CAU Unit Committee: A New Approach

[scb]

Time for another try at this. Here's my idea:

Instead of rating units silver, gold or platinum, we make a list of unit concepts that have already been used, along with the best one or two implementations of each concept. This will serve a more useful purpose than the previous committees, since it will show what has already been done, what still needs work and what (by omission) would be original.

Since the previous committees died due to inactivity, I also propose a looser judging system. After agreeing on this thread to include a given concept, we will create another thread to use to discuss which units are the best for that concept. Anyone who doesn't show up doesn't get a say. The decisions will be recorded in a separate thread (possibly a sticky), and every decision will be open to challenge upon the discovery of a good old unit or creation of a new unit. Challenges are made by bumping the concept thread with a link to the unit. Original decisions left unchallenged will stand, but challenges will need some discussion before being accepted. In other words, everyone is a judge, and we will vote by consensus rather than majority rule.

The concept list:

Controlling other units (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31809)

Channel Paralyzer (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=19405)
Disembodied Spirit (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31811)

Healing (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31262)

Cleric (http://www.tacticsarena.com/units/unit.php?name=Cleric)
Fairy (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29286)

Shapeshifting (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1129360)

Planeswalker (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28350)

Summoning (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31263)

Enchanted Graveyard (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29282)

Transformer (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31382)

Wolf Master (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31036)

A skill that requires a delay to be released
Blockable only by wards
Copying other units on the board
Focus bonus to unit stats
Groups of units that must be on the field together
Hiding information from the opponent
Leeching health from enemy units
Long Recovery (such as Star Golem (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=30542))
Moving other units around
Multiple movement or attack phases
Multiple units moving in the same turn
Poison/paralyze without focus
Passive bonus to unit stats
Permanent bonus to unit stats
Targeting all enemies
Units that interact with particular other units in special ways
Zero recovery time


In honor of the previous committee, here is a link to their certified units (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showpost.php?p=480850&postcount=2). I'm going to start looking at that list when choosing units to link to in the concept thread opening posts.

[Red Mage]

Can I be a member of the CAU Unit Committee?

[Cross Punisher]

so... did you make up the rules off the top of your head :p ?

[scb]

Eh... No, thanks to Heirophant for inspiration. But yes, in that I made them all up within the last two hours.

Red Mage, if you read the whole insanely long thing, you'll see that there won't be an official judge list (and therefore you don't have to ask my permission to participate).

[Red Mage]

Permanent bonus to unit stats: Haima Elemental (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31198)

[scb]

Red Mage, I don't think we should have the unit descriptions posted here... just post links to your units when you want to mention them, and if my idea goes unchanged, the actual unit discussion will take place on other threads, yet to be created.

aren't there too many concepts to list

Good point. We will need to make sure our concepts are fairly broad if there are only one or two units in the concept, then split the concept if more units appear that use the concept in a unique way. A unit can have more than one concept. Should we include names as concepts when many units have had the same name?

[HierophantNexus]

Ok lets add.

Transforming other units
Handicapping Units ( Units that simply handicap the user to make it so that more skilled players can play lesser skilled players )
Fused units ( 2 or more units that function together )
Focus realesed skills ( A skill that requires a wait time to be released )
All attacks and or large pattern attacks )
Stealth ( Hiding units from the sight of the enemy )
Units that have interesting interactions with other units. ( before you complain the wisp is already immune from the Mud Golem quake ) So unit specific and or near unit specific units are already in the game )

And of course combanations of these concepts.

We can discuss what would make these concepts feasable.

[Kyir]

We don't need a Committee, they don't work.

gg.

[HierophantNexus]

Let us define new unit classes as well.

Such as the undead
Light side characters such as Angels Cherubs etc.
Dark side Characters such as demons imps etc.

right now there is essentially 4 classes

Human with sub classes Magic and Natural

Wards

Golems

Monsters.

[Cross Punisher]

We don't need a Committee, they don't work.

gg.

good ol' optimistic kyir

[HierophantNexus]

We can set up concept discussions before we complete the concept list.

I think concepts should run indefinitely with new concepts starting every week or so.

[scb]

We don't need a Committee, they don't work.

gg.

Community projects do. Root up some of your units, jester; they might make the top of their class.

Man, how many classifications do we need... Well, let's get a good consensus of two or three people for every new classification. I'll go start threads for two of the concepts.

[Mithrandir]

Good luck to you, I hope this works out. It looks like a good idea, theoretically speaking.

Besides, CAU needs some help.

