New gameplay feature setting: *Sparring Match*

[random21]

New gameplay feature setting: Sparring Match

• Balancing 1st and 2nd player turn order in 1 v 1 mainly, possibly beyond

Game settings: generates two games, where both player X and Y get shot at 1st turn equally, essentially, an instant rematch.

• Optional: Both players will have opportunity to play first. .This can be expanded to a 4 player standard game. I.e. Game 1, Player A goes 1st, B 2nd, C 3rd, D 4th. Game 2, B 1st, C2nd, D 3rd, A 4th, Game 3, C1st, D2nd, A3rd, B4th, and game 4, D1st, A2nd, B3rd, C4th.

Players will choose this setting like any other, as an option for gameplay that provides better balanced experience

• Feature for premium members only to encourage membership. With a standard 4 player version of this, a free membership would consume all games instantly by playing in such a setting. So it would be more for paying members. Rematch issue is resolved in cases where Player X goes first, and Y asks for rematch, wherein Player X just gets the random first turn again, and then maybe yet again in an additional match. This never really accomplishes the goal of valid rematch. This setting solves that problem. Automatically both players get a 1st turn. Both games are random drops, with each player going first once between both games.. Either way. 1 V 1 could be for free membership, but restrict other versions for paying... or whichever

[koontz1973]

This is just one of those things. Tournaments try to counter this by sometimes having 3 or 5 games played in rounds but that never really solves the problem. But as I said, it is one of those things that are more annoying when it happens than something that needs to be fixed.

One solution is this, more players get involved in the foundry side of maps. While all maps need to be OKed for 1v1 games and to try and stop 1st player advantage, we do not see all until beta and then it might be too late for major changes.

On another note, changes like this can take years to implement, imagine how many maps you could influence in that time if you took 5-10 minutes a week just to look in the foundry and post. This is where every player can make huge changes to maps before we get to play them.

[random21]

Hmm, not sure if I know how maps can be so easily customized for 1 v 1 games. I mean how many balanced maps are there for 1 v 1 where all players are content to agree? Even a small list be provided?

Are you saying something like this would take a long time on the technical side to program?

I thought it seemed like a simple and fair way to approach the problem.

This would also reduce waste... you wouldn't need 3-5 random games to try and attempt for balancing. You would just set up 1, that creates two. Guaranteed to be fair.

Yes?

Even maps suited with 17 territories isn't good enough. It is far to easily done that 5 starting troops can drop 2nd opponent to 14, and therefore 4 starting troops.

This is an issue that I feel needs quite some attention.

[chapcrap]

What koontz says is true. We can influence the new maps that come on to the site. However, that doesn't really fix any current issue that might be here.

Maps that are usually even for 1v1 are ones that have been worked out that way. For instance, Hive is usually very fair for 1v1 games because you only get 12 to deploy even though it is very large. Maps like Feudal War and King's Court are usually thought to be pretty fair regardless of turn order, because they present a map that has you start at different points and have to rely on strategy for when and where to attack. So, I think that there are definitely some maps that have good solutions.

That being said, I'm not sure what we can do about a map like Classic at this point.


As far as this suggestion, I think it's a neat idea. It kind of doubles your game load though. So, that's an issue. Another issue is that in foggy, it would reveal troop position. Last issue I see now is how do you decide who wins? What if one player wins each half of the match?

[random21]

Agreed, the most balanced maps for 1 v 1 are the larger one's. Hive and Eurasia are decent. Although world 2.1 for reasons listed above is not, and a few others. There are rarely any smaller good maps. Encouraging larger maps like this where you have 12 to start, and 10 in eurasia, with high territory surplus, to help out is good. Also, many bonuses.

In king's court, if two players are adjacent, I find first turn is pretty big advantage still, you rush them.

A win needs to be a sweep. One player wins both. You keep sparring until that happens. In chess this sort of thing is done often enough, although with chess time limits can also be adjusted so each game consumes less. But essentially, it is unfair to let tie break be decided because white has advantage. Therefore, in many cases, a player needs to win in a match off as both playing white and black. so 2 wins in a row.

As a part of it, we could have option for sparring matches that are identical board set up, or random board, but give 1 first turn to each player. Things could be customized for fog, and so on. I don't think that would be hard to solve.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with 1 v 1's that are just a host of neutral territories that need to be fought through. In this case, dice rolls take huge leap in importance. i.e. in King's court 2, you can get pretty far behind with bad die rolls in a 1 v 1. And games where neutrals get larger stacks, like 4 - 6 you can waste a whole deployment going for that.

Classic is unbalanced for soooo many reasons. For so many settings. I think there is just some false sense of importance to its .... classi-ness. Other official risk boards have been made which seem much better in spin offs. lotr 2 is a sweet risk board

In any case, I don't see any particular objection that seem insurmountable.

Edit: and as for game load... still not a big issue, restrict it for paying members for the most part. I also disagree. It doesn't double game load. As already posted, tournaments set up giving 3-5 rounds to achieve balance, this means you don't have to create so many games to reach a balance. Players started 2 games, and its done.

The only people who will use these settings, are those who would play the same number of games otherwise with rematches.

Players who play 1 game winner takes all won't use the setting. Those who use it will be those looking for the increase of games. It won't replace other settings, it will be its own thing to select.

