By clicking the button below you are agreeing to the terms of service.
<placeholder>
<placeholder>
<placeholder>
<placeholder>.
<placeholder>
Hrvatski
Dansk
Nederlands
English
Eesti
Français
Deutsche
ελληνικά
Magyar
Italiano
Norsk
Português
Español
Svenska
 
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4
FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 34 of 34
  1. #31
    Level 1: Faint Background Noise Squintgnome is on a distinguished road Squintgnome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    9
    Sorry, just had an adjustment to my own suggestion. It would be simpler to bid just once. For example, the colors are red, blue, and white (neutral) and you dictate that red always go first. The bid is for who will play red, which decides both color and turn order.
    I play 'Axis and Allies' online also and this is how their bid system works. The Axis always goes first, but the game is considered unbalance. So players bid for who will play Axis.

  2. #32
    Studio Production Manager Shepherd is a name known to all Shepherd is a name known to all Shepherd is a name known to all Shepherd is a name known to all Shepherd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Left of center.
    Posts
    3,959
    Regarding my previous suggestion of not allowing player one to attack, but only to place troops:

    Quote Originally Posted by Roscokov View Post
    I would rather be the 2nd player because the first person to attack ALWAYS gets an advantage. You also get to see where the other person has placed their troops which would be nice...
    Quote Originally Posted by Dalinar View Post
    I did test this quite a bit with friendly games against Th-child, namelochil, and Elmer and the conclusion I reached (and I believe they'd agree) was that the full deploy still gave the first player a bit of advantage.
    Two opinions, two different takes on it. I think that the difference is in the type of game you're playing. In a 2-player game, attacking first will always give you some advantage - you are the first to build a set of reserves, and you are likely the first to put together a bonus. However, in anything with three or more players, it sometimes makes sense just to place troops on your first turn, so attacking isn't always as important. But then, the advantage of going first in a 3+ player game can be mitigated by the other players working against you.

    In my opinion the only game type that could use any sort of a fix to level the playing field is 2-player.
    When sorrows come they come not in single spies, but in battalions.

  3. #33
    Level 6: Prominent Opinion BearNecessities is on a distinguished road BearNecessities's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMax14 View Post
    On most 1v1 maps, this game is usually decided by who goes first. I believe I have won about 99% of the time when I get the first move, and lost maybe 80% of the time if I go second. Going first currently is the biggest factor in any 1v1 game. In chats with many of you, I get that most agree.

    To make it fair, a bidding system should be initiated. It would work like this:
    Both players enter a game. They then both place a bid on how many extra units they would need to go second. So if Player A bids 5 and Player B bids 4, Player A would go first. Then, on Player B's turn, they would get 4 extra units deployed. If both players bid is the same, then either let them re-bid or randomly select.
    Bidding is indeed an elegant solution, one that allows for more than simply fixing the head to head first turn advantage issue (more on the extra benefits in a second). All head to head play in MC, whether 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or more, features a significant first turn advantage, it's a readily accepted fact that most everyone seems happy to agree needs to be addressed. Bidding works really well in Axis and Allies (A&A) competitive play - providing for normalization of balance advantages. It should work just as well here. I put my full support behind this recommendation.

    Side benefit: Handicap
    The bid system can also be used to provide for handicapping. Imagine a freshman player arrives at the site with a pre-existing friendship with a high ranked player (suppose TH Child, just for fun). The high ranked player wants to play with this rookie, but doesn't want to crush his/her spirits with an almost certain defeat. They can recommend to the new player to place a particular bid, say 5 troops, knowing that that bid will be accepted because the experienced player intends to bid 30 million or some ridiculously high number. The rookie would go second, but with a +5 handicap, thereby leveling the "experience playingfield" in much the same way pro chess players will play non-pros without their queen or some other high value piece.

    Quote Originally Posted by sundicekid View Post
    I usually avoid 1v1's for the 1st turn advantage reason - but, I don't think the bidding idea will go over too well. It adds another level of 'slow down' for people who may be new, only have 4 games with none started, then when it finally does start they don't know what they should bid, so they lose interest and go away. ... Simple is best.
    Player retention is important, but most successful games emphasize legacy (veteran) player retention over new player retention: Legacy players have a higher rate of recidivism and a higher per capita spend rate ($) typically.
    Further, it's pure conjecture to suppose that adding a bid field to game lobbies on "join" would slow anything down enough to drive new players away. It's reasonable to worry about it, but its unreasonable to act upon that worry in a way that kills a truly superb fix to an existing problem.