[Shadowkill]

I like the idea. And there isnt divided movement in the list.

[HierophantNexus]

Shadowkill

Please Explain divided movement.

[Shadowkill]

This my unit uses divided movement: Swiftslayer.

[scb]

I think it's when a unit can move twice in the same turn, for a small movement each time. I'm going to list that as "Multiple movement or attack phases."

[Shadowkill]

Oh and it uses a ward-only blockability too.

[Kyir]

Community projects do. Root up some of your units, jester; they might make the top of their class.


They already are, I might do it to pad my post count though.

[scb]

I'm floundering a bit as to what to cal this. If anyone noticed, I named the first two threads "CAU Unit Committee", the second one "CAU Committee" and the third "CAU Unit Ratings." Some other ideas are "CAU Concept List" or just "CAU Concept". What do you think?

[Dj2006]

"CAU Concept" is just fine.

[scb]

(Waiting for another reply or two on that)

I looked through the platinum units and compiled the following list of units with their concepts and thread numbers:

Hastening Golem
*t=15700
*Focus/Bonus/Recovery/-1

Praestigiae
*t=18606
*Units that must be on the field together
*Hiding information from the opponent

Abbot
*t=14803
*Units that interact with other units

Crossbowman
*t=18563
*Delayed skill
*Permanent penalty to stats
*Hiding information from the opponent

Fabricor Substantia
*t=19830
*Knockback

Golem Stormer
*t=19622
*Focus/Penalty/Armor/-15

Channel Paralyzer
*t=19405
*Focus Paralyze
*Controlling other units

Minelayer
*t=15241
*Creating obstructions
*Hiding information from the opponent

Mirage Ward
*t=16842
*Hiding information from the opponent
*Teleporting other units

Grapnel Warrior
*t=15822
*Moving units around
*Focus Paralyze

Frucor and Child
*t=17128
*Focus Summoning
*Focus Poison

Master and Puppet
*Not Platinum
*t=15096
*Focus Summoning

Gramenger
*t=17197
*Hiding information from the opponent

To my disgust, most of them involve secrecy. Oh well. I will link to the two summoners in the thread about summoners.

[HierophantNexus]

You are doing fantastic scb

Thanks for all the time you put into this.

I was just going to give you some rep. But I couldn't. Insufficient rep spreading.

[Cross Punisher]

see this is the problem, i don't see all the concepts as scb has defined them, and i definately don't see how having the thread number has anything to do with anything. I think "hiding information from the opponent" is MUCH to broad a term to describe anything, and I think any unit in CAU could fall into such a category.

[HierophantNexus]

Hiding info from opponents is like invisible units or invisible traps.

I don't know how invisible units or traps would fit into this type of strategy game unless the opponent had a reasonable means to deal with the threat.

[Cross Punisher]

and yet things like the crossbowman do neither of those; the only way I could see it "hiding information from the opponent" is because the opponent doesn't know which unit it's going to attack... which is what all units that target something do.

[Kyir]

and yet things like the crossbowman do neither of those; the only way I could see it "hiding information from the opponent" is because the opponent doesn't know which unit it's going to attack... which is what all units that target something do.

Agreed.

[Mithrandir]

Thanks to CP for accurately defending one of my better units. The Crossbowman is a unit designed for a mental game. Something like a battle of wits from The Princess Bride. It isn't hiding anything like the Minelayer does.

I foresee a huge problem with this effort being that you're going to oversimplify categories. You just can't put the Minelayer, Gramenger, Mirage Ward and Crossbowman all in the same category just because they all involve trying to outwit the opponent via deception. They're totally different units.
To my disgust, most of them involve secrecy. Oh well.
Umm, screw you? Seriously, attempt to be objective if you're going to try anything CAU Committee related. Obviously, you don't like units involving secrecy, but the fact is those kinds of units can have great tactical potential if done well. You're in the minority if you think no unit involving any secrecy whatsoever can be a good unit. If you think all those units suck, including mine, fine, but condemn them on the way they do secrecy, not the concept of secrecy itself. Also, don't forget that CAU has evolved to the point that it requires some creativity in order to do something new.

[HierophantNexus]

( cut ) I foresee a huge problem with this effort being that you're going to oversimplify categories. ( cut )

You're in the minority if you think no unit involving any secrecy whatsoever can be a good unit. ( cut )

Interesting insight on the views of others. Care to share how you came to know that the opinion that no unit involving any secrecy whatsoever can be a good unit is a minority opinion. Also majority opinion dosen't equal right. It's just that here units are noted for getting the most votes.

