I hate seeing 2 player games on maps that are totally NOT 2 player games. Kjedlor gets a lot of 2 players games and I think that is also very wrong. I basically only have it as an option on my dual maps.
Of course I usually make maps for a set number of players or for 3 or 5 players. That's just how I roll.

Cramchakle wrote:

http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Castles/Charts

As a matter of precedent/policy, I want to throw this out for debate: The chart for wins in 2 player games shows a pretty strong advantage to player 1. 70/100 games. Is the expectation that authors use this information to update a map and release a new version? I certainly want to take away the 2 player games as an option (a shame, seeing as how many 2 players games are played on it). How does the community feel about potentially altering the way points/champ-points are earned based on this information?

Ok, Let's put an expected 3:2 Player1:Player2 win ratio on the table.

In a round robin tournament where you play 6 games, you should sit as player 1 three times, and player 2 three times.  You should lose one game as Player1 and two games as Player2.  In other words, provided that the tourney has you sit in each seat an equal amount of times, you should expect to go 3-3 and it will be a fair tournament.

I don't see any reason that this logic doesn't apply when the ratio doesn't perfectly line up with the number of games.  For instance, take same 6 game tourney with an expected 5:4 win ratio. All other things being equal, you should still expect to go 3-3.  This doesn't mean that the un-fairness of the board won't affect the tournament scores, but I don't necessarily see a problem with this. The further the fairness of the board from 1:1, the less we should expect the winner of the tournament to win all of the games, and as a result there should be more ties.  Consider for example an extremely unfair game with a 100:1 win ratio for seat 1.  In such a tournament, most will go 3-3, but there will probably be a handful (at most) of upsets, and these players (or perhaps just one player) will share first place with a 4-2 record.

In non-tournament play, provided that the seats are randomly distributed, all of the above logic should still apply.  Play the game enough times and the better players will come out on top.

RiskyBack wrote: I hate seeing 2 player games on maps that are totally NOT 2 player games. Kjedlor gets a lot of 2 players games and I think that is also very wrong.

I have to say I wasn't all that pleased with that trend, either, though it was due almost entirely to the actions of two players. I generally try to be as nonrestrictive in my board designs as possible, under that the host should have some say over what kind of game he or she wants to play -- if they really want a duel, even though the map doesn't play very well as a duel IMO, then I don't see any reason not to let them do just that.

However, I understand that the possible influence on rankings is an issue as well in this, as playing unfair duels will generally work out to the advantage of a player who starts a whole lot of them. That said, I don't really care one way or the other, but as a default I give as much discretion to the game host as possible.

Kjeld wrote:

However, I understand that the possible influence on rankings is an issue as well in this, as playing unfair duels will generally work out to the advantage of a player who starts a whole lot of them. That said, I don't really care one way or the other, but as a default I give as much discretion to the game host as possible.

Are you saying that the person who creates games is more likely to sit in first seat?  I've suspected this - even give the low number of games I have started.   If it were true, it would definitely be a problem.

I'd be shocked if that were true.

I generally operate under the assumption that playing 1v1 games on boards not specifically designed to accomodate them is going to be a coin-flip to determine who gets the huge advantage of going first. I'm not surprised at all that the ratio on Castles is ~70/30 (and I'm guessing it's an even larger disparity on Kjeldor). I don't think anybody starting or joining that type of game should be surprised, so I don't think there's anything inherently unfair about allowing the practice. I join these games occasionally when I feel like gambling.

I disagree with Kjeld's statement that this will work out to the advantage of a player starting lots of these games - in fact, I'd argue the opposite, that he'll suffer a bit of a disadvantage because the players JOINING those games I'd guess would on average be of lower ranking. Of course, this is all predicated on seat order determination being random, which, again, I'd be shocked and upset if it were not.

I interpreted Kjeld's "starts a whole lot of them" to mean "goes 1st more often". I don't think he meant to imply that people creating games have a higher probability of going 1st. Kjeld feel free to correct me.

