"Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Speculation, discoveries, complaints, accusations, praise, and all other Erfworld discussion.

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:38 pm

MarbitChow wrote:And THIS is where we're never going to agree. Logic aside, you display here a fundamental assumption that I refuse to accept, so we can find no common ground.


I have one opinion you can't agree with so you can't agree with anything? That's one of four or fve good arguments. Even if oyu ignore my belief in compassionate Titans, there's still the evidence of Jillian, Stanley, and casters going barbarian when their sides fall, and that has nothing to do with my opinion of the Titans. Ignore my Titan concept and focus on the facts, then. FIght the battle we shouldn't differ on. Really, my titan concept is not a sticking point here, and can be considered irrelevant, if you want to ignore it and focus on what is factual.

Note that disbanding, under normal circumstances, would never be used. Units can be ordered to their destruction, so that even though they are eliminated, they may take opposing units with them, or at least provide corpses for becoming uncroaked. The scenarios where it would be very useful are few: (1) upkeep is too expensive to allow the units to continue, even for a single turn; (2) the unit is exceedingly powerful and has been shown to be disloyal. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Neither situation has shown itself in the current storyline, so there would have been no need to de-pop a unit. The implied threat is sufficient.


Stanley's final comment before ordering everyone away from him was "I don't know if you betrayed me, or if you failed me." Stanley does wonder if Parson and co. are disloyal, and so if they approach him, they may be coming to assassinate him. Yes, Disbanding in that case ensures they cannot order Stanley's bodyguards to go away, or otherwise cause distractions while Stanley defends himself.

To me, "disbanding = de-popping" as a mechanic is symmetrical, internally consistent with the established universe, it has been alluded to (at least in the context of the summoning spell, which granted may be a one-off case), and these are sufficient for me to accept that it is the most plausible outcome.


No event associated with Parson and the 500000 shmucker Summoning Spell is indicative of a general rule for popped units. Parson wssn't popped, he was brought.If you were summoning something that might turn out to be a demon, wouldn't you insert a safety net to ensure your own safety?

Your counter-arguments require the addition of, essentially, a benevolent god who would not allow such an abomination to occur, and we have no evidence that the Titans are benevolent.


Vinnie and Ansom seem to think they reward good behavior, that is the behavior of a good warrior. Got anyone that doesn't to back your callous Titan concept? I do have some backing.

Look, that's not a major argument for my concept. My strongest arguments involve the final states of Jillian, Stanley, Jack, the dwagons, Vurp, and the casters after their capital Sides end. Ignore the Titans. They aren't important, and your focus on them is a distraction to the factual evidence, instead of the emotional one. In the end, what you believe the goals of the Titnas are is an emotional/spiritual belief, not a mechanical one.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:35 pm

Maldeus wrote:The first point is that Erfworld is a literal interpretation of a war game, as is evidenced by Parson's magically appearing meals, the magic system, the spontaneous reconstruction of Gobwin Knob, the fact that units have quantifiable stacks, the fact they can only move on their turn, the fact that they have a certain, limited number of move points and that when they run out they remain as capable in combat as they were before they began their march, therefore showing no signs of fatigue, and probably some other things I've failed to mention.


They also have ambition, likes, dislikes, good and bad attitudes, emotions, and a myriad of other things never included in War Games. The participants are human, and though certain game-world effects influence them, they are still people. But why are you arguing this? It's irrelevant. Even if you think Erfworld is just a game, the people are plastic and soulless, and so on, I have other factual arguments you can face. Defeating my belief in the Titans as compassionate does not help you, when Jillian is still a Barbarian after her side fell, Stanley will become a barbarian when GK falls (along with Jack, his dwagons, and Vurp), and casters in MK become barbarians when their side falls. Units in the field disband when their side falls. None of that has anything to do with the Titans.

My second point is that Rob's intention with the comic was to show that the most cute and cuddly of war games is, in fact, a nightmarish, perpetual Hell for its inhabitants, especially the grunt troops fighting the battles.


Cool. Where does he say this? I don't remember reading it.

One comment from a character who wouldn't know about an afterlife that may or may not actually exist cannot be expected to trump the constant cruelty that is the perpetual warfare of Erfworld.

As I stated elsewhere, we have one benefit over the Erfworlders. We actually do know for certain the Titans built Erfworld. And so we know, too, that the Titans have revealed themselves to the Erfworlders. Though they may rely on Faith in the Titans, we do not: it's a fact for us. This isn't like our own religions, where faith is important: we have factual evidence of the Titans on Page 1. Since we know the Titans have truly revealed themselves, then we can be fairly certain that Vinnie is correct in his claims about the City of Heroes. You might not like the idea that gods truly reveal themselves in our world, but they did reveal themselves in Erfworld, so there's cause to believe they ensured they were worshipped in the ways they wanted. Regardless of the truthful accuracy of the existence of the City of Heroes, the Titans want the Erfworlders to believe in a City of reward for heroes in the afterlife, and so their goals are to create Heroes.

Is what happened to Misty fair? Did Manpower choose to be Stanley's chief warlord, and did he deserve to get shot? Did any of the units spontaneously annihilated by Parson's uncroaked volcano do anything to deserve it?


One difference. The Titans exist. We know that for certain. Life, in general, isn't fair. But Misty had her chance to be a good person and achieve a good afterlife. es, she died randomly, when another character protected her sanity. That's why it's important to always be as good a person as you can, for us and Erfworlders. You can croak anytime, anywhere, so always be ready for it. That way, if your death is unfair, you still achieve nirvana.

"What d'you have against obscenity, anyway? You're fine with this obscenity. You brought me here to do this."


Ands Parson doesn't understand why he is in Erfworld. They aren't telling him. SUrprised that the author wants to keep his story climax secret for the big reveal at the end? Remember, this is a written story. Suspension of disbelief is expected.

Kreistor wrote:Been tried before. Only worked once, and that was 20 years ago, and it took two sentences. You ain't him. And I learned that lesson very, very well.


I'm not sure what's more quaint, that you think I care or that you expect me to believe you're anything near that old.


41 next month. I began on the old newsgroups. Heck, I was on alt.conspiracy when it was still a single newsgroup. I programmed in basic on Commodore 64's and trash 80's (TRS80). When the ground battle in Gulf War 1 began, I had to leave a few minutes later to go to college class, and considered standing up just as it started to tell everyone about it.

not me wrote:Therein lies the problem. Learn to accept that life isn't always exactly what you want it to be, or else you'll live your entire life in a deluded fantasy.


Then prove your alternative. I don't accept anything that has no proof and relies solely on opinion. You'd have done it by now if you could.


I did, actually. Do you remember the post I made about this earlier? Or the one I made after that, noting that you'd ignored it?


Not a mind reader. If I missed something, repeat it.

K wrote:Or they create Great Nations like the USA, France, Soviet Union, China, etc., etc. They take over the UK and kill its King.


First off, the Soviet Union was so far from great it's laughable to call it such, second off, I've no idea what you capitalised "Great Nations," and finally, those were rebellious populations, not rebellious armies.


I guess you weren't there. You do realize that the Soviets had enough nukes to annihilate the world a couple times over. They made it to space first. They beat the Nazi War Machine. They held half of Europe hostage for years. The Soviet Union was a Superpower. You nenefit now from the knowledge that their system ultimately failed. But it took 60 years to fail. Until then, it was the greatest threat to Freedom in the world.

I do actually like the concept of callous, uncaring Titans, because I've always been something of a tragedian. In fact, that's the reason why I like the comic so much. Because the world so clearly has callous, uncaring Titans. It's evident by the immense cruelty encouraged by the system. It's an intentional deconstruction of war games. The purpose of the comic could be said to be to make all of us who've ever played war games look back and say "What have I done?!"


That's good for you. So we disagree. Move on to something that matters. This doesn't disprove any part of my beliefs about disbanding, even were I to agree with you. But in the end, it's opinion and can't be used as proof against me.

I'm not in the habit of being this blunt to people who are not [snip], so this shouldn't be a problem.


Yeeeaahhh. I never said I would never report flaming against me. I gave the benefit of the doubt last time, since you were a little sideways, and someone else might not think it was a real flame. That, though, is a direct flame. That gets reported. I'm pretty certain this place doesn't need people like you, and the mods will want to know about your style. What? You thought I'd never hit the button against you?

K wrote:Invitation to a flame war?


No, actually, it was a response to yours, quoted below for your convenience.


At worst I called you desperate to cling to a theory. Grats on escalation.

K wrote: Testing the waters early, eh? Declined. The other readers are perfectly capable of determining if my position is unsupportable without this kind of comment. I'll trust to their opinion.


Clearly you won't, because no one agrees with you except you.


It's always a mistake to read non-participation as agreement. For every poster there are 10 lurkers. No one knows what they think. Ultimately, I don't write for you. I write for them. There's more of them, after all.

K wrote:Pretty certain that if you have to resort to this kind of name calling that you have no position to work from, so I'm not worried.


I had a position. Not my fault you ignored it.


Pretty certain I faced everything. That you don't agree with my counters is expected: everyone on Internet debates merely has to say "I dont' agree", and then they can bleieve the oppoent failed. Problem is, that only works for your own internal beliefs. The readers form their own conclusions, so making unsupported statements like the line quoted above ultimately only embarrasses you. After all, does a reader know what you're referring to? Do you expect them to go back and read pages of back-arguments?

K wrote:Actually, have you actual made any argument base don the comic yet? ... Hunh, no, you haven't. You've stated that Erfworld and Earth are different, but haven't shown any evidence of how.


That's because it should be blindingly obvious.


Of course it is. Jillian became a barbarian when her side fell, and units in the field disband when their side falls, so disbanding causes you to become a barbarian. Further supported by Stanley becoming barbarian when his side stops being Capital, Jack and co going with him, and casters in MK becoming barbarian when Gk falls. It is blindingly obvious.

But then disbanding doesn't equate to de-popping, does it?

K wrote:Wow. Find the right button yet? Nope.

I don't need a reaction from you. I'm not a schoolyard bully. I'm having fun just being clever and blunt.


Go right ahead and continue down your chosen path. You'll impress lots by claiming to be more clever than me.

K wrote:I don't accept anything that lacks solid evidence, and this is no exception. It's not delusional to disbelieve in something that you never see, and can adequately explain without inventing the unseen.


Given that the evidence for the Titan's benevolence comes entirely from a single comment by a character who wouldn't know, I'm going to have to say that this supports my position more than yours.


How can the lack of evidence for either supposition support either side more? That's an explanation I have got to hear.

K wrote: Ya gotta be more careful with your insults.


Evidently not.


Yeah, you do. Wait for it.

K wrote:Deserting armies are equally trained to non-deserting armies. they are merely underequipped since they abandon the field while dropping arms to run faster.

Correction. Underequipped, unfed, unled, and with no shelter or organization.


In all cases? You certain? Doesn't matter. The point is that they were a threat -- lead, fed, or otherwise -- and a threat that if dealt with, might have cost Wellington the war.

