unplayed was ours
Tier S (a fix and a measurement inside a boundary; chaos d8=4 from
CB-WP-0029's roll, no override).
cb-play built EVERY game with ScoringMode::SharedGround and passed an
empty patch. The mode was settable in scenarios and not from the driver,
so two of the three shipped modes were unreachable from the only way
anyone actually plays. F14 sat open for a week because nobody could reach
the thing it was about.
--mode added. All three now play out and give DIFFERENT WINNERS FROM
IDENTICAL PLAY: shared -> all four seats (mastery 4), common -> P3 alone
(top personal scorer), coalitions -> P1+P2 (best Bond network, 4>3>2).
Same 37 commands, three answers.
AND THEY ANSWER F17'S OPEN QUESTION. I had flagged that ATTACK might earn
its place where Blame costs personal score. It does not, in any mode:
SHARED GROUND 132/165/190/200 -> identical free but pointless
COMMON PROBLEM 59/52/48/44 -> 59/52/48/34 a cost at six seats
BONDED COALITIONS 131/134/132/116 -> 59/52/48/34 roughly halved
The coalitions row has a mechanism and the data confirms it unprompted.
GR-A07 flips a Bond to a Rivalry on Attack, and GR-E04 scores Bond
NETWORKS -- so attacking destroys the thing that scores. And the attacking
numbers in E04 are IDENTICAL to E03's, which is exactly what that
predicts: break every Bond and each seat is a coalition of one, so GR-E04
degenerates into GR-E03. That check was not designed; it fell out.
F14 -> applied. F17 strengthened and no longer bounded to co-op: ATTACK
has no mode in which it helps, and one where it actively destroys your
score.
Still framed as a question rather than a verdict. DARVO is the pattern the
game is about not falling into, so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the
design. What ground-game has to decide is whether the namesake mechanic
being unreachable in competent play -- in all three modes -- is intended.
make all: exit 0.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
says
Five games per seat count, 2-6 players. NO ANOMALIES: every game reaches
5 rounds with an outcome, no stalls, no stress above the cap, no
over-claimed Problems.
But the series showed something a crash never would. DARVO NEVER FIRED IN
25 GAMES and stress never exceeded 2. Measured wider: GreedyPolicy plays
ATTACK exactly ZERO times in 10,000 selections across 500 games.
THAT NUMBER IS ABOUT OUR BOT, NOT THE GAME. bot.rs ranks
`Action::Attack => 10`, below everything. Reporting "the game gives no
incentive to attack" from a policy we programmed to rank attack last would
have been CB-WP-0025's C4 error committed again -- a single policy's
behaviour presented as the game's.
So the artifact varies exactly one number: ATTACK's rank in an otherwise
identical policy, 200 games per cell.
rank 10 (below all): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 0 attacks, 0 DARVO
rank 75 (above SUPPORT): 132/165/190/200/200 wins, 315-923, 13-218
rank 95 (above SOLVE): 0/0/0/0/0 wins, 1400-5170, 400-1000
THE MIDDLE ROW IS THE FINDING. Identical win counts at every seat count,
while attacking hundreds of times and arming DARVO repeatedly. Attacking
is not punished -- it is INERT with respect to the goal. Group success is
a function of SOLVE alone, and ATTACK costs anything only when it ranks
above SOLVE and displaces it.
The maintainer was right and the reason is sharper than his phrasing:
there is no incentive because there is no PATH. ATTACK's effects (Stress,
Rivalry, DARVO) feed nothing that decides group_success.
Bounded honestly to SHARED GROUND. Blame costs PERSONAL score, so ATTACK
may earn its place in GR-E03 and GR-E04 -- which have never been played to
the end (F14), and that is where to ask next. And this is NOT a claim the
game is broken: DARVO is the pattern the game is about not falling into,
so a self-destructive ATTACK may be the design. The question for
ground-game is whether the namesake mechanic being unreachable in
competent co-op play is intended.
F17 promoted from note to raised, with games/ground/examples/attack-value.rs
as its reproduction. Register: 18 findings, 8 with a resolving
reproduction.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
