[OFFICIAL POLL]No First Player Attack

[Dukasaur]

So what's the deal. Lot of people complaining when THIS happens???

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=13534271

That's a very mild example. You should be able to come back from that without difficulty. But yes, overall that is the type of situation we were hoping to fix.

[BigBallinStalin]

So what's the deal. Lot of people complaining when THIS happens???

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=13534271

That's a very mild example. You should be able to come back from that without difficulty. But yes, overall that is the type of situation we were hoping to fix.

The chance of the 1st player taking that many terries was 11%.

That's pretty infrequent, so it's pretty silly to change EVERYTHING in order to correct for a small minority of rare occurrences---and this one can also be addressed by 6 v 1,2 = 70% chance. or 6v3 = 75% chance! So, even Phatscotty's example is not hopeless.

That's another reason why this rule is a bad idea. If the system isn't broken (which it isn't), then don't change it. Changing the entire system simply because an extremely few amount of games can become unbalanced is absurd; it's overdoing it.

[Dukasaur]

So what's the deal. Lot of people complaining when THIS happens???

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=13534271

That's a very mild example. You should be able to come back from that without difficulty. But yes, overall that is the type of situation we were hoping to fix.

The chance of the 1st player taking that many terries was 11%.

That's pretty infrequent, so it's pretty silly to change EVERYTHING in order to correct for a small minority of rare occurrences---and this one can also be addressed by 6 v 1,2 = 70% chance. or 6v3 = 75% chance! So, even Phatscotty's example is not hopeless.

That's another reason why this rule is a bad idea. If the system isn't broken (which it isn't), then don't change it. Changing the entire system simply because an extremely few amount of games can become unbalanced is absurd; it's overdoing it.

If only 11% of tires on the road were seriously unbalanced, that would be a lot of unhappy car owners, a lot of extra repair work, and even some extra deaths on the road.

Nothing wrong with attempting to tweak a system that produces bad results some of the time to improve the customer experience.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not 11% of all games, as you are implying. Instead it's 11% of 1v1 games with +4 deploys divided by all games. (If we throw in other rare 1v1 scenarios, I bet it's still a small percentage).

This rule does more than 'tweaks' the system. It changes everything, and produces (possibly) good outcomes in some games and bad outcomes in others. It's not a tweak, nor is it on net useful--when imposed as a one-size-fits-all solution.

[Dukasaur]

It's not 11% of all games, as you are implying. Instead it's 11% of 1v1 games with +4 deploys divided by all games. (If we throw in other rare 1v1 scenarios, I bet it's still a small percentage).

This rule does more than 'tweaks' the system. It changes everything, and produces (possibly) good outcomes in some games and bad outcomes in others. It's not a tweak, nor is it on net useful--when imposed as a one-size-fits-all solution.

Specific scenarios of this type or that type might be rare, but the general case (where one player gets a lucky drop, compounds it by going first, and is able to do crippling damage on the second player before the second player has a chance to do anything about it) are fairly common. You don't play a lot of 1v1. I do, so please take my word for it, that the situation is fairly common. Whether it's 4% common or 10% common or 20% common I won't debate. Not only would such a debate require tiresome research to begin, but most problematically it would still require a highly subjective argument about how bad a blowout has to be before we officially call it a blowout.

My argument -- and it is entirely a logically inductive argument that doesn't depend on specific values -- is that customer satisfaction is increased when game results are close and decreased when game results are one-sided.

When a game is a blowout, the loser suffers a large dose of dissatisfaction by having been crushed without ever having a chance. The winner, on the other hand, receives only a tiny amount of satisfaction. He's happy to win, of course, but he knows it was handed to him by luck and not by skill so he takes little satisfaction in it.

The net result is [large negative]+[small positive]=net negative. That is true regardless of any specific small and large values you want to plug in.

When a game is a nail-biter, the winner gains a tremendous amount of satisfaction, knowing he came right to the brink of defeat and navigated safely to victory. It is a big thrill to him. The loser, on the other hand, suffers only a small amount of dissatisfaction. He is unhappy to lose, of course, but he gains some offsetting enjoyment from having been part of a close game, so his final satisfaction level is only slightly negative.