    To speak directly to the concern of 'slow down:' Upon joining a head to head game (again, 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc), each player would submit a bid for going second just after hitting the "join" button. A field could be presented for their bid, with a hyperlink to a brief explanation. The field can be pre-populated with the typical bid, a bid most likely to normalize the advantage (this can be tune for each map/setting, and probably would have to be, assuming much map selection and game settings can change the power of first turn advantage). In this instantiation, the 'slow down' might be limited to 1-10 seconds for the typical game between experienced players, or up to 40 seconds for people who've never seen bidding before. That's hardly unreasonable. One might shortcut the problem further by having a selection field on game set-up fixing the bid at a pre determined value, reducing 'slow down' to zero. No bidding would be done and the second player would receive a +X bonus without ever having to think about it or take any additional action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalinar View Post
    This would work but would give knowledgeable players a pretty big advantage - you'd eliminate first turn advantage and people who how to value the 1st turn given deploy size (and there is an approximate mathematical answer) would have more of an advantage. I suppose I should be in favor of that since that's probably me, but I favor just giving the second player that answer as an automatic bonus - we don't need to advantage those can do math even more.

    And Rosco/Sheriff, I find first turn advantage at least as bad with fixed force. I've played enough Th and Dorcee in FF 1v1s to know against good players it's basically an extended execution for the person going 2nd. The 1st player gets an advantage and it's easy enough to hold onto it. Surprise, surprise, it takes a lot of luck to overcome (on the drop or cards). Fixed force also eliminates the advantage to attacking of the current game, which I find an important strategic element.

    But, I'd sure take it over the current standard 1v1. Keep it an optional setting and then you don't have newbies betting against officers.
    These are all great points. I believe that my response to sundicekid on the topic of including a "fixed bidding" option during setup addresses your concern of experienced player advantage.
    I'd also like to push back a bit on your default assumption: Why should we be in the business of reducing the benefit of experience? So long as the inexperienced player has access to the same information (provided by way of the wiki or other instructional material), taking any steps to give them a greater chance of winning against a TH Child and Dorcee in a 2v2 seems well outside of the scope of the mission here.

    Love the discussion, you are all giving this the thought it deserves! Tear my points apart, I look forward to your views!

  4. #34
    Level 8: Renowned Expert riskyone commands your respect riskyone commands your respect riskyone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNecessities View Post
    Bidding is indeed an elegant solution, one that allows for more than simply fixing the head to head first turn advantage issue (more on the extra benefits in a second). All head to head play in MC, whether 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or more, features a significant first turn advantage, it's a readily accepted fact that most everyone seems happy to agree needs to be addressed. Bidding works really well in Axis and Allies (A&A) competitive play - providing for normalization of balance advantages. It should work just as well here. I put my full support behind this recommendation.

    Side benefit: Handicap
    The bid system can also be used to provide for handicapping. Imagine a freshman player arrives at the site with a pre-existing friendship with a high ranked player (suppose TH Child, just for fun). The high ranked player wants to play with this rookie, but doesn't want to crush his/her spirits with an almost certain defeat. They can recommend to the new player to place a particular bid, say 5 troops, knowing that that bid will be accepted because the experienced player intends to bid 30 million or some ridiculously high number. The rookie would go second, but with a +5 handicap, thereby leveling the "experience playingfield" in much the same way pro chess players will play non-pros without their queen or some other high value piece.


    Player retention is important, but most successful games emphasize legacy (veteran) player retention over new player retention: Legacy players have a higher rate of recidivism and a higher per capita spend rate ($) typically.
    Further, it's pure conjecture to suppose that adding a bid field to game lobbies on "join" would slow anything down enough to drive new players away. It's reasonable to worry about it, but its unreasonable to act upon that worry in a way that kills a truly superb fix to an existing problem.

    To speak directly to the concern of 'slow down:' Upon joining a head to head game (again, 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc), each player would submit a bid for going second just after hitting the "join" button. A field could be presented for their bid, with a hyperlink to a brief explanation. The field can be pre-populated with the typical bid, a bid most likely to normalize the advantage (this can be tune for each map/setting, and probably would have to be, assuming much map selection and game settings can change the power of first turn advantage). In this instantiation, the 'slow down' might be limited to 1-10 seconds for the typical game between experienced players, or up to 40 seconds for people who've never seen bidding before. That's hardly unreasonable. One might shortcut the problem further by having a selection field on game set-up fixing the bid at a pre determined value, reducing 'slow down' to zero. No bidding would be done and the second player would receive a +X bonus without ever having to think about it or take any additional action.


    These are all great points. I believe that my response to sundicekid on the topic of including a "fixed bidding" option during setup addresses your concern of experienced player advantage.
    I'd also like to push back a bit on your default assumption: Why should we be in the business of reducing the benefit of experience? So long as the inexperienced player has access to the same information (provided by way of the wiki or other instructional material), taking any steps to give them a greater chance of winning against a TH Child and Dorcee in a 2v2 seems well outside of the scope of the mission here.

    Love the discussion, you are all giving this the thought it deserves! Tear my points apart, I look forward to your views!
    This fascinated me. I had never even considered such a thing as a bid system. I see this is an idea brought up a long time ago. Was there more discussion on this?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Are you searching for a place to play RISK online? Try a Risk-Like game here at Major Command. We offer a unique global conquest game that will satisfy your RISK online cravings. RISK is a trademark of Hasbro. Major Command is not associated with Hasbro or thier RISK game in any way. | Privacy | Terms | Flash10+ required.
Major Command Game is always working on Upgrades and Improvements - Please suport us if you can. Thank You! :-)
Membership Options