Conquer Club

Reading through all 6 pages I've had a few thoughts:

Having each player start their first turn with a lower number would be more "fair" than each player start with a higher number. This is due to the fact that in the beginning stages of a game, the relative size of a deploy makes all the difference. If you get a 5 deploy you can do much more damage to your opponent than 3 or none and the amount of damage/reach/forethought can only increase depending on the map. That being said, if any "fix" were to be added to the first turn deploy it ought to be that each player need get the same low number as opposed to high.

This suggestion, if it were to be enacted, would have to be optional. This change could affect too many maps/settings in too many different ways for it to be automatic for all games since doing so would eliminate a lot of fun options that people are used to and might actually enjoy.

1v1 games will always appear "unfair" since all of the factors of luck are amplified in these games by nature, including dice rolls. So basically if you're hoping for some kind of fix to make a 1v1 game more even, it will most likely have a nominal affect on the overall outcome of the game. The very beginning may be more even but the middle and end will generally progress to uneven, that's just how it goes with the dynamics of 1v1.

Overall I'm in favor of this suggestion being an option since it would obviously be beneficial on at least some maps/settings(the example provided where the first players got the full 6 troops and the last players got 3 springs to mind). However, I don't think it should be viewed as a cure-all for unbalanced play in a game comprised partially of luck. After all, even in chess white goes first.

its not a cure all... dice will always take center stage in the 1v1's and will take a big part in the rest as well. its not intended to be a cure all and there is no such thing as a cure all...

however it is unfair for anyone to start with a disadvantage in any game. this is just one small step (one that i have no clue why it hasnt been enforced yet as it is obviously a great suggestion and just dumb that it hasnt been implimented yet) towards making things more fair for EVERYONE. if someone really leans on "who goes first"then they have wondered into the wrong site and should go play checkers or tic tac toe.

i still cant believe this has not been implemented yet. what are we waiting on?

reptile wrote:its not a cure all... dice will always take center stage in the 1v1's and will take a big part in the rest as well. its not intended to be a cure all and there is no such thing as a cure all...

Right, I'm agreeing with you. My point was that some people might expect this change to affect games more than it actually will.
A good way to know if this suggestion will actually be helpful would be to do a study of games in which the initial deploys actually made a difference in the outcome. If you bring actual numbers into the picture you will convince a lot more people that this change needs to be made.

reptile wrote:however it is unfair for anyone to start with a disadvantage in any game. this is just one small step (one that i have no clue why it hasnt been enforced yet as it is obviously a great suggestion and just dumb that it hasnt been implimented yet) towards making things more fair for EVERYONE. if someone really leans on "who goes first"then they have wondered into the wrong site and should go play checkers or tic tac toe.

Some people actually like the imbalance of these games in that they give them up to a 50/50 chance of having an advantage off the bat, which is good odds depending on your rank.

reptile wrote:i still cant believe this has not been implemented yet. what are we waiting on?

The key is support. I'm sure there have been a lot of great suggestions in the past but if they don't draw the right amount of support(I'm not sure what the "right" amount is to be perfectly honest), they don't get enacted.

A lot of players have just chosen to avoid those games where going first dramatically affects first deploy. The reason being this site has so many options that you can easily find other options for games that are perfectly fair. Could there be even more fun options if this were enacted? Probably, but it may not be a big issue for a lot of people since they can just play something else.

Everyone should just get 3 (or the map minimum) in the first round. This would be especially helpful in 1v1 when going first is a massive advantage.

reptile wrote:
however it is unfair for anyone to start with a disadvantage in any game. this is just one small step (one that i have no clue why it hasnt been enforced yet as it is obviously a great suggestion and just dumb that it hasnt been implimented yet) towards making things more fair for EVERYONE.

You are just as likely to benefit from the advantage as to suffer. In that way it is fair. Using your line of reasoning, it is "unfair" that anyone should get bad dice. However, it is completely fair in another way since the dice are random.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this as an option (as FT suggests) or as something that could be coded into a particular map (a set deploy based on whether it's your first, second, etc. turn), but I don't think that it should be the default.

Keep in mind that we are all playing a game that is based on rolling dice. Some people may disagree on how much luck should be involved, but it will always be part of the game.

Baltic Peninsula is a perfect example
if you play one on one, the player who goes first has a 98% chance of winning
change the rules so that in round 1 both players get equal deployments. right now the player who goes first wipes out the other and so the player who goes second doesn't get equal deployment in round one

I suggest, quit playing 1vs1 game, it sucks anyway, or play it only on map where who goes first almost doesnt matter

*editing my book i just wrote to simply:

HOW is this not being submitted yet?

(also so many of these similar suggestions are merged its like a big circle, can we take it as a more serious suggestion?)

marius wrote:Baltic Peninsula is a perfect example
if you play one on one, the player who goes first has a 98% chance of winning
change the rules so that in round 1 both players get equal deployments. right now the player who goes first wipes out the other and so the player who goes second doesn't get equal deployment in round one

I think you mean Baltic Crusades, since the new Baltics map hasn't been released yet.

If so, my win rate going second is almost as good as my win rate going first. Invite me to some games and I'll show you.

reptile wrote:*editing my book i just wrote to simply:

HOW is this not being submitted yet?

(also so many of these similar suggestions are merged its like a big circle, can we take it as a more serious suggestion?)

I guess they're still worried it's too radical a change.