I believe secrecy might work in Tactics Areana. I also believe secrecy might be imposable.

As for simple catagories.

It is already known that many units will fall into more than one catagory. Also how do you suppose that the catagories be unoversimplified?

[scb]

It doesn't matter what I think of the concept, since in the end I do have to judge based on how well the concept was done. And I expect others to balance my prejudices.

I am against hiding information from the opponent on the principle that a strategy game involves all players having the same information. As for the crossbowman, it depends on the opponent not knowing what you're doing in most cases - the fact that the opponent has to make decisions without knowing something that you can't change is why I classified it like that. But I admit it isn't as secretive as some of the others.

The reason I gave the thread number was to make linking to them easier - I'm going to copy-paste that thread number whenever I want to make a link to the unit, instead of using the search function.

I oversimplified the categories in fear of the opposite extreme of making a separate category for each unit because they are all different. If you want to redefine/add some categories, please tell me. That's why I'm making threads for them so slowly.

[Mithrandir]

Interesting insight on the views of others. Care to share how you came to know that the opinion that no unit involving any secrecy whatsoever can be a good unit is a minority opinion.
Yeah. Try reading some older CAU threads, like a lot of the secrecy threads you listed for instance. Much more positive feedback than negative. Hardly conclusive but it’s better evidence than what you’ve got. If the majority of CAU readers hate my secrecy units, they’re a freaking quiet majority. Take a nice long look at those threads and then tell me that I have no good reason to think that you’re in the minority.
Also majority opinion dosen't equal right.
Um, gee, thanks for that brilliant piece of insight. Next post, please describe to me in great detail how I can be sure that two plus two equals four.:rolleyes:

I never claimed majority opinion makes mine right. But that doesn’t make it irrelevant. If you’re the only person on earth that thinks something, you can be right but you should legitimately wonder if you’re just crazy. Same principle.
It is already known that many units will fall into more than one catagory. Also how do you suppose that the catagories be unoversimplified?
I don’t think it can be done. I think the whole enterprise is going to badly fail in this area because there is simply too much variety in CAU.
I am against hiding information from the opponent on the principle that a strategy game involves all players having the same information.
This is a reasonable claim (though I disagree with it), rather unlike that last joker. How refreshing.

I would just point out, to start with, that ideally a strategy game should have no element of luck except for who gets first turn. But TAO includes blocking. It isn’t perfectly solely strategy. Now, if you think adding a deception type of unit, such as, say, the Crossbowman, is bad because it changes the format of strategy game that TAO is, that’s reasonable. But you must grant that it is also perfectly reasonable for other people to think that it doesn’t change it in a bad way. There is no ideal strategy game, but I lean towards the notion that adding deception could increase tactics, creating a game that would overall require more strategy.

Secondly, there are at least two instances in the game where one player has information that the other doesn’t. First, is opening setup. It’s just the way TAO is. Granted, it isn’t during the game, but you must grant that TAO isn’t as close to chess in this area as it perhaps could be (unless you set up a default vs default game or something ahead of time). The other situation is just general psychological stuff, knowing what your opponent is planning, setting traps, that kind of thing. Again, granted, it’s a different kind of lack of information, but something like the Crossbowman isn’t really so bad in this area. It’s very akin to trying to be able to accurately figure out what your opponent would do, based on what you know of the human player and what you think you would do in a similar situation. So while you can’t definitively know which unit the Crossbowman aimed at, you can attempt to figure it out, just like you could attempt to figure out what your opponent is planning. Again, granted, there is still a difference but I don’t think it’s as significant as you think it is. Something like the Minelayer is higher on the deception scale, naturally.

What it comes down to in this disagreement is that we have different conceptions of what TAO ought to be as a strategy game and what would improve it, and I don't think they can be resolved any more than my disagreement with Walrus can be resolved.
I oversimplified the categories in fear of the opposite extreme of making a separate category for each unit because they are all different. If you want to redefine/add some categories, please tell me. That's why I'm making threads for them so slowly.
I don’t think it’s possible to do this in any kind of effective way without either creating ten thousand categories or oversimplifying in really bad ways. Again, the theory here isn’t a bad one, but in practice you’re gonna run into problems.

