• Limonene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    >not a single balance update since the 8th century

    You’re just begging AnarchyChess to correct you.

    • The Picard ManeuverOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 years ago

      Funny story time:

      I had someone cheat against me the other day (without me realizing it, because I don’t have the game sense to tell), then offer a draw in a clearly winning position. I guess they were trying to avoid detection, but I decided that I didn’t want their handout, declined the draw offer, and resigned.

      The system immediately flagged them as cheating and refunded my elo, so I guess all’s well that ends well.

        • The Picard ManeuverOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          It’s the rating system for competitive gaming that was originally developed for chess, but has since been applied to all sorts of gaming, sports, etc. sometimes you might even hear people refer to a game’s matchmaking rating as “elo”, even it’s not called that.

          Also, fun fact: it’s not an acronym, it’s a guy’s name:

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system

            • The Picard ManeuverOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              2 years ago

              Oh no, it’s completely free to play. What I meant was that when a game is over, the winning player gains rating points and the losing player loses rating points, proportional to the rating difference between them.

              Since I had lost that game, I lost rating (elo) points. But, since the system recognized that it was against a cheater, which isn’t fair, it gave me the points back when they banned him so that my rating would be unaffected.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 years ago

      I bet a bot can beat you at Counter Strike too if we made them as strong as possible like chess bots.

  • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 years ago

    Not quite true. Before the ~15th century, the queen moved like the king and the pawns could only move 1 square from their starting square. These changes were made to make the game more exciting and less slow.

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    It doesn’t get balance updates because the sides are virtually identical, it’s not hard when your game design doesn’t take risks

    • sushibowl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      You are quite correct that an asymetrical game is much harder to balance.

      However having identical sides and a symmetric playing field doesn’t always guarantee a balanced game. For example, if one piece or position dominates all others it can lead to a lack of viable options and just one way to play, making the game uninteresting. You don’t just want the players to have equal strength, you also want the universe of possible playing strategies to contain many different strong options.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      Actually it has had balance changes. Chess clock for instance is a balance update between the players, but there’s also been balancing between pieces. En passant and castling but also changing how the pieces work (for example bishop).

      Despite the obvious symmetry of the game there’s still a lot to balance.

    • waratchess@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think they meant balance as in the pieces haven’t received nerfs or buffs.

      • Bayz0r@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes and this isn’t necessary because the two sides are completely identical. No differences in pieces or terrain or anything so there’s no need to change a piece to make it stronger or weaker.

    • jorge@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      It is too simple to be useful in real life: a mere 8 by 8 grid, no fog of war, no technology tree, no random map or spawn position, only 2 players, both sides exact same pieces, etc.

      Polytopia addresses these limitations.

    • nieceandtows@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Eh. My last move was to tie a ballistic missile to a pawn and roll it down a pinball machine. Their move is to keep it from hitting the bottom and exploding. That would keep them occupied for a while.

  • De_Narm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well, balance is quite a bit easier if everything is a mirror match. And they still fucked it up, white has the starting advantage.

    • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Nah, staring position is zugzwang, black gets to capitalise on whites blunder in the opening.

    • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Having your opponent make the first move can absolutely be an advantage since it hints to the strategy they’re going with.

      I typically choose black for that reason.