Dukasaur wrote:

marius wrote:Baltic Peninsula is a perfect example
if you play one on one, the player who goes first has a 98% chance of winning
change the rules so that in round 1 both players get equal deployments. right now the player who goes first wipes out the other and so the player who goes second doesn't get equal deployment in round one

I think you mean Baltic Crusades, since the new Baltics map hasn't been released yet.

If so, my win rate going second is almost as good as my win rate going first. Invite me to some games and I'll show you.

reptile wrote:*editing my book i just wrote to simply:

HOW is this not being submitted yet?

(also so many of these similar suggestions are merged its like a big circle, can we take it as a more serious suggestion?)

I guess they're still worried it's too radical a change.

My guess is he meant Balkan Peninsula. viewtopic.php?t=75928

Everyone has had games where they were taken out early before their first turn. This is just an unlucky start, but the fact that one may get less troops on the first turn seems unjust. Going first already gives an advantage and this is one advantage that should be taken away. In case I haven't been clear, I think all players should get the same number of troops on the first turn. One exception would be maybe if you happen to have bonus troops based on an area. This is not what I am trying to address. Thanks for listening and I would be interested in other opinions. I apologize if this has already been posted.

Concise description:

Make the amount of troops that all players deploy in the 1st round of a game be determined by the the amount of territories held at the start of the game (as opposed to at the start of their turn) and make bonuses not come into play until round 2.

Specifics/Details:

All players will deploy the amount of troops they would if they were the first player to take a turn without any additional bonuses.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Takes some luck out of the game
• All players deploy same number of troops in Round 1.
• Allows players to have a chance to counter a dropped bonus, thus making it less likely that a dropped bonus decides a game.
• Takes some 1st turn advantage away in games in instances where the player with the first turn can lower opponent's deploy before their opponent gets a chance to take a turn.

How much of a difference is it going to make though? If someone drops Oceania in Classic and it doesn't count until the second turn, they still get the first turn to protect their bonus and fort, making it unlikely the second player will break anyway, and then the +2 comes into effect on the next round.

iAmCaffeine wrote:How much of a difference is it going to make though? If someone drops Oceania in Classic and it doesn't count until the second turn, they still get the first turn to protect their bonus and fort, making it unlikely the second player will break anyway, and then the +2 comes into effect on the next round.

Well, think of other maps too. It may not be much of an issue with the classic map, but when you think about all of the other maps on this site with all of the unique bonuses that are available, there is a fair point to be made here.

I can think of some 1v1 games where my opponent starts off with a bonus and there is not much that I can do to win the game from there.

I doubt this topic will gain much traction, but I do understand the concept.

jmyork82 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:How much of a difference is it going to make though? If someone drops Oceania in Classic and it doesn't count until the second turn, they still get the first turn to protect their bonus and fort, making it unlikely the second player will break anyway, and then the +2 comes into effect on the next round.

Well, think of other maps too. It may not be much of an issue with the classic map, but when you think about all of the other maps on this site with all of the unique bonuses that are available, there is a fair point to be made here.

I can think of some 1v1 games where my opponent starts off with a bonus and there is not much that I can do to win the game from there.

I doubt this topic will gain much traction, but I do understand the concept.

I used Classic because it's an obvious example. The map in case is irrelevant; the same thing would happen on any map in the scenario I used.

Donelladan wrote:I suggest, quit playing 1vs1 game, it sucks anyway, or play it only on map where who goes first almost doesnt matter

^ Bump

Or play in sets of 3 or 5 or 7 games.... Or play poly, all of which will already mitigate the imbalance that will always exist. Someone will always have an advantage anyway you slice it. Someone has to be first, and someone has to be second.

Donelladan wrote:I suggest, quit playing 1vs1 game, it sucks anyway, or play it only on map where who goes first almost doesnt matter

One of the main points of the suggestion is to make 1v1 suck LESS

mookiemcgee wrote:

Donelladan wrote:I suggest, quit playing 1vs1 game, it sucks anyway, or play it only on map where who goes first almost doesnt matter

^ Bump

Or play in sets of 3 or 5 or 7 games.... Or play poly, all of which will already mitigate the imbalance that will always exist. Someone will always have an advantage anyway you slice it. Someone has to be first, and someone has to be second.

Yes, someone will almost always have an advantage, but this suggestion is about minimizing the advantage(or the probability of an advantage), thus resulting in a more skill-based and fun game.

Would it be that difficult to hard-code 3 deploy on the first round for everyone on every map?

This would eliminate a ton of [unnecessary] luck with no drawback whatsoever.

Lord_Bremen wrote:Would it be that difficult to hard-code 3 deploy on the first round for everyone on every map?

This would eliminate a ton of [unnecessary] luck with no drawback whatsoever.

Yes! Shouldn't be difficult

Lord_Bremen wrote:Would it be that difficult to hard-code 3 deploy on the first round for everyone on every map?

This would eliminate a ton of [unnecessary] luck with no drawback whatsoever.

So basically move the issue of 1v1;s being massively luck based from turn 1 to turn 2! Fantastic.

Or not.

I appreciate the purpose behind you idea. I really do despise maps that allow a bonus to be dropped.
Italy, for example, is ridiculous like that. Surely it wouldn't be difficult to fix these maps so bonuses are neutral or just can't be dropped in their entirety?

I know some people enjoy an element of luck and maps like Pearl Harbor are beyond repair.
But it has so many bonuses dropped that it actually evens out in the long run.
Some of the older, standard maps though should be a really easy fix.
Like Montreal, for instance. Just make Downtown neutral! Problem solved.
I thank you.