[AlabamaBoy]

*Sits down and continues to agree with Kyir, as he has been doing since Kyir posted on this thread.*

[scb]

Yeah. Try reading some older CAU threads, like a lot of the secrecy threads you listed for instance. Much more positive feedback than negative. Hardly conclusive but it’s better evidence than what you’ve got. If the majority of CAU readers hate my secrecy units, they’re a freaking quiet majority. Take a nice long look at those threads and then tell me that I have no good reason to think that you’re in the minority.

Or all the opposition to those units is relatively new. *points to self* You had a different crowd to please a few years back.

What it comes down to in this disagreement is that we have different conceptions of what TAO ought to be as a strategy game and what would improve it, and I don't think they can be resolved any more than my disagreement with Walrus can be resolved.

You're right on that score. I can accept some hiding, though, provided it doesn't change the game from mathematical to psychological on any large scale.

I don’t think it’s possible to do this in any kind of effective way without either creating ten thousand categories or oversimplifying in really bad ways. Again, the theory here isn’t a bad one, but in practice you’re gonna run into problems.

I'll go with oversimplifying. Any division will be helpful, since I'm trying to move away from generalizing all units into one lump and comparing them. Ideally, I hope to find better ways to oversimplify.

This certainly has problems, not the least of which is that it's more dependent on me than I imagined it. I think that my idea, and indeed the whole of CAU, would work better on a wiki. But I'll work with what I have.

[Cross Punisher]

scb you're putting a lot of effort into this, thats for sure, but I don't think there's enough interest in something like this

[Kyir]

*Sits down and continues to agree with Kyir, as he has been doing since Kyir posted on this thread.*

/winatlife

[HierophantNexus]

scb you're putting a lot of effort into this, thats for sure, but I don't think there's enough interest in something like this

I'm interested. and with the weekend coming up I'll have more time to particapate.

Maybe I'll introduce my Witch doctor to the healer thread.

[Kyir]

I'm interested. and with the weekend coming up I'll have more time to particapate.


EVERYTHINGISGOODNOWOKAYRIGHT???.

[Cross Punisher]

I'm interested. and with the weekend coming up I'll have more time to particapate.That's great but without many active people, what you're doing doesn't even reflect what a majority of people think and could just be representative of what about 4 or 5 people think

[scb]

Yes... Wasn't that what the old committee was anyway? The difference here is that we can accept more/fewer people without slowing down (although, as I lamented above, I can't see myself staying away for a while and coming back to see this active).

If only a few people participate, only a few people get a say. The best we can do is to leave our decisions open to challenge in case anyone cares.

[Walrus]

One of the problems with this current system is in how to classify units into a single "concept" group, to give an example, perhaps my favorite self-made unit, the Ranger (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?p=566289#post566289). The "concepts" for this unit are that it has no recovery, and a unique way of avoiding damage, but if another unit came with no recovery it would have to be almost identical to the ranger to be balanced, there simply isnt another feasible way of implementing it (that i can see), hence there isnt going to be much/any point having a specific concept thread just for that.

i vastly prefer this to the old committee though. i was always a rather outspoken opponent to the old way simply because i have never thought that there should be a certain bunch of people who have any more right to judge units than anyone else, and ultimately it all just comes down to opinion.
for example my witch doctor (i posted on the summoner concept thread) started a debate. 2 members of the committee thought it was overpowered, pretty much everyone else (including mithrandir, the chairman of the committee) loved it and rated it very highly. you cant base an objective unit classifying system on a group of people and their subjective opinions in a case like this.

furthermore, the old committee i have always said, was very open to personal bias. at the risk of whining, i think several of my units were criticised completely unfairly by certain members of the old committee, (again, see some of the comments on the ranger and witch doctor, to name two, there were plenty more) and regardless of what i said, did or how i changed a unit, they would still argue defiantly that it was overpowered/underpowered/whatever, there was simply no pleasing them.

the current system is better. everyone has a say, everyone can criticise or praise a unit, there is no elitist circle which CAU'ers have to appease in order to have "made it" in CAU.

my 2 cents.


edit: as it stands now, this thread and idea have my full support. this is effectively going to be a collection of threads for discussing and comparing different units, based on the broad concepts that they use, rather than as a way of trying to classify which units are strictly better or worse than other units.

[scb]

I disagree with you about the no-recovery concept. There are several units with 0 recovery, but not very many. The concept is narrow enough to compare units meaningfully, but other unit creators might have other ideas of what is better. I think that category is valid.

I think that good units will generally have some clearly definable concepts, and with some thought we can divide the concepts in a way we can use.

I think we will end up with classifying units as better, in the form of a record book of the best unit in each concept to date. You can already see the beginnings of this in the first post - the cleric, fairy and planeswalker are up as the best units of their kind, although there is no guarantee that they will stay there.