K wrote:Technically, it was stated in the Wiki, not the comic. Maldeus stated that fact, but I guess you overlooked it. it's one way Natural Allies make Shmuckers.


Too arrogant to even note the names of your opponents, I see. I am Maldeus, and I stated that farms exist, not that farmers do.


Heh, five hours of writing responses through to 6AM in the morning, and it's obviously arrogance, instead of exhaustion, that is to blame? Yeah, you go on with the insults. That'll gain you so many points with... well, no one. Especially not mods.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Tue Jun 23, 2009 6:40 pm

Kreistor wrote:Even if you ignore my belief in compassionate Titans, there's still the evidence of Jillian, Stanley, and casters going barbarian when their sides fall, and that has nothing to do with my opinion of the Titans.
Look, that's not a major argument for my concept. My strongest arguments involve the final states of Jillian, Stanley, Jack, the dwagons, Vurp, and the casters after their capital Sides end. Ignore the Titans. They aren't important, and your focus on them is a distraction to the factual evidence, instead of the emotional one. In the end, what you believe the goals of the Titnas are is an emotional/spiritual belief, not a mechanical one.

I didn't really address those, since Disbanding in the field only occurs if the ruler of a side dies, AND there is no designated heir. Field units disband, and units in a city freeze in time.

Jillian and Stanley were both designated heirs, so they took over when their rulers died. They got the additional property "barbarian", which appears simply to indicate "functional side without a capital". I don't believe it's new unit type, as was previously suggested. Barbarian archers are still archers, for example.

Casters such as Jack and Wanda were captured, so they were never in danger of disbanding. None of those examples contribute to the disbanding debate one way or another.

Sizemore says to Parson that "He'll disband you before you can speak." (Image 80, page 74) You may certainly accuse me of reading too much into the statement, but any other result besides de-popping and croaking would imply to me that Parson would still be able to speak afterwards, and if Disband meant Croak, I assume Sizemore would have just said "He'll croak you".

----

Perhaps the only difference between disbanding and croaking is that disbanding is automatic, while croaking requires combat and gives the unit a fighting chance. But if that were the case, it means that sides with Croakamancers could automatically turn their own units into uncroaked, which is REALLY prone to abuse, since Croakamancers give uncroaked units a large bonus while eliminating upkeep.

"Disband-as-croaking" allows a side w/ a croakamancer to summon a medium-strength unit, and turn it into a heavy unit w/out upkeep in 1 turn. While I realize that there will always be exploitable mechanics, I tend to assume that the really obvious ones have checks against them if I can figure out a simple check. In this case, "disband-as-unpop" eliminates the exploit, and is consistent with known mechanics.
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:35 pm

MarbitChow wrote:Jillian and Stanley were both designated heirs, so they took over when their rulers died.


There are two cases involving Stanley, not one. The second is when GK would have fallen. Vinnie discusses this in 138 )or thereabouts. I'm not loking it up, so I may be off by a couple). If GK falls, Stanley becomes barbarian with Jack and co still on his Barbarian Side. Capital Sides require Capitals, and so if there is no Capital, you can't be a capital side. There are only three known SIdes -- Capital, Natural Allies, and Barbarian. Whether "man" can be a natural ally is not known, but we do know they can be Barbarians.

They got the additional property "barbarian", which appears simply to indicate "functional side without a capital". I don't believe it's new unit type, as was previously suggested. Barbarian archers are still archers, for example.


Yep. Barbarians are a side with no capital. Somehow there are different rules for them and Natural Allies, though. Natural Allies can capture cities, for instance (gobwins captured GK under Saline), but there's no reference to the gobwins creating a capital side through their success. Barbarians capturing a city become a Capital Side.

Casters such as Jack and Wanda were captured, so they were never in danger of disbanding. None of those examples contribute to the disbanding debate one way or another.


Jack becomes a barbarian with Stanley if GK falls, according to Vinnie, so long as Stanley's cash holds out. Casters in the Magic Kingdom become barbarian if their capital falls, according to Parson who told that to Sizemore to comfort him. Two instances of Casters in the field becoming barbarian when their capital side ends. Units in the field when their side ends disband. So, seriously, do you think the minutiae of a Side ending for the loss of it's Ruler is different from a Side endingfrom the loss of its capital? The result is the same in both cases: the Capital Side ends. Why have different rules for different methods of ending a side, when one rule fits all cases quite nicely, wrapping everything into a single neat package. Really, it is the most elegant solution. It invents no new processes, it explains a process with no end result and an end result with no process. It can be explained in two simple sentences. And it requires no exceptions, fitting all evidence.

Sizemore says to Parson that "He'll disband you before you can speak." (Image 80, page 74) You may certainly accuse me of reading too much into the statement, but any other result besides de-popping and croaking would imply to me that Parson would still be able to speak afterwards, and if Disband meant Croak, I assume Sizemore would have just said "He'll croak you".


And becoming barbarian in the midst of an enemy stronghold isn't a threat of nearly instant death? Auto-attack rule is invoked against him... Sizemore does not say that Parson can't speak, only that he'll be speaking after he is disbanded. Sizemore does not say, "Parson, you'll be disbanded so you'll never say a word." He only states that the timing will be Disband first. You're choosing to read it that speaking can't happen after disbanding, but that's not even implied by your quote.

Perhaps the only difference between disbanding and croaking is that disbanding is automatic, while croaking requires combat and gives the unit a fighting chance. But if that were the case, it means that sides with Croakamancers could automatically turn their own units into uncroaked, which is REALLY prone to abuse, since Croakamancers give uncroaked units a large bonus while eliminating upkeep.


But shortening the units lives, ensuring that they can't become high level units because they decay in turns, and they are less effective than the original units, how much depending on how long is spent uncroaking them. They can't become true warlords, since uncroaked warlords need simple instructions, and so on. Uncroaking is not a superior state. Unit strength is diminished, and long term training is lost. With decryption you've got a case, but that takes an Arkentool, and Arkentools are powerful.

Whether this makes any cost effective sense depends on the unit cost vs. upkeep cost. We're not privy to that ratio, so it's purely speculative whether it works out economically.

Disband-as-croaking" allows a side w/ a croakamancer to summon a medium-strength unit, and turn it into a heavy unit w/out upkeep in 1 turn. While I realize that there will always be exploitable mechanics, I tend to assume that the really obvious ones have checks against them if I can figure out a simple check. In this case, "disband-as-unpop" eliminates the exploit, and is consistent with known mechanics.


And what effect does this have on Loyalty? Loyalty is a hidden stat. Do you think that men will love a Ruler that croaks them so that they become mindless zombies for a little while? Further, note that casters are rarely risked on the battlefield. What we saw with Wanda was a desperation ploy. Parson used them because he lacks the traditional background that would cause other Warlords to keep their casters far from the fighting. Where are Jetstone's casters? Or Sofa King's? The only casters fighting are GK's, except for Charlie's Archons who are mercs. Casters remain in cities, far from the fghting, unless something acts to make risking them mandatory. I suspect Parson might change that attitude as part of his world breaking, but that's just speculation. Oh, and because I think people want to see lots of Wanda. If she stays in GK while Parson conquers the world, there's the Fan Service out the window.

It's not all about Rules, after all...

So, even if what you propose is true, it is very risky to the caster and would not be considered by traditional Warlords. Look at Ansom's attitude towards Croakamancy. He calls uncroaked units "abominations". There is a concept of good and evil in Erfworld -- if there weren't, Stanley wouldn't get riled up over the suggestion he's evil by Parson.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:42 pm

I'm not going to respond point by point. I'm only going to point out that the subject is disbanding. Any discussion of barbarians is irrelevant. You're the one who mentioned that disbanding means turning barbarian. There is no evidence of that. What we know:

Overlord dies, no heir: field units disband.
Overlord dies, capital falls, designated heir: heir becomes barbarian
(Assumed:) Overlord lives, capital falls: Overlord becomes barbarian

Disbanding is described as distinct from barbarian. Examples of disbanding indicate that it's a horrible fate. Examples of barbarianism indicate that it's simply a capital-less state.

-----

As to the uncroak mechanism: summoning your lowest infantry, and turning them into equivalent uncroaked infantry with a croakamancer leading them actually improves them. Yes, they'll decay, but you're not paying upkeep during that time, and they are substantially more powerful than they were as plain infantry.

I simply mentioned this because, from a game-design point-of-view, it would make sense to me that, if disbanding is an at-will power that eliminates a unit, there should be no way to benefit from the ability (from a risk-reward standpoint), and leaving a body allows for potential benefits. If there is no risk to an owner disbanding a unit, there should be no potential reward (other than no longer having to worry about the unit).

-----

All of this talk of good / evil and what not is tangential to the original point of "Disband = De-pop":

You've raised possibilities that Disband means "turn barbarian", but there is no evidence for that and strong evidence against. Barbarians pop spontaneously, so "Disband" can't be exactly equivalent to "become barbarian", and the mechanism that existing units become barbarian has been explained. Thus, there is a strong case against this possibility.

You've raised the possibility that Disband means "become a non-military unit". We have not seen non-military units. (Pigeons don't count, since they are there for comedic effect only.) Disband is always spoken of as a horrible fate. Sizemore is peaceful by nature. If Disbanding meant he could go off and live peacefully, he'd LEAP at the chance.

You've raised the possibility that Disband means "croak". It's possible that the two words are synonymous, but unlikely. If they actually meant exactly the same thing, there would be some indications in that regard. Games have rules, and rules try to be unambiguous. I will leave open the possibility that "Disband" simply means "Unconditionally Croak", leaving a body afterwards. It would not be my preference, but I'll concede that a case can be made either way.

The counter-arguments you've raised against "Disband = De-pop" primarily required faith in a just universe, which Erfworld has been shown not to be. The symmetry of all things in Erfworld popping and depopping does not appear to move you, but I'll mention it again none-the-less.

So, to summarize, based on our current available knowledge, "Disband=De-pop" appears to be the likeliest possibility.

As an aside, I believe you're actually arguing just for fun and don't believe most of what you're trying to prove, so I doubt that any of the arguments raised here are actually going to be heeded. (Using Predictamancy: ) I'm betting that you'll ignore the ones that are too difficult to challenge and attempt to confuse the remaining issues with paragraphs of text that don't actually contradict the point being discussed. :D
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:37 am

MarbitChow wrote:You're the one who mentioned that disbanding means turning barbarian. There is no evidence of that.


There's no mention of de-popping units, either, but you seem perfectly happy inventing that idea.

What we know:

Overlord dies, no heir: field units disband.


Correct, state dby Parson in a Klog.

Overlord dies, capital falls, designated heir: heir becomes barbarian


Not stated. It is known that Jillian became a barbarian when Faq fell, but it is not known that this is restricted to only Heirs. It can equally be explained by "Warlords become barbarian when their side falls." That also explains Casters in MK, which yuo've overlooked.