The net result of a nail-biter is [large positive]+[small negative]=net positive. Again, that is true regardless of any specific small and large values you want to plug in.

Blowouts bad, nail-biters good. This is true regardless of which side wins. It is why sports leagues devote so much time and energy to tweaking their rules to make their respective games more competitive. Nobody likes a lopsided massacre other than the winner, and even the winner is somewhat bored by it. Conversely, everyone likes a photo-finish except the loser, and even the loser has some offsetting positive thrill from it.

Anything that can be done to make blowouts less common and close games more common improves the net level of customer satisfaction. This is true regardless of whether you want to argue that blowouts occur 1% of the time or 37.92% of the time.

[BoganGod]

Make it OPTIONAL, or don't bloody well make it at all. The community has loudly said NO to this as a site change. It is not an update, or a tweak. It is a site change. No thank you very much. Make it an option for 1vs1 junkies with the attention span of lobotomised goldfish.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not 11% of all games, as you are implying. Instead it's 11% of 1v1 games with +4 deploys divided by all games. (If we throw in other rare 1v1 scenarios, I bet it's still a small percentage).

This rule does more than 'tweaks' the system. It changes everything, and produces (possibly) good outcomes in some games and bad outcomes in others. It's not a tweak, nor is it on net useful--when imposed as a one-size-fits-all solution.

Specific scenarios of this type or that type might be rare, but the general case (where one player gets a lucky drop, compounds it by going first, and is able to do crippling damage on the second player before the second player has a chance to do anything about it) are fairly common. You don't play a lot of 1v1. I do, so please take my word for it, that the situation is fairly common. Whether it's 4% common or 10% common or 20% common I won't debate. Not only would such a debate require tiresome research to begin, but most problematically it would still require a highly subjective argument about how bad a blowout has to be before we officially call it a blowout.

My argument -- and it is entirely a logically inductive argument that doesn't depend on specific values -- is that customer satisfaction is increased when game results are close and decreased when game results are one-sided.

When a game is a blowout, the loser suffers a large dose of dissatisfaction by having been crushed without ever having a chance. The winner, on the other hand, receives only a tiny amount of satisfaction. He's happy to win, of course, but he knows it was handed to him by luck and not by skill so he takes little satisfaction in it.

The net result is [large negative]+[small positive]=net negative. That is true regardless of any specific small and large values you want to plug in.

When a game is a nail-biter, the winner gains a tremendous amount of satisfaction, knowing he came right to the brink of defeat and navigated safely to victory. It is a big thrill to him. The loser, on the other hand, suffers only a small amount of dissatisfaction. He is unhappy to lose, of course, but he gains some offsetting enjoyment from having been part of a close game, so his final satisfaction level is only slightly negative.

The net result of a nail-biter is [large positive]+[small negative]=net positive. Again, that is true regardless of any specific small and large values you want to plug in.

Blowouts bad, nail-biters good. This is true regardless of which side wins. It is why sports leagues devote so much time and energy to tweaking their rules to make their respective games more competitive. Nobody likes a lopsided massacre other than the winner, and even the winner is somewhat bored by it. Conversely, everyone likes a photo-finish except the loser, and even the loser has some offsetting positive thrill from it.

Anything that can be done to make blowouts less common and close games more common improves the net level of customer satisfaction. This is true regardless of whether you want to argue that blowouts occur 1% of the time or 37.92% of the time.

Sure, 'net level'. I'd love to see the data on that; I guess the poll was not enough for you?

Any argument hinging on 'satisfaction' (utility) will always depend on some means for comparing it across all individuals, thus it can't escape any numeraire (values-based figure) for utility. Besides, there's plenty of premises in your argument which are simply unknown or are false. People place different values on different instances.

It seems that you're mixing up your level of customer satisfaction with everyone's level of customer satisfaction. People often do this when public policy is on the table.