[koontz1973]

random, when I said this is going to take a long time, suggestions can take that. For no other reason, they can just take years and years. Nothing to do with programming.

You say that you have certain maps that you dislike in a 1v1 game. What are they and why do you dislike them. Answer that and then head on over to the foundry. Tell the map makers what it is you dislike and why. You can influence 20+ maps every year by posting there. So if this suggestion took 3 years, that is 60+ maps you can make fair for 1v1 games. But I will point out, we already do try our hardest to make games fair for 1v1. And yes, large maps are great for the 1v1 but it really is up to the map makers to make them and up to you to guide them in that direction.

As far as the suggestion goes, why not. I cannot really see it used much as it would take up half of freeiums games in one go.

[random21]

oh, you meant the discussion. I am involved in other sites that take suggestions from community, and it often comes down to it being a pain to program... my own misunderstanding in that case. I meant nothing by it.

Ok, I'm also fairly new and learning the ropes. I just joined in November... so I'd be happy to give feedback to map makers. If they will listen.

But I still think something in the settings can be done to help balance, beyond the map making.

Why put all our eggs in one basket when tackling this problem.

lol, if I had been around during discussions about trench and nuclear being discussed, I would have said no one would play those... but you never know. I think this could catch on. Fog I would have gone either way. It's interesting for sure, but not my favourite.

[koontz1973]

Ok, I'm also fairly new and learning the ropes. I just joined in November... so I'd be happy to give feedback to map makers. If they will listen.

They have to. One of the rules of the foundry is that any suggestion by a member of the community has to be taken on board unless a reasonable reason why it should not be is found. So if you suggest to a map maker like myself that you think a couple of extra regions would help balance the map, then we have to follow it. You will find some are more willing to listen, but if you are polite and ask (not demand) then you will find most are more than willing to take on any suggestions you have. And remember, the more feedback you give, the better the map is in the end. I will send you a PM so as not to clutter this thread up.

[agentcom]

Neat idea ... I do like the concept of "flipping the board around" to create a second game in a set. But as chap points out, this wouldn't really work for foggy games. So, now we're down to 2-player sunny games and I wonder if there is enough demand for this to justify an update that only affects those types of games. I do think that the existence of this option would lead many people to play it and many tourney directors to organize tourneys around it, though.

[random21]

We could make it that in fog games only, the board drops are random in both games. Where as sunny they are same. Perhaps.

A potential issue to make it that all games are random drops, is if we do make them identical it might lead to attempted copying.

Although this is not a large issue. Even if one player tries to wait and see what the other player does first, it does not guarantee success, as dice and such can be different. But there could be copying that might mean we should make drops random regardless.

Although this could help some players develop strategies, as they see what a potentially better opponent does. Or if a player makes a specific first turn, and then see what the other player did instead... either for better or worse, but especially better, they learn something new about initial deployment.

[Metsfanmax]

I am on board with this suggestion but I do not necessarily agree with the idea of identical drops (and not just for the reason that it affects fog games). The purpose of this suggestion is to remove the advantage associated with going first, but if you lock in the drops to be the same, then you may also be locking in any advantage that comes with said drop. For example, if one person drops a bonus, then they will have the bonus in both games, and even though they go second in one of the two, that may not be enough to remove that massive advantage.

[greenoaks]

this would work for all settings if 2 games were created at once, 1 with player A starting & 1 with player B starting. the drops would be random as normal.

then it wouldn't matter about fog, knowing that someone has dropped a bonus or any other such thing.

[random21]

Yes, if they were both random drops, but gave both sides a shot at first turn. I would be fine with this.

[agentcom]

I am on board with this suggestion but I do not necessarily agree with the idea of identical drops (and not just for the reason that it affects fog games). The purpose of this suggestion is to remove the advantage associated with going first, but if you lock in the drops to be the same, then you may also be locking in any advantage that comes with said drop. For example, if one person drops a bonus, then they will have the bonus in both games, and even though they go second in one of the two, that may not be enough to remove that massive advantage.

I just re-read the suggestion, and I'm confused. The OP says that this switches who is red, that would indicate to me that the players get the opposite drops in the games. So if one players drops a bonus in one, the other player drops the bonus in the other.

[greenoaks]

I am on board with this suggestion but I do not necessarily agree with the idea of identical drops (and not just for the reason that it affects fog games). The purpose of this suggestion is to remove the advantage associated with going first, but if you lock in the drops to be the same, then you may also be locking in any advantage that comes with said drop. For example, if one person drops a bonus, then they will have the bonus in both games, and even though they go second in one of the two, that may not be enough to remove that massive advantage.

I just re-read the suggestion, and I'm confused. The OP says that this switches who is red, that would indicate to me that the players get the opposite drops in the games. So if one players drops a bonus in one, the other player drops the bonus in the other.

this suggestion is a work in progress. there are several versions of it being discussed.

the initial one is identical drop, each player gets to go first in a game - knocked down because it locks in any bonuses dropped for one player in both games.
identical drop but you switch places - knocked down because it would be pointless with fog.
2 random drop games, each player gets to go first in one - this has the op's support but the initial post has not been updated.

do you like/dislike any of these?