(Assumed:) Overlord lives, capital falls: Overlord becomes barbarian


Stated by Vinnie to Jillian, but it also was stated anyone with him becomes barbarian. It's not restricted to just the Overlord.

Disbanding is described as distinct from barbarian.


Because Barbarian is a noun and Disband a verb. Disband is a process. Barbarian is a state. Don't you see the symmetry in the process causing the state? We have a process with an uncertain end state and an end state with an uncertain process. Can't you see the elegance in the two uniting to a single rule? It literally does explain everything, every threat, and every case.

Examples of disbanding indicate that it's a horrible fate.


No, it doesn't. It is used as a threat, yes, but not as a torturous threat. We have no indication of the end state. We know that it is a threat, but it does not need to be instant oblivion to be a threat in any f the cases it isused as a threat. A barbarian surrounded by an entire Side's garrison forces is just as dead, and far more painfully dead, as if he disappeared.

Examples of barbarianism indicate that it's simply a capital-less state.


Yes, but with cash-flow problems. Jillian survived it by going merc, which she conveinetly adored. Imagine Ansom in that state... he'd be miserable as a merc forced to give up his prideful egotism to serve others' morality simply to eat.

As to the uncroak mechanism: summoning your lowest infantry, and turning them into equivalent uncroaked infantry with a croakamancer leading them actually improves them. Yes, they'll decay, but you're not paying upkeep during that time, and they are substantially more powerful than they were as plain infantry.


"Casters are too rare and valuable to risk". Klog 10. Parson used Wanda for the same reason Stanley summoned Parson. Stanley couldn't keep the treasury if he lost GK, and Parson couldn't win tBfGK without risking casters. Now tha the situation has changed, Wanda will not be risked on the front line. With the Arkentool turning enemy Warlords into slaves, Wanda is better used decrypting enemy warlords than leading uncroaked stacks. And, actually, does she even give decrypted the same massive bonus she gives uncroaked? Decrypted are intelligent, sentient creatures that want leadership, not mindless drones that need instruction. We might never see Wanda lead a stack through the rest of the comic.

I simply mentioned this because, from a game-design point-of-view, it would make sense to me that, if disbanding is an at-will power that eliminates a unit, there should be no way to benefit from the ability (from a risk-reward standpoint), and leaving a body allows for potential benefits. If there is no risk to an owner disbanding a unit, there should be no potential reward (other than no longer having to worry about the unit).


Without upkeep vs. unit cost ratios, we don't know the financial viability of the plan. But we definitely know Croakamancers don't lead uncroaked stacks as a general rule: this is saved for desperate times, like when a Side is backed up against a wall like GK. The value of the caster is the balance making this plan too risky to consider.

Oh, and the slam of Loyalty as troopers watch their friends become drones. Nothing screams "Get out of dodge" like your friend's arm rotting off.

All of this talk of good / evil and what not is tangential to the original point of "Disband = De-pop":


Uhm... didn't I say that? To both you and the other guy? I don't mind arguing it, but it doesn't hurt my case to lose it, so I don't know hwy you're arguing about it.

You've raised possibilities that Disband means "turn barbarian", but there is no evidence for that and strong evidence against.


No evidence against. Only the suggestion that the threat of painful stabbity death isn't enough to justify Sizemore's fear. That's just opinion, not evidence. Do you have anything else at all? Because that's not evidence.

Barbarians pop spontaneously, so "Disband" can't be exactly equivalent to "become barbarian", and the mechanism that existing units become barbarian has been explained. Thus, there is a strong case against this possibility.


Jillian "became" barbarian. Or did you forget? We have evidence of a warlord becoming a barbarian. Knowledge that a Ruler and associated troops would become barbarian. Casters in MK would become barbarian. Lots of people become barbarians.

You've raised the possibility that Disband means "become a non-military unit". We have not seen non-military units.


Yeah, and I said that was speculation. I also said that we're getting lots of rules over the summer. For instance, n old argument was resolved today. Archons are not casters as Wanda and Sizemore are: their casting is a natural ability. Until today, they might have been casters. (Actually, that was strange argument. Some epoepl insisted that Archons were also great meleers. Ugh. Glad that's over. I was wrong, BTW. I didn't think the casting would be natural.)

(Pigeons don't count, since they are there for comedic effect only.)


You don't find non-unit men funny, then? Farmers are a great bunch of jokers.

Disband is always spoken of as a horrible fate.


To me, getting stabbed with swords is a pretty horrible fate. Maybe you think a gut wound is a clean way to die, but I don't like the idea of lingering for a few days while becoming slowly delirious from the pain, blood loss, and toxic shock as...

Sizemore is peaceful by nature.


And a natural coward that prefers living in a septic tank to risking his life. Remember that to him, barbarianism is merely a temporary state on the way to being a captured, indentured servant, who risks being a mind-slave to the Thinkamancer from the side that finally captures him. Fear of the unknown is the most powerful fear of all.

If Disbanding meant he could go off and live peacefully, he'd LEAP at the chance.


The units that are typically captured, and forced to become mindslaves due to unknwon Loyalty are... Casters! Sizemore as Barbarian will never know peace outside the MK. Why do you think Parson specifically wanted to send them to the MK, where a Barbarian Caster is safe from capture?

You've raised the possibility that Disband means "croak".


No, I didn't, but I debate against it. Don't know who mentioned it first, but frankly I treat it as synonymous with de-popping from a perspective of arguing. Drop dead and vapourization aren't different enough to me to require different thought processes to argue against.

The counter-arguments you've raised against "Disband = De-pop" primarily required faith in a just universe,


No, actually. My arguments demand that all cases be handled by this proposal. If disbanding = de-popping, the exceptions of Jillian, Stanley, Casters in MK, etc. must all be included. Why don't they de-pop when the side ends? I don't like exceptions. A simple rule can explain all of these with no exceptions.

Further, you need "Captial falling" and "Ruler dying" to require different rules. So you have two events to explain, where I only require one. In one case you have depopping. In the other you don't. That's needlessly complex. The }disbanding results in the state of barbarism" explains all cases of sides ending with barbarian fielded units, explains the threat posed to Sizemore and Parson, explains why we have a process with no end result and an end result with no process, is simple to implement, understand, and all parts are known things. I don't invent anything, just bring what is already there together into one cohesive entity.

which Erfworld has been shown not to be. The symmetry of all things in Erfworld popping and depopping does not appear to move you, but I'll mention it again none-the-less.


Useful things pop. Useless things de-pop. Very symmetrical. Problem is: a fielded unit is not useless. It's still useful to itself.

So, to summarize, based on our current available knowledge, "Disband=De-pop" appears to be the likeliest possibility.


You can't even prove it's a possibility, much less a probable event. At least I can pint at cases where Sided units become barbarians. I can point at cases where Disbanding occurs. As I said, I'm connecting a known state to a known process that changes one state to another. You're connecting an unmentioned process to a known process because you don't think croaking is an adequate threat to a unit known to be non-violent and cowardly. That's like saying, "Shaggy is too scared for the bad guy withthe gun to be threatening him with only death. He must be a vampire threatening to drink his soul!" Shaggy, like Sizemore, hates pain, and not just in himself, but also in others. Sizemore not wanting to see Parson injured is more than adequate to explain his intention to prevent Parson from doing what might get him disbanded.

As an aside, I believe you're actually arguing just for fun and don't believe most of what you're trying to prove,


You'd be wrong. I'm a heavy contributor to the Wiki, and am behind most of the Proposed Spec. I am arguing to see if you can actually prove it. As I said, there's not quite enough for me to move my own theory to Prop Spec, and so it's not there yet. You've literally got no evidence of anything yet, so it's not going to be there either. I really am ony a side comment away. Everythign I am wrking with is known to exist. I'm only connecting dots. You're inventing something unmentioned. That doesn't get to be Prop Spec.

so I doubt that any of the arguments raised here are actually going to be heeded.


They're not heeded because they are based on an opinion about a threat level, at least that's all you've got so far. Everythign else an extension from a belief that pain of death isn't a threat. From that you invent de-popping of living units, disconnect two versions of a side ending, requiring two rule sets, and add exceptions wherever anything doesn't agree with your original premise. I don't see an argument, I see scrambling to prop up a pet theory.

I'm betting that you'll ignore the ones that are too difficult to challenge and attempt to confuse the remaining issues with paragraphs of text that don't actually contradict the point being discussed. :D


Let's see... yep, faced it all. You're still basing your beliefs on Siezemore's reaction to a threat, that is adequately explained by pieces of metal being shoved into flesh. If you think that opinion is an argument worth serious consideration, then you're not going to get anywhere.

Look, it's this simple.

Disbanding:
A unit in the field disbands when its Side ends.
1) If the unit has leadership, it becomes a Barbarian Warlord.
1a) Where multiple units with leadership from the same side become barbarian in the same hex, the units with lower leadership take service with the unit having the highest leadership.
2) If the unit does not have leadership, it becomes a Barbarian.
2a) Units in the presence of a unit with leadership that becomes a Barbarian Warlord remain in the service of that unit.

And everything is explained. It covers all of the known instances of a Side ending.
1) Jillian turns barbarian when Faq falls. She retains the service of all units with her.
2) According to Vinnie, Stanley retains the services of his stack should GK fall.
3) Casters (which are commanders) become barbarian in the MK.

It also explains the threat to Parson. He would die from auto-attack by all nearby unlead units by beig painfully stabbed, beaten, spindled, or especially burned if Stanley is with a dwagon at the time.

Can you write your rule in such a simple, succinct, elegant fashion? Can you reference all of these events without resorting to exceptions based on details? Can you reference a single unit that has disappeared without being croaked first?

I really don't see any justification for your claims of superior position. You literally cannot prove even the smallest part of your belief. You don't have a single person that's disappeared. your foundation is an opinion of a reaction of a cowardly and sensitive man that fears any pain to anyone, not just himself. At least I can prove that units go from a Capital Side to a Barbarian Side uner knwon conditions. I can prove that units without a Side disband (or worse inside a city). I can prove that these are not limited to just Heirs and Rulers, since it happens to Casters in the MK where Heirs and Rulers cannot go. I can prove something of my case.

Your basic contention that living units de-pop has no evidence whatsoever. You have to make two rules: one for a Side ending when the Capital falls, and another when the Ruler dies. You need to make exceptions for Heirs and Rulers and Casters in MK. In fact, you can't point at anything except the exceptions. Don't you see the flaw in having only the exceptions to your rules as evidence of those rules?
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:31 am

Kreistor, you are right. My assumptions require two distinct mechanisms, one for the fall of an overlord, and one for the taking of a city, because THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT EVENTS.

There are THREE mechanisms at work:
If the leader is alive when a capital falls, the units become barbarians.
If the leader is slain and an heir exists, the heir becomes the leader.
If a side has no leader, field units disband and units in cities free in time (becoming NEUTRAL, unable to react).

The fact that, in all cases so far, the death of the overlord occurred at the same time the capital was taken can easily explain your confusion, but it's pretty clear (to me and many others) that there are distinct mechanisms at work.

