M57 wrote:

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:

I suppose you could give the win to the bot and score the entire game as if the bot played it - in which case the player gets off the hook for being booted.  Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like this solution.  In the event that the bot wins, the player gets nothing for whatever efforts they put into the game.

That just promotes getting out a loss even more!  I know I'm going to lose so let the bot take over rather than lose my points.  Not good at all.  The player has to lose points.

No.  If the bot loses, the player takes the loss!  Only if the bot wins does the player get away with not taking a loss.  This is why the bot shouldn't be a strong player.  The insult to injury is that the dumb bot gets the win.  

That's a bit better, although still potentially promotes a bot take-over rather than knowing you're going to take a loss.

Yertle wrote:

That's a bit better, although still potentially promotes a bot take-over rather than knowing you're going to take a loss.

I see what you're saying.  On the one hand, if the bot is capable of winning, you'd be crazy to give it the reigns ..provided that you're smarter than the stupid bot, so that's one reason to stay in the game.

But if all is hopeless, why not just hand it over to the bot?

Believe it or not, this might be preferred by everyone. It's more equitable than playing out your position by running your armies through some random player ..who gets mad at you and puts you on their enemies list.  Also, it speeds up play.  I know it sounds unnatural.  We're just not use to it ..but what's actually wrong with a bot playing out a losing position?

M57 wrote:..but what's actually wrong with a bot playing out a losing position?

I don't think I'm against a bot playing out a losing position, but the player that is no longer playing should not be rewarded (whether gaining points or not losing points) if they are removed from the game.

Better idea: If the bot wins, the player takes a double loss.

Oatworm wrote:

Better idea: If the bot wins, the player takes a double loss.

Now that's insult to injury!  I don't have a problem with this at all, but I'm guessing it would become a stats nightmare.  What's the H-Rating of a player who's played 2 three-player games and has a 1-2 record???

Yertle wrote:

M57 wrote:..but what's actually wrong with a bot playing out a losing position?

I don't think I'm against a bot playing out a losing position, but the player that is no longer playing should not be rewarded (whether gaining points or not losing points) if they are removed from the game.

Just to be clear.  Under the proposed system.  The player is never given a win.  The best case scenario for the player is that the stupid bot wins (which should almost never happen), but when and if it did, it would most likely be in a case where the player was way ahead at the time of the boot.

Yes, in this case you could argue that the player was not technically penalized, but I would counter that with the game in hand, the bot stole the win.  In my mind, that is a penalty. 

If we can get to the point where it is agreed that there is no stats related incentive for a player to engage the trendy surrender bot (after all, it will become the polite thing to do), we might be tempted to make it a smarter bot (for instance we could teach it how to blitz ..and eventually play Jeopardy).   I can think of only one argument against this.

Consider team play.   A player is booted.  Certainly, the bot should not attack team-mates.  That would unfairly penalize them.  On the other hand, if the AI becomes too competent, I can imagine a player "taking one for the team" by resigning or letting themselves be booted and letting the strong bot player deal with a tricky position.

I think we could all agree that when it comes to team play, even a dumb bot that is active and cashes cards (and doesn't attack its team-mates) is a fairer solution from the team-mate's point of view than letting the booted player's territories and cards go neutral.

Given all the above, I'm proposing that we start out with a 5-rule dumb bot for both individual and team play.  If all goes well and bot play starts to become common if not popular ..and if there's interest, the quality of bot play could be improved.

..BUT, in team games the bot remains fairly weak and conservative so as to discourage the chivalrous but ethically questionable practice of "taking one for the team".

I've thought of a problem with the bot getting a win. How do you go about calculate the new ranking of the losers of that game?

It doesn't seem right that the bot should win for a number of reasons.  First, the player surrendered. Those troops are "leaderless".  They shouldn't be able to win.  Besides, who will rule when victory is achieved?

I've considered some alternatives, one being that the bot refuses to attack the last territory, but this seems ludicrous and there's the real possibility of stalemate.

The system that makes the most sense to me is that all bots resign when the game gets down to one remaining human player.  It's clean.  PLayers will concentrate on what should be the remaining goal, taking each other out.  In the endgame, no time is wasted making perfunctory moves, and there's always a human winner.

Bump - It's three years old but I think this thread is relevant to the current Voluntary Skip thread. - It's not too long - less than 30 posts.