Conquer Club

Lately it has become ridiculous for me starting games.

I decided to start keeping track of all 1v1 tourney games and how my starts went (I just started yesterday, but this is ridiculous so far) It seems like this keeps happening to me.

I am just venting but here are my results:

36 tourney games all 1v1
I have 11 starts and my opponents have 25 starts--This is beyond frustrating--I wish there was a way to even starts out better.

Hey, if I remember correctly, you started first in MY tourney.



...


YOU'RE WELCOME.

HighlanderAttack wrote:Lately it has become ridiculous for me starting games.

I decided to start keeping track of all 1v1 tourney games and how my starts went (I just started yesterday, but this is ridiculous so far) It seems like this keeps happening to me.

I am just venting but here are my results:

36 tourney games all 1v1
I have 11 starts and my opponents have 25 starts--This is beyond frustrating--I wish there was a way to even starts out better.

to me. the ridiculous part is how much starting decides the winner. to me thats a sham and not an indication of skill

If this suggestion were adopted, the disadvantage of starting second wouldn't be as bad. Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening.

I agree completely. It is amazing how these suggestions get ignored.

Do you know how often - playing Lux 1v1 - the player gets the +2 or +3 bonus drop to start .... way too often, and makes the game senseless to play ... anyway not trying to hijack the thread here.

I have noticed that the player who sets the game up is much more likely to get the first turn. I would venture a guess that I get about an 80% first turn percentage when I set the game up.

This is more than a venting anyway but I do wish two things:

No bonus in first round
Full deploy by both players in first round (so if it is 15 territs both players still get to deploy 5 armies).

It is still luck with the starts and I guess I have bad luck 12of38 now on tourney 1v1 starts-but I do wish for the two things above.


Not sure how hard it would be to code those things in, but it would make 1v1 and actually all games much fairer. At least if you went second you could give some kind of response.

Well, this problem can be partly alleviated by not having unbalanced maps used for 1 V 1. The problem in tournaments is that there aren't as many multi player options, mostly 1 v 1, often on maps in which the first move is so crucial.

Blinkadyblink wrote:If this suggestion were adopted, the disadvantage of starting second wouldn't be as bad. Unfortunately, I don't see that ever happening.

I remember posting in that and thinking it was a great idea.
What did happen?

i really dont understand how that would help and make it more fair?

targetman377 wrote:i really dont understand how that would help and make it more fair?

Instead of one player getting to deploy first and attack first, the first player would get to deploy first and then the second player would get to attack first. It splits up the advantages of going first so that they are shared more equally.

LMAO this morning--just joined 10 more tourney 1v1 games and got a whopping 2 starts--my last three days are now:

17 starts 38 non starts-all 1v1 tourney games

But you didn't take into account the other person your playing. It may be their only start they got in the last ten games. The only way to keep an accurate account would be to play the same player continuously without either player playing any other games against anyone else. Just because I get 5 out of 7 starts against one person doesn't mean that will be the same for everyone I play. Way to many factors to add in when you are playing 1v1 against 30 different players. Just my thoughts.

olkok wrote:But you didn't take into account the other person your playing. It may be their only start they got in the last ten games. The only way to keep an accurate account would be to play the same player continuously without either player playing any other games against anyone else. Just because I get 5 out of 7 starts against one person doesn't mean that will be the same for everyone I play. Way to many factors to add in when you are playing 1v1 against 30 different players. Just my thoughts.

I do take that into account--what I do see is myself:

17 starts 38 non starts--I am getting 1 start for every three games--no one can win 1v1 like that.


This is how it seems to be for me a lot so I decided to track it to make sure I was not just remembering the bad starts. If I get to 200 and only have 60 starts I will try and figure out what I need to do to change what seems to be more than just bad luck

stop playing 1 vs 1

Blitzaholic wrote:stop playing 1 vs 1

This. 1v1 sucks.

Blitzaholic wrote:stop playing 1 vs 1

But I love 1v1

The abuse I receive is driving me mentally insane--wait I am already mentally insane--it is just adding to the insanity.

if you love it stop complaining it comes with the territory

choose the right map and settings...there are a few that while they often can be decided on turn one...very often do not

targetman377 wrote:if you love it stop complaining it comes with the territory

Another bright person missing the point

AAFitz wrote:choose the right map and settings...there are a few that while they often can be decided on turn one...very often do not

1v1 tourney games--don't have control over the maps

HighlanderAttack wrote:

AAFitz wrote:choose the right map and settings...there are a few that while they often can be decided on turn one...very often do not

1v1 tourney games--don't have control over the maps

Says the guy who organizes loads of 1v1 tourneys!

Lx