Please re-read the two most-pertinent pages, which contradict your "disband=barbarian" theory:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F098b.jpg
Parson's Klog makes no mention of barbarianism when a leader is croaked.
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F079.jpg
The account of Saline IV indicates that disbanding is the normal result when a leader is croaked.

Instances of disbanding referenced from the comic:

* Image 19, last panel: Stanley "I already have enough reasons to disband you."
On this page, Wanda states that the spell will end his existence if he "refuses an order". Note that the end of existence is NOT explicitly tied to being disbanded, but to disobedience. Stanley uses disbanding as a threat over an insult, implying that it's something the Overlord has the power to do independent of the spell.

* Image 29, 6th Panel: Stanley "When do your units heal and disband?"
Only thing we gain from this is that disband doesn't mean heal.

* Image 53, Last Panel: Wanda "For I must prevent our lord and master from disbanding you."
Wanda states that Parson could be the 'shortest-lived warlord we ever had'. Conversation here implies disbanding = death.

* Image 78, 5th Panel: Stanley "But... *sigh* There's no point in disbanding you." "Stay out of my sight if you want to live."
Conversation here strongly implies disbanding = death, if not stating it outright.

* Image 80, 5th Panel: Sizemore "But I know he's serious about disbanding us if we're seen."
* 7th Panel: "If we're very lucky, we'll be captured. If not, croaked. But if we do anything but stay hidden from Lord Stanley, our chances of being disbanded before then go way up."
Conversation here implies disbanding equal to death. I'd argue that, the way Sizemore phrases this, it implies disbanding is actually worse.

* Image 81, 10th Panel: Sizemore "If you wake him, he'll be disbanded."
Nothing definitive gained from this context.

* Image 82, 8th Panel: Parson "It can't be that hard to convince Stanley to hit ansom and take the 'pliers." Sizemore "He'll disband you before you can speak."
* 10th Panel: "I'm from another universe, so maybe he can't. Or maybe if he disbands me, I'll just be sent home."
Here's the first good indication that disbanding does not equal dying. Parson argues that he perhaps Stanley can't disband him, because he's from another universe. We've already got the implications that disbanding is equivalent to death. It would be nonsense to argue that Parson believes he can't be killed. It would also be foolish to argue that Parsons believes becoming a barbarian would simply send him home.
If "disbanding = de-popping", however, then it would be natural for Parson to hope that if he pops out of existence here, he'll pop into existence somewhere else.

* Image 87: 5th Panel: Parson "When the city fell. Shouldn't you have disbanded?"
Here's where Sizemore mentions that Stanley was an Heir, allowing him to avoid being disbanded, which you keep ignoring when arguing your pro-barbarian point.

* Image 153, 2nd Panel: Parson "I don't know why I didn't disband."
No real new information gained here, other than noting that Parson believes that disbanding may send him home, so he's willing to risk being disbanded over certain death by volcano / rock collapse.

Kreistor wrote:There's no mention of de-popping units, either, but you seem perfectly happy inventing that idea.

I object to the use of the word 'invent'. What I (and others) have done is called 'logical extrapolation'. As I've said before, we know that things (both living and inanimate) pop. We know that inanimate de-pop. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that living units might also de-pop. Your additional qualifier of "usefulness" being the condition to popping / "useless" de-popping has no evidence, and is directly contradicted by corpses vanishing. They are clearly useful, and yet vanish at the start of the side's next turn.

Kreistor wrote:
Overlord dies, capital falls, designated heir: heir becomes barbarian

Not stated. It is known that Jillian became a barbarian when Faq fell, but it is not known that this is restricted to only Heirs. It can equally be explained by "Warlords become barbarian when their side falls." That also explains Casters in MK, which yuo've overlooked.

We know that if a leader dies, the held cities become neutral, and field units disband.
We know that if an overlord dies, the heir becomes the overlord.
We know that if an overlord dies and the cities fall in the same turn, the heir becomes a barbarian.
We know that barbarian units can pop in the wild, without any cities that they control.

Kreistor wrote:
Overlord lives, capital falls: Overlord becomes barbarian

Stated by Vinnie to Jillian, but it also was stated anyone with him becomes barbarian. It's not restricted to just the Overlord.

No, but it can be claimed that the overlord living is a requirement, extrapolated from Sizemore's and Jillian's account distinct accounts. Disbanding occurs as a result of an Overlord's decision (directed at the unit he wants disbanded) or an Overlord's heir-less death (all field units disband automatically, while cities revert to being neutral, frozen in time).

Kreistor wrote:Because Barbarian is a noun and Disband a verb. Disband is a process. Barbarian is a state. Don't you see the symmetry in the process causing the state? We have a process with an uncertain end state and an end state with an uncertain process. Can't you see the elegance in the two uniting to a single rule? It literally does explain everything, every threat, and every case.

Except that it's directly contradicted by Sizemore's account of the fall of Saline IV. You keep forgetting (or deliberately ignoring) that.

Kreistor wrote:Jillian "became" barbarian. Or did you forget? We have evidence of a warlord becoming a barbarian. Knowledge that a Ruler and associated troops would become barbarian. Casters in MK would become barbarian. Lots of people become barbarians.

City-less units become barbarians. City-less barbarians pop in the wild.
Leaderless units disband or become neutral.
These are distinct mechanisms.

Kreistor wrote:
You've raised the possibility that Disband means "croak".

No, I didn't, but I debate against it. Don't know who mentioned it first, but frankly I treat it as synonymous with de-popping from a perspective of arguing. Drop dead and vapourization aren't different enough to me to require different thought processes to argue against.


Good. Since I've shown above that disbanding isn't barbarianism, and you here agree that it isn't croaking, another mechanism must be required. I put forward the suggestion that de-popping is the most likely mechanism, since it is similar to croaking in finality, and thus would explain all reactions to it throughout the comic.

Kreistor wrote:No, actually. My arguments demand that all cases be handled by this proposal. If disbanding = de-popping, the exceptions of Jillian, Stanley, Casters in MK, etc. must all be included. Why don't they de-pop when the side ends? I don't like exceptions. A simple rule can explain all of these with no exceptions.

Further, you need "Captial falling" and "Ruler dying" to require different rules. So you have two events to explain, where I only require one. In one case you have depopping. In the other you don't. That's needlessly complex. The "disbanding results in the state of barbarism" explains all cases of sides ending with barbarian fielded units, explains the threat posed to Sizemore and Parson, explains why we have a process with no end result and an end result with no process, is simple to implement, understand, and all parts are known things. I don't invent anything, just bring what is already there together into one cohesive entity.

I've already stated that, yes, I do require them to have different rules, because they are distinct events that can occur independently of each other, and have different ramifications.

-----

This is my last post on the subject. You are clearly taken by the idea of disband=barbarian, and have been ignoring evidence to the contrary, and inventing additional requirements (benevolent titans, 'usefulness' as a pop/de-pop criteria) to build support.

If the evidence above isn't enough to convince you, only a direct statement from the authors will.

-----

Image
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:51 am

MarbitChow wrote:Kreistor, you are right. My assumptions require two distinct mechanisms, one for the fall of an overlord, and one for the taking of a city, because THEY ARE TWO DISTINCT EVENTS.


Two events with the same result -- both end the side. Both, then, should have the same ultimate end state. If they don't...

WHY NOT?

That's really what it comes down to. Why do the two events have different results. All known normal de-popping are caused by useful things becoming trash. Uselesss things de-pop. Why is a unit useless after one event, but not after the other? You can't actually demonstrate that there must be two different results. You can't actually prove either event causes units to de-pop. You can only prove that they disband, and disband has no definition. That's why we're arguing.

The fact that, in all cases so far, the death of the overlord occurred at the same time the capital was taken can easily explain your confusion, but it's pretty clear (to me and many others) that there are distinct mechanisms at work.


And yet one of those mechanisms cannot be proven to exist. I'm not interested in your inventions. Everything I use exists. Everything.

Please re-read the two most-pertinent pages, which contradict your "disband=barbarian" theory:


Good, some meat. Finally. Let's get down to it.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F098b.jpg
Parson's Klog makes no mention of barbarianism when a leader is croaked.


Uhm... okay, if something is not mentioned, it doesn't exist. THEN DE-POPPING LIVING UNITS DOESN'T EXIST. If you just disproved my theory, you did the same to your own! De-popping live units is never mentioned anywhere in the comic, except where Wanda tells Parson the Summoning Spell can de-pop him, which might be a lie, but it definitely does not extend to units not SUmmoned by a Summoning Spell. You really, really have to be more careful. Choosing to apply something like this only to my theories and not to your own is prejudicial, unfair, and inconsistent. Apply it equally and end participation in this discussion, one way or another. (Oh, you are ending participation. K. You're still inconsistent in your application of your own disproofs.) Either lack of mention means I'm wrong and you're wrong. too, or it is not evidence at all.

I thought you had some meat? Lots of things that are rules go unmentioned. Until yesterday we did not know Archons had the natural ability to cast instead of being Casters. So that means they didn't have that natural ability? Failure to mention is not evidence of lack of existence.

[/quote]http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F079.jpg
The account of Saline IV indicates that disbanding is the normal result when a leader is croaked.[/quote]

Yeeees. And that makes them Barbarians if they're in the field. Where's the contradiction? Stanley either became barbarian for a Turn, or his Capital shifted to another city and he became Ruler instantly. Both have the same end result of him croaking Gobwins and taking back GK. You'd have him de-popped if he disbanded, except for the exceptions. So many exceptions. In fact, every event that did occur is an exception. Will you continue to create more exceptions as they roll in, hoping forever for that one non-exceotion to your rule? Or how many other exceptions does it take before you realize the exception is the rule.

Instances of disbanding referenced from the comic:


Yeah, realized I didn't include a couple causes in my description while showering this morning. Changes the cause section, but not the process. Pretty minor. The process still works when I insert them. Need to incorporate Rulers disbanding units and disobedient units disbanding themselves as causes of disbanding. (Not many people would disobedient themselves into oblivion. They would disobedient themselves into barbarism, though.)

* Image 19, last panel: Stanley "I already have enough reasons to disband you."
On this page, Wanda states that the spell will end his existence if he "refuses an order". Note that the end of existence is NOT explicitly tied to being disbanded, but to disobedience. Stanley uses disbanding as a threat over an insult, implying that it's something the Overlord has the power to do independent of the spell.


Evidence of nothing. She states specifically that's because of the Summoning Spell, not a normal effect applicable to any other unit. Parson is an exception to all rules, and not evidence of how the world treats any other unit.

Oh and this. "Note that the end of existence is NOT explicitly tied to being disbanded, but to disobedience." Well, hate to burst your bubble, but it would normally be tied that way, at least for anyone not Parson. Klog 10. "Disobedience may cause the unit to disband." Yes, disobedience is directly tied to disbanding, and for you, de-popping. For me, to reversion to Barbarism. Your disobedient units cease to exist: mine have a more pathetic existence, but they get to live after disobedience. It's hard to imagine any unit being disobedient in your world, but in mine? Certainly a possibility.