IRoll11s wrote:

I interpreted Kjeld's "starts a whole lot of them" to mean "goes 1st more often". I don't think he meant to imply that people creating games have a higher probability of going 1st. Kjeld feel free to correct me.

Perhaps the context of his statement..

Kjeld wrote:

"I give as much discretion to the game host as possible"

..led me and asm to believe that he that he thought otherwise.

No matter, I just went back over the last twelve games I started (which have averaged about four players each), and wouldn't you know it, I sit first seat in three of them.  It's a very small sample, but seat placement is looking pretty random to me.

I've been misunderstood. I didn't interpret Kjeld's statement to mean that the host has an advantage in getting favorable seat position. I interpreted it to mean NOT that, but to mean that players who commonly host 1v1 games have some other advantage, a position that I disagree with.

M57 wrote:

Kjeld wrote:

However, I understand that the possible influence on rankings is an issue as well in this, as playing unfair duels will generally work out to the advantage of a player who starts a whole lot of them. That said, I don't really care one way or the other, but as a default I give as much discretion to the game host as possible.

Are you saying that the person who creates games is more likely to sit in first seat?  I've suspected this - even give the low number of games I have started.   If it were true, it would definitely be a problem.

To set the record straight, what I meant by the above statement is exactly the sense of things to which asm disagrees.

To elaborate, while someone who starts a whole bunch of 1v1 games is likely to be playing players of lower rankings, as asm states, I think it's also true that a lot of those players will be noobs, and thus (a) more likely to have no idea what they're doing and throw their advantage away if they happen to be first seat, and (b) more likely to skip turns or get booted. It was the higher expected proportion of noobs to which I was referring by in my statement that the host of a large number of 1v1s on a board has the overall advantage. This is heightened for skewed boards because experienced members are more likely to ignore an obviously skewed game (like a 1v1 on Kjeldor or Castles) because the game almost always goes to player #1 and is thus, as asm asserts, a toss-up.

Also, for the reasons discussed here, I've decided to get rid of the 2-player option on Kjeldor (new version already promoted), as it annoys me and I think misrepresents the board. The new minimum number of players is 3.

Kjeld Wrote:

To elaborate, while someone who starts a whole bunch of 1v1 games is likely to be playing players of lower rankings, as asm states, I think it's also true that a lot of those players will be noobs, and thus (a) more likely to have no idea what they're doing and throw their advantage away if they happen to be first seat, and (b) more likely to skip turns or get booted. It was the higher expected proportion of noobs to which I was referring by in my statement that the host of a large number of 1v1s on a board has the overall advantage. This is heightened for skewed boards because experienced members are more likely to ignore an obviously skewed game (like a 1v1 on Kjeldor or Castles) because the game almost always goes to player #1 and is thus, as asm asserts, a toss-up.

I guess I don't understand.  Why wouldn't someone of higher rank join this game?  If they are dealt an inferior seat, they have a chance of taking out the host because of their superior skill, and if they get a better seat, they have an excellent chance of winning.  Furthermore, they stand to get more points for defeating a better player, who (and I hate to feed into your fallacy), has potentially inflated his or her rating by virtue of playing and supposedly beating all of those inferior players.

Remember, in defeating a noob, a good player doesn't gain as much. 1200 defeating 980 is worth 15 points and losing is -25 (That's the way I read it).  In this case, is it worth taking a chance on getting dealt a bad seat on a board where they stand to lose 60% more than they gain?

Noob's are wild cards.  Yes, some join and never take a turn.  In this sense, the strategy holds water, but some are converts from ToS and are quite a bit more experienced than their ratings might suggest.

I'm just not convinced that unfair boards are really unfair in the long haul.  That said, I just bumped up King of the Mountains to a minimum of 3 players, but only because nothing about the concept of the game suggests that the first to move should have an advantage.  With Appomattox, it's an entirely different story - literally?  figuratively?  virtually?  Heck, I don't know..

I think the idea is that people with higher rankings don't join games that they know won't be fun. I don't join 2 player games on those boards because it's decided after the first couple turns, and then I'm just taking turns towards a loss so I don't get booted.