[bloodreign]

SCB YOUR A PIMP!


and i mean that in a good way!

thanx....... this format is a fresh slap in the face and a welcome kick in the boys with a frosty boot!

[Cross Punisher]

Walrus while i agree with your end decision, I don't agree with any of your points leading up to that end decision.

Anyway this could just end up being the same old way, after all the end result still is a list of the best units in a given concept.

[Walrus]

i prefer a more open-to-all discussion, and i prefer debating similar units relative to each other, rather than trying to judge each unit in isolation. ultimately, all units will be different, but similar enough to be grouped together.

i do hope this project doesnt end up simply rating units like the old committee did, CAU is far, far too subjective for that.

[Cross Punisher]

Sorry it was kinda late last night but now I can go into more detail :p i vastly prefer this to the old committee though. i was always a rather outspoken opponent to the old way simply because i have never thought that there should be a certain bunch of people who have any more right to judge units than anyone else, and ultimately it all just comes down to opinion.
for example my witch doctor (i posted on the summoner concept thread) started a debate. 2 members of the committee thought it was overpowered, pretty much everyone else (including mithrandir, the chairman of the committee) loved it and rated it very highly. you cant base an objective unit classifying system on a group of people and their subjective opinions in a case like this.I re-looked at the posts concerning the witch doctor in the committee thread and im not quite sure, as i quit it almost 2 years ago even while it was still going strong, but i believe you only need a majority opinion to get your unit certified, so if 2 people didn't like it and "everyone else" loved it, it still would have gotten certified...

I really can't say much for people not liking your unit, but i must point out you never offered to change your unit; you never even defended your unit after you submitted it. You submitted it after all the discussion for it had taken place in the original thread, along with 3 other units, to amuse yourself and never made another post addressing or defending it at all. The exact same thing happened with the ranger.

I didn't like it because people took it too seriously and it was impossible for me to think it was just for fun as it's purpose was stated.

[scb]

I want to create the thread for "Controlling other units" now, but I would like to reduce it to one word if possible. Here are the ideas I have:

Possession
Manipulation
Control
Forcing Attacks
Unit Control

Of course, multiple-word opinions are OK, that's why the last two are on there. Which will it be? Or do you have a better idea?

[HierophantNexus]

I'd go with controlling other units. The single or two word comboes are limited in terms of classification. Controling other units seeems to have the broadest meaning.

Possession: is not the only means of controling other units.
Munipulation: leaves the question (munipulation of what? )
Control: leaves the same question as munipulation
Forcing Attacks: is rather limited in that it dosn't include simple movement
Unit Control: leaves the question is the discussion about new unit controls or controling other units.

[Walrus]

I really can't say much for people not liking your unit, but i must point out you never offered to change your unit; you never even defended your unit after you submitted it. You submitted it after all the discussion for it had taken place in the original thread, along with 3 other units, to amuse yourself and never made another post addressing or defending it at all. The exact same thing happened with the ranger.

this was one of the other things that i didnt like about the old committee. i reread the original CAU committee thread (about 40 pages of it at least) and it had deteriorated into people constantly demand explanations for any no-votes cast and bickering. i am much happier to simply provide a concept and see what people think, not to then spend hours justifying it. if someone has actually misunderstood a unit then i will say so, otherwise i prefer to let people be their own judges, rather than have long arduous debates about every single vote or decision which has been made.

scb - unit manipulation would be my suggestion.

[bloodreign]

how about- ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

[scb]

I was actually intending to exclude simple movement, saving that to be a form of Knockback. Would that be a misclassification?

I was intending to lean toward naming the threads with keywords instead of description, but I see now jargon may be a bad idea. That applies to Knockback as well. Should I change that, perhaps to "Moving other units around"? I don't think it should be in the "controlling other units" category, since there are quite a few units in each category. I've responded to quite a few units in the past by complaining about the "knockback" concept, although I am no longer sure it is all bad.

Awaiting further comment on the concept name - I will go with "Controlling other units" if no one says any more on the subject.

[Cross Punisher]

that's fine scb :)

[Walrus]

what about a unit which changes the facing of another unit(s)?

[HierophantNexus]

what about a unit which changes the facing of another unit(s)?

I think that would go in the contoling other units thread.

[scb]

I consider that yet another concept. It would be done for different purposes, i.e. knockback gets units out of the way or away from critical points, while changing direction makes them more vulnerable.