* Image 29, 6th Panel: Stanley "When do your units heal and disband?"
Only thing we gain from this is that disband doesn't mean heal.


But it provides us with a "when" for the process. disbanding occurs between Turns, at night, when there's no fighting. It also explains why Jillian remained on her Side long after Faq fell, instead of becoming a Barbarian the instant Stanley won. The disbanding process occured that next morning.

Which makes me wonder about that threat of disbanding. Stanley can disband you, but the process doesn't occur until the next night? That completely disjoins Disbanding from instant annihilation. For your de-popping to have that threat level you see in Sizemore's comments, disbanding needs to occur at the moment a Ruler says you're disbanded. If disbanding occurs between turns, Parson being disbanded in the morning when he tries to talk to Stanley doesn't have any result for hours.

You really do have evidence of something I overlooked. Unfortunately, I don't think it works for you as well as it works for me. It completely monkeywrenches your Sizemore threat level belief. You now need Ruler disbanding to have a different mechanism than other forms of disbanding which take place at night. The exceptions pile up...

* Image 53, Last Panel: Wanda "For I must prevent our lord and master from disbanding you."
Wanda states that Parson could be the 'shortest-lived warlord we ever had'. Conversation here implies disbanding = death.


Yep, a Ruler can disband a unit at will. Anytime, anywhere. But as you've noted, it actually occurs at night, between turns. Unless you add another exception.

* Image 78, 5th Panel: Stanley "But... *sigh* There's no point in disbanding you." "Stay out of my sight if you want to live."
Conversation here strongly implies disbanding = death, if not stating it outright.


Handled that. Over and over again. Your opinion is that death by sword stroke is not an adequate threat is noted. That's opinion, not evidence. Evidence is something you can point at, not something you feel in your gut. No matter how many people believe in the unproven, it's not evidence that it is real.

There was a guy by the name Uri Geller. Went on TV and proved telekinesis and other paranormal things during the 70's. And one day a guy sucker punched him, and stopped him from performing any of his paranormal activities. His spoons woiuldn't bend. His pencils in an aquarium wouldn't spin. And so forth. Uri made people believe, but a good magician figured out all of his tricks, prevented him from using his controlled equipment, and forced him to admit on camera that he was a fraud. All those believers were tricked, and that one man that demanded proof was right: Uri was a fraud despite all those believers. Their belief was from their gut. They were wrong. Belief has never proven anything. Demand proof. Majority opinion is worth the bribes that bought it, and nothing more.

[Deleted duplicate events. All are the same as above. Rulers can disband units at will.]

* Image 82, 8th Panel: Parson "It can't be that hard to convince Stanley to hit ansom and take the 'pliers." Sizemore "He'll disband you before you can speak."
* 10th Panel: "I'm from another universe, so maybe he can't. Or maybe if he disbands me, I'll just be sent home."
Here's the first good indication that disbanding does not equal dying.


Parson is still governed by something that affects no other unit, and that something has already been accused of being able to de-pop him. (No proof that it could. Wanda might be lying. Must consider that possibility.) Events caused by the Summoning Spell are not evidence of normal activity for Erfworld. And Parson does not tell us what would happen without the Summoning Spell. He might be trying to avoid Barbarism. Or he might be trying to avoid the threat Wanda already posed: disbanding is a demonstration of disobedience, and the Summoning Spell's de-popping might be triggered. Not the world's de-popping, the Summoning Spell.

* Image 87: 5th Panel: Parson "When the city fell. Shouldn't you have disbanded?"
Here's where Sizemore mentions that Stanley was an Heir, allowing him to avoid being disbanded, which you keep ignoring when arguing your pro-barbarian point.


"He promoted Stanley to Heir Designate, at great expense. That way, when the Capital fell, it wasn't the end of our side." Disbanding, then, occurs when the side ends. At best, that means that when a capital falls, and a Ruler or Heir exists, the Side does not end, so nothing in the field disbands. The entire side converts to barbarism. But how do you resolve this with the normal process?

We know that Sizemore:
1) Normally would have disbanded, but his side didn't end.
1a) We don;'t know if they became barbarian.
1b) We don't know if the Capital merely shifted to another city.
2) When his side does end, he reverts to Barbarism if he's in the MK.

So, with this in mind, we can say that Sizemore would normally disband, but if he disbands in the MK, he becomes Barbarian. There is, right there, a connection between Disbanding and Barbarism.

Let's get more specific. Page 79. Parson says, "When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded?" he does not link disbanding to the Ruler's death, but to the City's fall. Page 102. Parson says, "When the city falls, you'll be barbarians."

So, when the city falls, you'll be disbanded and become barbarian if you're in the field (captured if in the city, neutral if not in the Capital but in a different city). Done. That's all I needed. Thanks! I think this just became Prop Spec worthy. There are two direct statements about a city falling in which disbanding and barbarism both result.

I did answer everything else, but I just deleted it. That's the bombshell right there. This is finished.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Bobby Archer » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:14 pm

Kreistor wrote:Let's get more specific. Page 79. Parson says, "When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded?" he does not link disbanding to the Ruler's death, but to the City's fall. Page 102. Parson says, "When the city falls, you'll be barbarians."

So, when the city falls, you'll be disbanded and become barbarian if you're in the field (captured if in the city, neutral if not in the Capital but in a different city). Done. That's all I needed. Thanks! I think this just became Prop Spec worthy. There are two direct statements about a city falling in which disbanding and barbarism both result.

Unless the Magic Kingdom does not count as "in the field". If it is a barbarian or neutral city (no I don't know if a barbarian city is possible, but I thought I'd include the possibility), or a side of its own that, for whatever reasons, has some kind of conditional alliance with all sides. Or, if it is some kind of magical construct that exists to give haven to casters and thus being an exception to rules such as this would be almost necessary (a haven where units are subject to a "de-popping" style disbanding would hardly be a haven at all). Or, if through the portals that seem to be the only way to get there, the Magic Kingdom does not exist in the same universe as Erfworld and has slightly different rules. Are some of these possibilities bizarre and unlikely? Yes, but since we know very little about what the Magic Kingdom really is, at least some of these are possibilities.

We already know of one unusual rule that relates to the Magic Kingdom and only the Magic Kingdom (the portals that supposedly croak incoming non-caster - or at least Warlord - units). Whether or not the Magic Kingdom is a special case in this regard, we have next to no information on the nature of it and there is some circumstantial evidence that it may be a special case.

So, I wouldn't say any argument that depends on the Magic Kingdom working in exactly the same way as X (whether X is a city, field, or a collection of 9 cities - yes, someone has argued that), is a "slam dunk" or "bombshell." It is certainly good supporting evidence, but it is not an unassailable logical position.

[EDIT]Also, another difference between the two scenarios you mentioned is that, in the first, Parson was assuming that no Ruler or Heir existed. In the second, Stanley was still out in the field. The side was not ending in the case of Gobwin Knob falling.
Kreistor wrote:At best, that means that when a capital falls, and a Ruler or Heir exists, the Side does not end, so nothing in the field disbands. The entire side converts to barbarism.

So Sizemore wouldn't have "disbanded" even if Gobwin Knob fell while he was in the Magic Kingdom. He'd just become a barbarian.[/EDIT]
Uncroaked for Hire

No, no, Misty is Uncle Ben; Bogroll is Gwen Stacy.
User avatar
Bobby Archer
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:09 pm
Location: Mass Hysteria, Chicago, IL, USA, Earth, Reality, Sanity

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:42 pm

Cool. Where does he say this? I don't remember reading it.


Go to the Archives. Start on page one. Keep clicking the "next page" button until you get to the end. You should find an example on every other page or so.

Anyways.

Your "useless things de-pop" is not supported by the comic. Corpses are useful; they de-pop anyway. The trash from Parson's Stupid Meals is useful, but it de-pops anyway, so he's got to record it in his Klog (a note on the klogs: Is Parson a member of the KKK or something? They were rather fond of putting "kl" in front of everything, such that a group of klansmen might gather at the klavern to discuss their handbook, the kloran).

Also, all of your whining about how we spend so much time on the benevolent/uncaring Titan debate is utterly unwarranted because that debate is your own fault. You brought it up, you were the one who spent three plus paragraphs on it, and the only reason you're dropping it now is because you've been thoroughly proven wrong. Further, you have (intentionally, it would seem) misunderstood my point concerning the way the world works. I have explicitly stated several times now that the inhabitants of Erfworld are not game pieces. My point is that they are treated as game pieces by the world mechanics, even though they are not. Casters and warlords appear to get something of a pass on this.

Your argument that your solution is simpler does hold some merit, but the fact that it took you this long and this many failed arguments to finally make this your main point is clear proof that you're arguing just to feed your ravenous ego. If you are forty years old I can't help but find you sad and pathetic, being that you're arguing like a fifteen year old.

You have effectively admitted defeat to my argument that the Titans are callous, being that you're now trying to say that it's a moot point whereas earlier you were willing to fervently argue the point to the death. I'm going to therefore ignore this debate.

You have utterly ignored my argument that Erfworld is a game-like world and can be expected to run on game-like rules. If this were a game, I would expect units attached to an Heir to become a wandering Side after all their cities fell, in other words, a barbarian, because I would feel cheated if I went to the effort to pop an Heir but then lost anyway because all my cities were captured. I would expect units attached to a Warlord or Caster to become barbarians or else a remnant of their Side as well, because Ender's Game shouldn't be the solution to everything. But I don't want to spend four turns mopping up random, unled barbarian units after I've defeated all their leaders. I expect Erfworld to act like a game-like world.

The only compelling piece of evidence is that Stanley has implied that disbanding is something that happens at night, and that wasn't even evidence submitted by yourself. Regardless, Sizemore has decidedly implied that disbanding would have some kind of immediate effect.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Bobby Archer » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:03 pm

Maldeus wrote:a note on the klogs: Is Parson a member of the KKK or something? They were rather fond of putting "kl" in front of everything, such that a group of klansmen might gather at the klavern to discuss their handbook, the kloran).

In the same way that "blog" is short for "web log", "klog" is short for "book log".
Uncroaked for Hire

No, no, Misty is Uncle Ben; Bogroll is Gwen Stacy.
User avatar
Bobby Archer
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:09 pm
Location: Mass Hysteria, Chicago, IL, USA, Earth, Reality, Sanity

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:40 pm

Maldeus wrote:
Cool. Where does he say this? I don't remember reading it.


Go to the Archives. Start on page one. Keep clicking the "next page" button until you get to the end. You should find an example on every other page or so.


Thought so. Do you really think this helps you in any way?

Your "useless things de-pop" is not supported by the comic. Corpses are useful; they de-pop anyway.


Wiki. "Croaking". See the quote in the previous message. Written by Baldur and advanced to "Canon". I really don't need to argue over something Rob has clearly stated is in the system.