A few weeks ago, when I was first getting started here, I joined a 2-person Feudal Japan game. I drew first place, and because of the large bonus I started with I beat the snot out of him on turn 1 and he could never recover. While it is always fun to win, that was much less fun than normal - and I certainly would not want to be on the other side of that. So, no more two player games on boards like that for me. I am guessing many people who are "higher rank" are similarly not looking for such games - whether they are "easy" points or not.

ps Feudal Japan has a 36/60 = 60% win for seat 1 on two player games.

M57 wrote:

I guess I don't understand.  Why wouldn't someone of higher rank join this game?  If they are dealt an inferior seat, they have a chance of taking out the host because of their superior skill, and if they get a better seat, they have an excellent chance of winning.

Because if we take as a given that going first in a game of this type dramatically increases one's chances of winning, then it follows that each player has a 50% chance of a near-guaranteed win. Whereas in, say, a 4-player game that's designed for 4, I have a much greater than 25% chance of winning based on skill (accepting for the moment the additional assumption that I'm good. Gentlemen, start your engines...). Why leave to luck what can be gained by skill?

asm wrote:

M57 wrote:

I guess I don't understand.  Why wouldn't someone of higher rank join this game?  If they are dealt an inferior seat, they have a chance of taking out the host because of their superior skill, and if they get a better seat, they have an excellent chance of winning.

Because if we take as a given that going first in a game of this type dramatically increases one's chances of winning, then it follows that each player has a 50% chance of a near-guaranteed win. Whereas in, say, a 4-player game that's designed for 4, I have a much greater than 25% chance of winning based on skill (accepting for the moment the additional assumption that I'm good. Gentlemen, start your engines...). Why leave to luck what can be gained by skill?

During this period of wargear-nerding I've been through (I promised, no more joining till my game count comes back to normal) I've been creating about 30 1vs1 games, but the reason I did it was to gain some more understanding of the strategy of the game. The first-seat advantage isn't so decisive for me, in fact I've lost couple of games playing first, while starting from the second seat is challenging and winning means I've improoved a bit.

Playing and winning a 4-player (or higher) game is instead a lot more satisfactory and requires much more focus and having a good understanding of the game's pace, which I think, is what makes the difference between a good player and an average one (maybe one of the thing, bur surely one of the most important).

(=

Btw, talking about 1vs1 games, did you see that on Global Warfare it has been played a game that lasted 120 days??? How's that possible??? Can't imagine that...

XD

Awesome idea! That board is just no fun with 2 people (from my limited experience).

When I'll find boring playing 1vs1 on that map I'll know I am a good player. Right now it still thrills me a bit.

d=

Tesc, on the Risk boards going first in a 1v1 isn't as decisive an advantage, although it's still significant. We're talking for the most part about much larger boards intended for even more players.

asm wrote: Tesc, on the Risk boards going first in a 1v1 isn't as decisive an advantage, although it's still significant. We're talking for the most part about much larger boards intended for even more players.

Well, for larger boards I guess it's boring and that's it. No questioning. On Global e Wargear Warfare going first can be decisive if you start with a nice set up in AU or SA. Then I guess much of the game comes from bad/good rolls and strategy.

But I wouldn't play any other larger board even at the level I'm now, I agree with you guys.

(=

I realize that Dev games are not included in the chart stats (and I'm not saying they should be) but is there a way we could possibly get their stats to show just for the boards themselves? I'm thinking it'd be really nice to be able to see at least the Winning Seat Position stat during testing because I'm having such a hard time getting my Disc Wars board to work/balance out the way I'm wanting it to. Of course, that may just be due to inexperience with a lot of what's involved with the board and I realize that there wouldn't really be enough games started on it during Dev to get an accurate idea of fairness. Just wanting to through this idea out there if it's something easy to do and enough people like the idea. If not, no biggie.

And my apologies if this should have gone under Dev games or Suggestions or wherever else. :/