safe move is to sweep, but if you take the risk to spinkick instead not only are you score, but you can sweep next round if necessary.

There are numerous other examples of this. Might a low ranked dueler have to take more of these risks to beat a high ranked dueler? Of course. That's consistent over contests everywhere. In the NFL a team that's outmatched runs lower percentage gadget plays in an effort to catch the team unaware. A less technical boxer risks throwing big punches in an effort to catch a power punch. A grappler risks closing the distance on a superior striker in order to take the match to the ground and gain advantage. As we're talking about percentage moves, often the best strategy for an amateur poker player being outclassed by a pro in a tourney is to go all in with a wider range of hands rather than get picked apart slowly.

It's all part of learning curve for the game. You comment on how because we're all experienced at it, even if we approach the game with a new glass it's not the same experience because we know the game. I agree with this, for exactly that reason. We've learned the strategies that help improve your odds against higher ranked opponents (or have the patients to avoid such match ups when we have too).

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.

Yes, there should be challenge to the game, that's what keeps people playing. To what end would we label it?

First, there are others who have commented in this thread that they found either of the other two sports more difficult at one point or another, so it's not a universal opinion and second, people are going to participate in the games they enjoy, that's how it works. It's not like they can only play one game, and if they choose the wrong one they're stuck doing it until they hit max rank. They lose nothing by participating, and learning one of the other matricies first doesn't do much to help the learning curve of this one (in fact you could argue in some cases it can slow the progress of improvement.) Isn't it better to allow them to make that determination themselves rather than potentially scare someone away from trying it because they're intimidated by the warning "Some players have found this to be the hardest of the three dueling sports."