The trash from Parson's Stupid Meals is useful, but it de-pops anyway,


But, oddly, the Battle Bear skin Parson uses as a blanket doesn't. Gee, Rob specifically states why in the Wiki. I love the Wiki. It's my friend. Obviously not yours.

Heh... I just remembered some "clever" quip you once made. Heh...

Also, all of your whining about how we spend so much time on the benevolent/uncaring Titan debate is utterly unwarranted because that debate is your own fault.


Yep, it was. But I wasn't whining. Like I said, I'll argue it if you want to, but realize it can't affect the "disbanding" discussion because it's not fact, just opinion.

You brought it up, you were the one who spent three plus paragraphs on it, and the only reason you're dropping it now is because you've been thoroughly proven wrong.


I did. Did you never wonder why? Nah, guess not. Neither wrong nor right, BTW. It's possible, just as your belief that the Titans are callous is possible. You can't prove an opinion wrong without hard fact, and you have no more than I do on this subject. Of course, It could sucker you into makig grandiose statements about defeating me, which if not true would only embarrass you. Wonder if anyone thinks you defeated me... or if even they do, what they think of you claiming victory for yourself?

Further, you have (intentionally, it would seem) misunderstood my point concerning the way the world works. I have explicitly stated several times now that the inhabitants of Erfworld are not game pieces. My point is that they are treated as game pieces by the world mechanics, even though they are not. Casters and warlords appear to get something of a pass on this.


Gotta love those exceptions. Exceptions severely complicate rules. They are strong suggestions that the original idea was not accurate, and that a simpler rule without exceptions should be sought.

Your argument that your solution is simpler does hold some merit, but the fact that it took you this long and this many failed arguments to finally make this your main point is clear proof that you're arguing just to feed your ravenous ego.


Or, I have a plan that involves suckering you into embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance slowly, and setting you up for the big, dramatic whammy. Of course, you're cleverer than me and would never fall for a trap set up by feigned arrogance and long years of experience in dealing with over-confidence. Nah, you're far too clever for that, aren't you? You;d recognize baited traps straight off, because you're cleverer than me.

If you are forty years old I can't help but find you sad and pathetic, being that you're arguing like a fifteen year old.


*whistles* When is a troll a troll? When it's under a bridge looking to eat little sheep? And how would you recognize the troll-killing ram when it has long experience hiding as a lamb? Sun Tzu tells us to know your enemy and yourself and you'll never lose. Wouldn't a smart Ram hide its true self so that the troll doesn't see it coming, perhaps not even realizing iit after its all over? That's the mistake in deciding that the enemy is stupid. Parson points that out: Ansom isn't stupid, he's just unknowledgable of the enemy, in this case thinking GK is run by Stanley without knowledge that Parson even exists. Another good quote is from Wizard's First Rule. "People are stupid: they'll believe anything they want to be true, or fear to be true." If you want it to be true that you're cleverer than me, then you've already failed to judge me based on the truth of what I am, and when the truth does come out, you'll continue to want to be more clever and won't even recognize your failure. In short, by revealing yourself to be too clever to be tricked, you will fail to recognize the bait as bait, because you can't conceive of bait that could trick you. A smart ram would let the troll eat itself wiht its own confidence that it can't be eaten. Even if you know yourself, your belief that you're more clever automatically means you will never recognize someone that actually is cleverer than you, and against them you've already lost according to Sun Tzu: the enemy knows you and himself and can't lose. I'm not saying that I'm cleverer than you: I'm jsut saying that when you do meet someone cleverer than you, you'll never know it, possibly even after it's over and you lost bigger than you know.

Yeah, a fifteen year old has the experience to think like that.

You have effectively admitted defeat to my argument that the Titans are callous, being that you're now trying to say that it's a moot point whereas earlier you were willing to fervently argue the point to the death. I'm going to therefore ignore this debate.


Yeah, you go with that. Use it against me, if you can. Can you find a way to make it matter that the Titans are callous? Canyou use ti to prove a rule despite the lack of demontratable proof that something happens in the comic like it? There are many ways for someone to be callous: picking one method that fits your belief system doesn't eliminate others.

Here, let me show you.

Units that are disbanded are converted into plants. Those plants are infected with blight, rot, insects, and they get to feel pain, through all of it. For decades, if they're a sequoia that lives for centuries.

I don't think your really understand what callous is. That's callous, cruel, and malicious. Instant oblivion? Uncreation? That's not callous, that's clean and merciful by comparison. Centuries of pain and horror during a slow, horrid death? That's callous. Oh, and just as unprovable as de-popping.

You have utterly ignored my argument that Erfworld is a game-like world and can be expected to run on game-like rules.


Which is proof of nothing. Hex walls are proof that there are game-like rules, but Parson's brick question is proof that Earth physics exist too. You're only half right, in that some parts of Erfworld are game-like. The difference of opinion is over which parts are game-like and which parts are Earth-like. For instance, trash de-popping is game-like, but Battle Bear skins remaining if wanted is Earth-like.

If this were a game, I would expect units attached to an Heir to become a wandering Side after all their cities fell, in other words, a barbarian, because I would feel cheated if I went to the effort to pop an Heir but then lost anyway because all my cities were captured. I would expect units attached to a Warlord or Caster to become barbarians or else a remnant of their Side as well, because Ender's Game shouldn't be the solution to everything. But I don't want to spend four turns mopping up random, unled barbarian units after I've defeated all their leaders. I expect Erfworld to act like a game-like world.


So they disappear because they're invconvenient to the attacker that created them? That's evidence? No, it's opinion. Let's see a fact, man. You need facts to prove or disprove theories.

The only compelling piece of evidence is that Stanley has implied that disbanding is something that happens at night, and that wasn't even evidence submitted by yourself. Regardless, Sizemore has decidedly implied that disbanding would have some kind of immediate effect.


*shrug* We use what exists, when we discover it exists. I admit to not having an eiditic memory, and I overlook things, too, when I'm not looking for them. And not always does my initial analysis delve uncover all the implications -- first, second, and third order analysis give you different results. Hey, I've even admitted to being wrong. *Gasp*, wasn't Kreistor too arrogant for that? I was wrong about Archons being true casters, but few will remember that horrible debate. I wasn't wrong about them being identical to each other in ability, though, so I wasn't wholly wrong or right. (Others expected some to be meleers, etc., and were right about natural casting ability but wrong about the Archons not being cookie-cutter clones.) Some theories prove solid, some don't. Anyone expecting to be right all the time will be severely disappointed. Case in point: Battlestar Gallactica. To determine the final cylon, the authors cruised the forums and eliminated any character that was theorized to be the final cylon. They had to use someone that was already dead. Everyone was wrong, but they were wrong because the decision on who was last had never been made, so they based their analysis on things never intended to reveal anyone. The mistake was in trying to figure it out, in the end. Clever or stupid did not distinguish them from being wrong. Yep, I backed the wrong horse there, too. You have to have a thick skin to stick your neck out on solving mysteries with insufficient information. But sometimes it all works out. Sometimes, the evidence you missed helps you, instead of hurting you. That's always sweet.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby SteveMB » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:41 pm

Kreistor wrote:Vinnie and Ansom seem to think they reward good behavior, that is the behavior of a good warrior. Got anyone that doesn't to back your callous Titan concept? I do have some backing.

Vinny mentioned "Scripture", which is presumably the source of Erfworlders' beliefs about the City of Heroes. The question of who wrote this Scripture harks back to Parson's momentary musings about where the books in the libraries came from -- they popped into existence like other objects, but who wrote the content?

Obviously, Parson never really had time to consider that question until now. Perhaps he will when things settle down a bit.
Is this a real holy war, or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other?
User avatar
SteveMB
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:00 pm

SteveMB wrote:Obviously, Parson never really had time to consider that question until now. Perhaps he will when things settle down a bit.


That and much more, I hope. I'd much rather discuss possible strategies and tactics than puzzle out mysterious rules. But wihtout the details, I can't, so I'm stuck with what I got. If I knew all the rules, I could be Parson, looking for loopholes and combinations of casters that are greater than the sum of their parts. That's why I'm sticking wiht this comic, because I know I'll have that some day. But without knowing exactly what a Dollamancer can do, I can't say it would be a powerful combo with a master of Hat Magic. I'm waiting for the meat in the system.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:14 pm

Kreistor wrote:
Thought so. Do you really think this helps you in any way?


If you can't pick up on a basic theme running through the entire comic, it is not my problem.

Wiki. "Croaking". See the quote in the previous message. Written by Baldur and advanced to "Canon". I really don't need to argue over something Rob has clearly stated is in the system.

The trash from Parson's Stupid Meals is useful, but it de-pops anyway,


But, oddly, the Battle Bear skin Parson uses as a blanket doesn't. Gee, Rob specifically states why in the Wiki. I love the Wiki. It's my friend. Obviously not yours.


...What? The wiki says that croaked bodies disappear at the start of their Side's next turn, even though they'd be useful for purposes of uncroaking for several turns afterwards.

Heh... I just remembered some "clever" quip you once made. Heh...

Also, all of your whining about how we spend so much time on the benevolent/uncaring Titan debate is utterly unwarranted because that debate is your own fault.


Yep, it was. But I wasn't whining. Like I said, I'll argue it if you want to, but realize it can't affect the "disbanding" discussion because it's not fact, just opinion.

You brought it up, you were the one who spent three plus paragraphs on it, and the only reason you're dropping it now is because you've been thoroughly proven wrong.


I did. Did you never wonder why? Nah, guess not. Neither wrong nor right, BTW. It's possible, just as your belief that the Titans are callous is possible. You can't prove an opinion wrong without hard fact, and you have no more than I do on this subject. Of course, It could sucker you into makig grandiose statements about defeating me, which if not true would only embarrass you. Wonder if anyone thinks you defeated me... or if even they do, what they think of you claiming victory for yourself?


The general feel of the forum right now would be that all participating members are as fed up with your narcissistic rants as I am. Given this, I feel no remorse in going on a few of my own at your expense. The Titans as callous beings is supported, however, by the Titans having created an immensely callous world. Are you even reading what I'm saying?

Further, you have (intentionally, it would seem) misunderstood my point concerning the way the world works. I have explicitly stated several times now that the inhabitants of Erfworld are not game pieces. My point is that they are treated as game pieces by the world mechanics, even though they are not. Casters and warlords appear to get something of a pass on this.


Gotta love those exceptions. Exceptions severely complicate rules. They are strong suggestions that the original idea was not accurate, and that a simpler rule without exceptions should be sought.


Based on Occam's Razor, yes. But the fact that Erfworld operates as a game-like (and regularly cruel and ruthless) world is compelling evidence whereas you have only simplicity to operate off of.
Your argument that your solution is simpler does hold some merit, but the fact that it took you this long and this many failed arguments to finally make this your main point is clear proof that you're arguing just to feed your ravenous ego.