[BoganGod]

Any argument hinging on 'satisfaction' (utility) will always depend on some means for comparing it across all individuals, thus it can't escape any numeraire (values-based figure) for utility. Besides, there's plenty of premises in your argument which are simply unknown or are false. People place different values on different instances.

It seems that you're mixing up your level of customer satisfaction with everyone's level of customer satisfaction. People often do this when public policy is on the table.

Can't agree more with this. Private becomes public when people discuss policy. They convince themselves that the public shares their private view. Then when the numbers so NO, they go in search of different numbers, or a different way to look at the same numbers.

NO MEANS NO.

For the slow kids in the class.

NO F U C K I N G WAY. VOTE IS NO

Make it an option if that is really what floats the boat of the vocal minority trying to push this down the communities neck. An option, not the only option, an option, so one of at least two choices.....

[Dukasaur]

Sure, 'net level'. I'd love to see the data on that; I guess the poll was not enough for you?

If democracy produced optimum results, there would be no [insert favourite government boondoggle here.]

NO MEANS NO.

Don't worry. The proposal is dead as a doornail. I'm not arguing with any hope of reviving it, only for purely academic reasons.

[BoganGod]

Sure, 'net level'. I'd love to see the data on that; I guess the poll was not enough for you?

If democracy produced optimum results, there would be no [insert favourite government boondoggle here.]

NO MEANS NO.

Don't worry. The proposal is dead as a doornail. I'm not arguing with any hope of reviving it, only for purely academic reasons.

Not worried, just beating head against brick wall at some people's self serving arguments. Their arguments are no where near as valid as my self serving arguments.

[Serbia]

Count me as one who has voted against it.

Bollocks.

Thank you, Serbia. You'll be soon invited to the Cool Kids Club.

WHERE IS MY INVITE you're welcome dude I HAVEN'T GOT MY INVITE YET

Bollocks.

You have just been disqualified. You no longer meet the standard of the Cool Kids Club.

Meanie.

Bollocks.

[thenobodies80]

Totally against this. We can do what we want but someone will always have a small advantage, i think it's part of the game.
If what people don 't like is the combo first turn + dropped bonus, well i suggest to change the way the bonus is dropped. Actually we minimize the percentage of starting with a bonus during the map development, but i think it should be that if a bonus is dropped at the start the game should discard it and try with a new drop till a fair one is given.
When this is done, i see no more issue of starting first, someone has to start first in any game.

Btw i see people saying we have maps that are 100% unplayable 1vs1 due the drop...please tell me what maps these are so we can fix the problem. (I think they are the old ones considering how much attention we pay on that aspect nowdays.)

Nobodies

[Artimis]

Totally against this. We can do what we want but someone will always have a small advantage, i think it's part of the game.
If what people don 't like is the combo first turn + dropped bonus, well i suggest to change the way the bonus is dropped. Actually we minimize the percentage of starting with a bonus during the map development, but i think it should be that if a bonus is dropped at the start the game should discard it and try with a new drop till a fair one is given.
When this is done, i see no more issue of starting first, someone has to start first in any game.

Btw i see people saying we have maps that are 100% unplayable 1vs1 due the drop...please tell me what maps these are so we can fix the problem. (I think they are the old ones considering how much attention we pay on that aspect nowdays.)

Nobodies

The better solution is to adjust the game settings to your liking, I don't like 1v1's because one third of the map is always given over to neutrals(in non-conquest maps), that do absolutely nothing except take up space, it's the player you never even need to think about, EVER! At least in a 3 player game you still have to fortify all borders exposed to opponents or risk getting hammered. Neutrals can just be ignored.

So, change the game settings to 3 or more players and you won't have to worry about the advantage/disadvantage of <insert whatever here> in 1v1's. Because the neutrals in a 1v1 game are the only thing on CC that are of less consequence in the game than this cook: feyenascrystal .

[Gweeedo]

Has it ever been suggested to have simultaneous first turn, for every game.
using the freestyle method, just for the first turn.