Or, I have a plan that involves suckering you into embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance slowly, and setting you up for the big, dramatic whammy. Of course, you're cleverer than me and would never fall for a trap set up by feigned arrogance and long years of experience in dealing with over-confidence. Nah, you're far too clever for that, aren't you? You;d recognize baited traps straight off, because you're cleverer than me.


I will admit this is a possibility. But the odds are astronomical. You've demonstrated, from the start, an arrogant, condescending attitude towards every poster, and you've shown yourself incapable of even remembering which of your opponents said what, which is especially ridiculous given you could just open the thread itself in another window and have a perfect record on hand. You've blundered through a half-dozen odd bad arguments before you were able to arrive at a good one. You'd have to have been bluffing from the start, in which case your objective in even entering this debate would have to have been to try and find anyone who gets fed up with narcissism and try to humiliate them, in which case A) It won't work. Everyone is fed up with you, they're not going to think that much less of me if I make a few mistakes in my aggravation, and B) You're insane, and not in a good way. That's the craziest set of priorities I've ever seen in my life.

If you are forty years old I can't help but find you sad and pathetic, being that you're arguing like a fifteen year old.


*whistles* When is a troll a troll? When it's under a bridge looking to eat little sheep? And how would you recognize the troll-killing ram when it has long experience hiding as a lamb? Sun Tzu tells us to know your enemy and yourself and you'll never lose. Wouldn't a smart Ram hide its true self so that the troll doesn't see it coming, perhaps not even realizing iit after its all over? That's the mistake in deciding that the enemy is stupid. Parson points that out: Ansom isn't stupid, he's just unknowledgable of the enemy, in this case thinking GK is run by Stanley without knowledge that Parson even exists. Another good quote is from Wizard's First Rule. "People are stupid: they'll believe anything they want to be true, or fear to be true." If you want it to be true that you're cleverer than me, then you've already failed to judge me based on the truth of what I am, and when the truth does come out, you'll continue to want to be more clever and won't even recognize your failure. In short, by revealing yourself to be too clever to be tricked, you will fail to recognize the bait as bait, because you can't conceive of bait that could trick you. A smart ram would let the troll eat itself wiht its own confidence that it can't be eaten. Even if you know yourself, your belief that you're more clever automatically means you will never recognize someone that actually is cleverer than you, and against them you've already lost according to Sun Tzu: the enemy knows you and himself and can't lose. I'm not saying that I'm cleverer than you: I'm jsut saying that when you do meet someone cleverer than you, you'll never know it, possibly even after it's over and you lost bigger than you know.

Yeah, a fifteen year old has the experience to think like that.


...Yeah, actually, some do. The insanity of your priorities in that assumed confrontation is inane, however. You start subtly trolling everyone who's opinion differs from your (unlikely) position, just so you can find out who's going to counter-troll you for it? Seriously? I'm not buying it.
You have effectively admitted defeat to my argument that the Titans are callous, being that you're now trying to say that it's a moot point whereas earlier you were willing to fervently argue the point to the death. I'm going to therefore ignore this debate.


Yeah, you go with that. Use it against me, if you can. Can you find a way to make it matter that the Titans are callous? Canyou use ti to prove a rule despite the lack of demontratable proof that something happens in the comic like it? There are many ways for someone to be callous: picking one method that fits your belief system doesn't eliminate others.

Here, let me show you.

Units that are disbanded are converted into plants. Those plants are infected with blight, rot, insects, and they get to feel pain, through all of it. For decades, if they're a sequoia that lives for centuries.


Except that that's not what happens in a war game. In a war game, the units disappear. My position isn't "the Titans are evil, cruel, demons who want to inflict as much pain as possible." My position is that the Titans, for whatever weird reason, made a game-like world, and that these game-like worlds are several times more cruel and heartless than those of us who play the games realize.

You have utterly ignored my argument that Erfworld is a game-like world and can be expected to run on game-like rules.


Which is proof of nothing. Hex walls are proof that there are game-like rules, but Parson's brick question is proof that Earth physics exist too. You're only half right, in that some parts of Erfworld are game-like. The difference of opinion is over which parts are game-like and which parts are Earth-like. For instance, trash de-popping is game-like, but Battle Bear skins remaining if wanted is Earth-like.


No it isn't. You regularly see games that put things like battle-bear skins in the images of different city buildings displayed when you're interacting with them on your turn.
If this were a game, I would expect units attached to an Heir to become a wandering Side after all their cities fell, in other words, a barbarian, because I would feel cheated if I went to the effort to pop an Heir but then lost anyway because all my cities were captured. I would expect units attached to a Warlord or Caster to become barbarians or else a remnant of their Side as well, because Ender's Game shouldn't be the solution to everything. But I don't want to spend four turns mopping up random, unled barbarian units after I've defeated all their leaders. I expect Erfworld to act like a game-like world.


So they disappear because they're invconvenient to the attacker that created them? That's evidence? No, it's opinion. Let's see a fact, man. You need facts to prove or disprove theories.


They disappear because that's what's most likely to happen in a war game. Are you paying attention?
The only compelling piece of evidence is that Stanley has implied that disbanding is something that happens at night, and that wasn't even evidence submitted by yourself. Regardless, Sizemore has decidedly implied that disbanding would have some kind of immediate effect.


*shrug* We use what exists, when we discover it exists. I admit to not having an eiditic memory, and I overlook things, too, when I'm not looking for them. And not always does my initial analysis delve uncover all the implications -- first, second, and third order analysis give you different results. Hey, I've even admitted to being wrong. *Gasp*, wasn't Kreistor too arrogant for that? I was wrong about Archons being true casters, but few will remember that horrible debate. I wasn't wrong about them being identical to each other in ability, though, so I wasn't wholly wrong or right. (Others expected some to be meleers, etc., and were right about natural casting ability but wrong about the Archons not being cookie-cutter clones.) Some theories prove solid, some don't. Anyone expecting to be right all the time will be severely disappointed. Case in point: Battlestar Gallactica. To determine the final cylon, the authors cruised the forums and eliminated any character that was theorized to be the final cylon. They had to use someone that was already dead. Everyone was wrong, but they were wrong because the decision on who was last had never been made, so they based their analysis on things never intended to reveal anyone. The mistake was in trying to figure it out, in the end. Clever or stupid did not distinguish them from being wrong. Yep, I backed the wrong horse there, too. You have to have a thick skin to stick your neck out on solving mysteries with insufficient information. But sometimes it all works out. Sometimes, the evidence you missed helps you, instead of hurting you. That's always sweet.


That Battlestar Gallactica move was either brilliant and idiotically reckless on the part of the writers. Guess I'd have to watch it to find out. Sounds like the kind of thing Rob would do, too...

Regardless, admitting an error to feign humility so as to disguise one's arrogance isn't anything like actual humility, it's just clever. And a trick I learned when I was...Fifteen, actually. You haven't convinced me of anything and I'm not sure why you're trying. You're still trying to win, which means you're still in it to feed your ego.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby MarbitChow » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:32 pm

(This thing is like a scab - I can't stop picking at it!) Let's prove that Disbanding = Becoming Barbarian.

What we know:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F098b.jpg
When a leader croaks, his side ends (if he has no heir), and all units in the field disband. "So what happens when Stanley croaks? He has no heir, so our side ends. Field units disband, and cities become 'neutral'..." So far, so good. Two possible interpretations of this. Disbanding is a result of the Leader croaking, or the side ending.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F083.jpg
FAQ falls, Bannhammer dies (city in ruins, overlord killed). Jillian is heir. Jillian's side doesn't end. Jillian becomes a barbarian, as do all units with her. If disband = become barbarian, then Jillian disbands. So, units in a field also disband when a side doesn't end. So far not logically inconsistent. Stanley croaking = field units disband, and also stanley croaking = side ends. We're still ok. So Leader croaking = become barbarian = disband.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F079.jpg
Saline IV is killed, his city falls. Same scenario as FAQ. Stanley is an heir. Like Jillian above, Stanley becomes a barbarian, as do all units with him. Sizemore is with Stanley. Sizemore, therefore, becomes a barbarian. But the above page says that Sizemore was not disbanded. Therefore, Sizemore did not become a barbarian. But Sizemore is a barbarian, because he follows the same rules that the units with Jillian follow.

Therefore, either a unit can be a barbarian and not be barbarian at the same time, or disbanding does not equal become barbarian.

Is this a sufficient proof? If not, where does the logic break down?
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Maldeus » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:41 pm

Ooh, page 79 is a gold mine, here. First, Stanley is in the exact same situation as Jillian was. He's an Heir out in the field when his Ruler is killed and capital city sacked. We know Jillian became a barbarian, therefore it is safe to say Stanley also became a barbarian. Parson wonders why Sizemore didn't disband. He is clearly under the impression that if Sizemore disbanded, he wouldn't be there anymore. There are a couple of different interpretations to this, but it's a moot point, because Sizemore then says something to the effect of "Yes, we should've disbanded, but we didn't because Stanley is an heir." Therefore Jillian, who became a barbarian, did not disband either.

To sum up: This clearly proves Stanley did not disband. Because Jillian's situation was a duplicate, she also did not disband. The result of disbanding is therefore not barbarism. Thus speculation must default to de-popping or (less likely) croaking.
Image
Maldeus
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:25 pm

Maldeus wrote:Ooh, page 79 is a gold mine, here. First, Stanley is in the exact same situation as Jillian was.


Not quite. His side had more than one city. But, yes I already faced this. The quote is:

Parson: When the city fell, shouldn't you have disbanded?
Sizemore: Normally, yes. But the King was very fond of Stanley, so he did something that rarely happens. He promoted Stanley to Heir Designate, at great expense. That way, when the city fell it wasn't the end of our side.

Now, if "Disbanding = de-popping", why is Parson even asking the question? He knos Sizmore survived, so he didn't disband for some reason. The question is, then, redundant.

Parson says nothing that suggests Sizemore should have disappeared. His question is equally valid for Sizemore becoming a barbarian. We know for certain that when a capital falls and Sizemore is in MK, he becomes a barbarian, BTW. Don't overlook that parallel to Sizemore's situation when GK fell.

He's an Heir out in the field when his Ruler is killed and capital city sacked.


And I already pointed to two possibilities. Stanley becomes a Barbarian Side. Or the Capital shifts to a different City, and Stanley becomes a Ruler that happens to be in the field.

We know Jillian became a barbarian, therefore it is safe to say Stanley also became a barbarian.


Possible. But only GK fell: not any of GK's other cities. There's no mention that they went neutral and needed to be retaken. That's not evidence to the contrary, but if Stanley went barbarian, it had to happen. Natural Allies cannot become a Capital Side, so capturing the Capital did not give the Gobwins any other city.

Parson wonders why Sizemore didn't disband. He is clearly under the impression that if Sizemore disbanded, he wouldn't be there anymore.