[spiesr]

Has it ever been suggested to have simultaneous first turn, for every game.
using the freestyle method, just for the first turn.

Doesn't that just give the first turn to whoever joins last? (More so in casual games.)

[friendly1]

I'm surprised having this as an option was simply responded to as We have too many options, then it was dropped.

It seems a perfect game option to me, and could be restricted away from new players.

I guess I'm indifferent on this as I would prefer to be able to play both ways...

[Gweeedo]

Has it ever been suggested to have simultaneous first turn, for every game.
using the freestyle method, just for the first turn.

Doesn't that just give the first turn to whoever joins last? (More so in casual games.)

I think it would diminish the first turn advantage and give the players a chance to play for turn order.

[karel]

keep it the same,its stupid to change it,hell i dont even like the 12 hr fog rule,why wait.

[Nath77440]

Hi everybody.

Just like any games or sports, someone as to start. Beside i can't count the first very bad start i've seen.

SO NO.

Nath.

[demonfork]

In general, this rule is such a bad idea because no one really understands how it will affect the players, their strategies, and their valuations of various maps and settings. The arguments in favor of this rule have currently been ignoring this or have been imaging this problem away. This rule would not be a problem if the rule was optional, but since it isn't, then it isn't a wise idea.

This tactic is called 'shooting from the hip'. Some businesses do this and get lucky; however, most who follow this method do not succeed because decision-makers need to understand the consequences of their proposals. This should be obvious, but the consequences aren't readily revealed through polling a small portion of the customers. For example:

Even if the poll showed 51% in favor or even 70% in favor, all that demonstrates is this:

(a) the majority of forum-goers, a small % of overall players, support the proposal.
(b) the views of the majority of players is unknown
(c) the consequences of the proposal are still unknown.
(d) the number of paying customers and freebies who support/don't support the rule is unknown.

Given the CC-wide applicability of this rule and given the absence of gathering any sufficient marketing data, I don't see how this rule would be beneficial, nor do I see how this business can attract more customers (without of course a lucky 'shot in the dark').

This rule and the expectations of its pushers are symbolic of this site's foolishness.

Out of 10 pages of discussion the above position is about the only one of any worth and validity.

This proposed change is a bad idea.

The unfair advantage that can arise from going first mostly applies to 1v1 on maps with a greater than 3 inital deplyment (as mr changsha pointed out) or when that player drops a bonus.

Maps like Pearl Harbor or Prison Riot where player 1 can end up with a huge first round deployment are broken maps and should be avoided.

A programming change that would prevent a dropped bonus from ever happening shouldn't be hard to implement, this could solve most of the problem.

[lord voldemort]

Silly idea

[frankiebee]

I still really really don't get why people are against it.

All this rule does is make things more fair.

Going first might become a disadvantage after this rule, but is this disadvantage greater than going last with the current rules set?

[greenoaks]

I still really really don't get why people are against it.

All this rule does is make things more fair.

Going first might become a disadvantage after this rule, but is this disadvantage greater than going last with the current rules set?

we don't care about 'fair' for 1 game, it all evens out in the end.

[BoganGod]

I still really really don't get why people are against it.

All this rule does is make things more fair.

Going first might become a disadvantage after this rule, but is this disadvantage greater than going last with the current rules set?

Accepting that there is going to be some element of disadvantage is a risk we take. Map selection can help negate this advantage. Radically changing EVERYTHING on site is not a risk 66% of the community that can be bothered with forums is willing to take. Frankie why would people be for a change that only "fixes" or makes fairer 1vs1 games.


FIX WHAT IS BROKEN before going around looking to find ways to f*ck up what is working. Invite function isn't working properly for team games and tournament games. poly has fucked map rank and other add ons, the list could go on. There are so many much more worthy suggestions. Giving this "OFFICIAL" poll oxygen is a putrid reminder of the bad old days of poor decision making. The community has more than spoken, they have shouted. NOW LOCK THIS WASTE OF SPACE and start a new poll on a more worthy topic.