The specification of Heir Designate retains the side, but there's one other detail that differentiates Stanley vs. Jillian. All of Jillian's cities were lost, but only GK was lost to Stanley. Without an Heir, disbanding = barbarian would result in Stanley creating a new Side, and turn all GK cities neutral, requiring Stanley reconquer all of them. Only GK needed reconquering, so the other cities did not go Neutral: that can only happen if there is a Capital. The answer, then, is simple. GK Side did not end because there was an Heir Designate and there was a City that could become the new Capital. That's what Jillian lacked, and why she disbanded while Stanley remained a CAPITAL Side. Stanley never went Barbarian, because he didn't need to capture any city besides GK. The others all still belonged to him.

Aupported by:
Sizemore: "Stanley easily retook the city with his artifact and dwagons. That's how he became an Overlord."

Stanley only needed to conquer GK, not all the others that should have gone Neutral is Stanley went Barbarian. That's what happens when a Ruler dies Heir-less.

There are a couple of different interpretations to this, but it's a moot point, because Sizemore then says something to the effect of "Yes, we should've disbanded, but we didn't because Stanley is an heir." Therefore Jillian, who became a barbarian, did not disband either.


"To the effect of"? Can't you quote? Wiki has everything in text for you to cut and paste.

It is speculative. With a City to have the Capital move ot, and an Heir to take the reins, Stanley may have remained a Capital Side, with a different Capital than GK. (If I were Wanda and Stanley, that's how I would plan it. A plan that risks annihilation is a pretty silly risk to take.) Jillian, on the other hand, did not have any cities and definitely became a Barbarian Side. Parallel, but there are important differences.

To sum up: This clearly proves Stanley did not disband.


Only if you ignore the cities issue. You probably missed that in the previous post that discussed it. Anyway, good try. You're almost there. But the information isn't quite complete, so the situation not quite parallel.

And besides that, if you did succed, de-popping is still speculation. Parson does not use the term, nor even suggest it could have happened. He's surprised that Sizemore is in GK, but that doesn't mean the only possibility is that Sizemore should have disappeared. For instance, it could be similar to being Neutral. Sizemore must remain in Hex until captured or killed or starved to death, for instance. That would explain Parson's comment because Sizemore should be in a different place working for a different side, far from GK. Disproving my favorite theory doesn't leave ponly yours remaining. There are other alternatives, and given that you cannot prove the disappearance of a single unit (even Parson who might have been lied to), then your belief that this would be over is sadly mistaken. You have to actually prove your case, or disprove every other single possibility. Not just one. Until you can prove your case, this will never be over. There really are too many possibilities to disprove them all.

Why do you think I work so hard to prove my own case? You get so caught up trying to disprove one, that you've forgotten that successful disproof a a countering theory is not proof of your own.

And something you missed.

Sizemore: "When we returned, the city had fallen to a sneak attack from below. Saline was put to the sword. The Gobwins... broke their alliance and hit the city. Very odd."

Sizemore didn't know that GK had actually fallen. If he went Barbarian with Stanley, he'd know that. So no, they stayed a Capital Side and Sizemore was unaware of the GK takeover until after they got back.

Oh, and BTW, there's a little niggling detail that prevents a Side from changing from Capital to Barbarian and remain the same side. Barbarians move first in the Turn order. All Sides have a natural Turn Order, so if the Turn Order changes, the Side is not the same Side. Jillian, then, is not the same Side that she was when she was a part of Faq, because she is not in the same position in the Turn order.

Additionally:

Page 83:
Jillian: "Faq remains in ruins, and only Stanley and I know where it is."
Ansom: He's going there to start a new side!
Jillian: "And I could have stopped him."

If your theory is true, and a Barbarian Side is the same Side as when it was Capital, then Stanley would not be starting a new Side in Faq, only restoring GK in Faq. Further, if Stanley had become Barbarian when Saline died, when he reconquered GK, he would have started a new side. Sizemore says that their side did not end. He's stil on the same side as he was when he worked for Saline. There's only one way to resolve all of these issues: Stanley's Side remained Capital after GK fell by shifting Capital to another city.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:15 pm

Maldeus wrote:If you can't pick up on a basic theme running through the entire comic, it is not my problem.


Rhetoric. Yawn.

K wrote:... But, oddly, the Battle Bear skin Parson uses as a blanket doesn't. Gee, Rob specifically states why in the Wiki. I love the Wiki. It's my friend. Obviously not yours.


...What? The wiki says that croaked bodies disappear at the start of their Side's next turn, even though they'd be useful for purposes of uncroaking for several turns afterwards.


Wiki, Croaking wrote:Croaked units leave bodies, which exist as physical objects for a short time after croaking. Bodies disappear at the start of the next turn that their side has, unless moved/claimed (e.g. uncroaked, reanimated as golems, eaten, used for something else like the teddybearskin rug and mounted gwiffon head in Parson's room)Erf-b1-p035. In the event that their side is eliminated, unclaimed bodies disappear at the next nightfall.


I miss themes in comics? What did you just miss? And it's the second time I copied this to this thread, and you admit to reading it the first time.

The general feel of the forum right now would be that all participating members are as fed up with your narcissistic rants as I am.


Yeah, another flame. Expected you couldn't stop yourself for very long.

Based on Occam's Razor, yes. But the fact that Erfworld operates as a game-like (and regularly cruel and ruthless) world is compelling evidence whereas you have only simplicity to operate off of.


I've been so avoiding OR. It's been such a bother on this forum, when people get into debates on what it actually means. Look, if you want ot talk about it, please go back to the old forum and find a debate about it to see what I mean. It happened far too many times.

Compelling evidence of what, BTW? That disbanding turns people into trees, tortures them on crosses, fires them like rockets into the stratosphere? It's evidence of nothing specific, just that bad things happen. There are lots of other bad things, many far worse than de-popping.

I will admit this is a possibility. But the odds are astronomical. You've demonstrated, from the start, an arrogant, condescending attitude towards every poster, and you've shown yourself incapable of even remembering which of your opponents said what, which is especially ridiculous given you could just open the thread itself in another window and have a perfect record on hand. You've blundered through a half-dozen odd bad arguments before you were able to arrive at a good one. You'd have to have been bluffing from the start, in which case your objective in even entering this debate would have to have been to try and find anyone who gets fed up with narcissism and try to humiliate them, in which case A) It won't work. Everyone is fed up with you, they're not going to think that much less of me if I make a few mistakes in my aggravation, and B) You're insane, and not in a good way. That's the craziest set of priorities I've ever seen in my life.


Heheh... you really can't see yourself from a neutral perspective, can you? I'll let that stand all by itself. It doesn't do what you think it does.

That's how you deal with something obvious. Obvious things need absolutely no explanation.

...Yeah, actually, some do. The insanity of your priorities in that assumed confrontation is inane, however. You start subtly trolling everyone who's opinion differs from your (unlikely) position, just so you can find out who's going to counter-troll you for it? Seriously? I'm not buying it.


No, you don't, do you? And you may never. It'll take the right epiphany from the right person in the right way to hold the mirror up for you to see what you are. You look through a mirror darkly, and miss all that you choose. Someday, something will happen to show you how very much you're losing. Once I understand you well enough, I might pull that off without doing too much damage, but the shading is very dark in your case. I've damaged people before that I didn't want to. You're not yet bad enough for me to risk that.

Except that that's not what happens in a war game. In a war game, the units disappear. My position isn't "the Titans are evil, cruel, demons who want to inflict as much pain as possible." My position is that the Titans, for whatever weird reason, made a game-like world, and that these game-like worlds are several times more cruel and heartless than those of us who play the games realize.

In a war game, there are no humans, just plastic pieces. No real physics, just game rules. Erfworld is a world and a game, and it's a mistake to think that a Game Rule that can be broken is as much a Law as Gravity.

No it isn't. You regularly see games that put things like battle-bear skins in the images of different city buildings displayed when you're interacting with them on your turn.


See Wiki quote above.

They disappear because that's what's most likely to happen in a war game. Are you paying attention?


So can I begin to insert rules from my favorite war games now? Or are only you allowed to do that? Or are we trying to figure out which game rules Rob implemented and which ones he didn't based on evidence?

That one game or many games implement a rule is not evidence Erfworld implements that rule.

Regardless, admitting an error to feign humility so as to disguise one's arrogance isn't anything like actual humility, it's just clever. And a trick I learned when I was...Fifteen, actually. You haven't convinced me of anything and I'm not sure why you're trying. You're still trying to win, which means you're still in it to feed your ego.


Am I trying to win? Oh, I won long ago. You lose with every post, now. You just don't realize what you lose, because you're thinking of the wrong paradigm. This ceased being about the game rules long ago. I'm playing the meta-debate game now, and you're still thinking on the debate level. And, no, I am not winning anything anymore. Just watching you lose.

I'll say this: if an arrogant man accuses another of being arrogant as a fault, he's being hypocritical. If the other has no problem with arrogance, and does not treat it as being a heinous flaw, he's not hypocritical. Which one does a third party respect more, and does it matter a whit if the hypocritical man turns out to be correct? That's all the hint (ans warning) I'll give you, for now.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: "Fight in the Shade" or Possible broken mechanic

Postby Kreistor » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:19 pm

MarbitChow wrote:(This thing is like a scab - I can't stop picking at it!) Let's prove that Disbanding = Becoming Barbarian.

What we know:
http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F098b.jpg
When a leader croaks, his side ends (if he has no heir), and all units in the field disband. "So what happens when Stanley croaks? He has no heir, so our side ends. Field units disband, and cities become 'neutral'..." So far, so good. Two possible interpretations of this. Disbanding is a result of the Leader croaking, or the side ending.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F083.jpg
FAQ falls, Bannhammer dies (city in ruins, overlord killed). Jillian is heir. Jillian's side doesn't end. Jillian becomes a barbarian, as do all units with her. If disband = become barbarian, then Jillian disbands. So, units in a field also disband when a side doesn't end. So far not logically inconsistent. Stanley croaking = field units disband, and also stanley croaking = side ends. We're still ok. So Leader croaking = become barbarian = disband.

http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F079.jpg
Saline IV is killed, his city falls. Same scenario as FAQ. Stanley is an heir. Like Jillian above, Stanley becomes a barbarian, as do all units with him. Sizemore is with Stanley. Sizemore, therefore, becomes a barbarian. But the above page says that Sizemore was not disbanded. Therefore, Sizemore did not become a barbarian. But Sizemore is a barbarian, because he follows the same rules that the units with Jillian follow.

Therefore, either a unit can be a barbarian and not be barbarian at the same time, or disbanding does not equal become barbarian.

Is this a sufficient proof? If not, where does the logic break down?


Welcome back. Unfortunately, you're now lumped in with others that have threatened to leave a debate with me and just couldn't hold back. Don't worry: that doesn't lose too much respect in my view. 8)

See my comment about Stanley remaining a Capital Side elsewhere. Only takes a City trnign into a replacement Capital. Backed by Sizemore's lack of knowledge he waa a barbarian. Jillian and Stanley are not 100% identical.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Everything Else Erfworld

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests