Conquer Club

Concise description:

• In 1v1 "Best Of X" challenges in auto-tournaments, the number of first turns for both players should differ by 1, assuming X is an odd number

Specifics/Details:

• Example: in a "Best Of 5" challenge, there should be three first turns for one player and two for the other
• Without knowing how the game engine works, my first suggestion would be to keep randomly redrawing the game configurations until this criterion is met and then generate the games themselves
• Could also be applied when "Start A Game" -> "Number of games" is greater than 1

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• It will reduce any overall advantage gained by taking the first turn in the majority of games, putting a greater emphasis on skill
• For example, I just went first in three out of three games in Round 2 of the Hive Masters auto-tournament, which was unfair on my opponent.

EDIT: Now an auto-tournament suggestion

I like that....and yes it should not be too dificult to implement for a skilled programmer....and bigWham has showed us several times he is indeed that

Agreed.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this at first glance, but I wonder how this would be determined for non-autotournaments.

I'm fine with this. More broadly, in chess tournaments there are well-designed algorithms for ensuring that people get white/black mostly evenly, and we could adapt those for tournaments other than 1v1s.

Actually, this is pretty necessary. In round three of Hive masters, I'm going first in ALL 5 OF MY GAMES.

I find this is one of the best suggestion made for a while...and relatively easy to implement. Strange it does not get more attention....

If you like this....say so.....if you don't like...say so

MrPinky wrote:I find this is one of the best suggestion made for a while...and relatively easy to implement. Strange it does not get more attention....

If you like this....say so.....if you don't like...say so

This forum doesn't get much traffic. Five comments in two weeks is actually pretty good for a Suggestion.

Po: Grasshopper, seek first to know your own journeys beginning and end. Seek then the other journeys of which you are a close part. But in this seeking, know patience. Wear that travelers cloak, which shelters and permits you to endure.

Maybe the OP should be updated to indicate that this should just be for tournaments. If it's not, it adds a lot of complexity to the start a game page.

I like this one though!

chapcrap wrote:I don't necessarily have a problem with this at first glance, but I wonder how this would be determined for non-autotournaments.

Yeah, good point. I've never organised a tournament so I don't know if you guys have extra tools for setting up or if you just have to go through "Start A Game" making one at a time.

Obviously, if someone is making duplicate games from "Start A Game" -> "Number of games" (even outside of a tournament) then this suggestion could be applied. Mixed settings would be trickier.

Foxglove wrote:Maybe the OP should be updated to indicate that this should just be for tournaments. If it's not, it adds a lot of complexity to the start a game page.

I like this one though!

OK, I rephrased it to be an auto-tournament suggestion, with possible extension to "Start A Game" with "Number of games" > 1.

See above post for complications when running regular tournaments.

D4 Damager wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I don't necessarily have a problem with this at first glance, but I wonder how this would be determined for non-autotournaments.

Yeah, good point. I've never organised a tournament so I don't know if you guys have extra tools for setting up or if you just have to go through "Start A Game" making one at a time.

Obviously, if someone is making duplicate games from "Start A Game" -> "Number of games" (even outside of a tournament) then this suggestion could be applied. Mixed settings would be trickier.

Currently Start a Game allows you to make up to 5 games simultaneously.

Dukasaur wrote:

D4 Damager wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I don't necessarily have a problem with this at first glance, but I wonder how this would be determined for non-autotournaments.

Yeah, good point. I've never organised a tournament so I don't know if you guys have extra tools for setting up or if you just have to go through "Start A Game" making one at a time.

Obviously, if someone is making duplicate games from "Start A Game" -> "Number of games" (even outside of a tournament) then this suggestion could be applied. Mixed settings would be trickier.

Currently Start a Game allows you to make up to 5 games simultaneously.

Sorry, my fault, I wasn't clear: I meant that if you are running a tournament with mixed settings / restricted maps selection, etc.. then I don't know if there is a tool for tournament organisers to make a group of such games with a single button click or if they have to rerun Start A Game with manual selections each time. ie.. if the tournament advertises random reinforcement type, does the TO have to manually select one chained, one parachute, another chained, etc.. In which case, this suggestion would be impossible to implement there.

Probably still not clear. Let me know if you need a less mangled explanation

D4 Damager wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

D4 Damager wrote:

chapcrap wrote:I don't necessarily have a problem with this at first glance, but I wonder how this would be determined for non-autotournaments.

Yeah, good point. I've never organised a tournament so I don't know if you guys have extra tools for setting up or if you just have to go through "Start A Game" making one at a time.

Obviously, if someone is making duplicate games from "Start A Game" -> "Number of games" (even outside of a tournament) then this suggestion could be applied. Mixed settings would be trickier.

Currently Start a Game allows you to make up to 5 games simultaneously.

Sorry, my fault, I wasn't clear: I meant that if you are running a tournament with mixed settings / restricted maps selection, etc.. then I don't know if there is a tool for tournament organisers to make a group of such games with a single button click or if they have to rerun Start A Game with manual selections each time. ie.. if the tournament advertises random reinforcement type, does the TO have to manually select one chained, one parachute, another chained, etc.. In which case, this suggestion would be impossible to implement there.

Probably still not clear. Let me know if you need a less mangled explanation

I understand what you're saying...

Making multiple games simultaneously only works if they are identical in every way. If there is any difference whatsoever, they have to be created separately.

This is a good idea. Just have each player start in (n-1)/2 games and randomize the last one.

make this for tournaments with several games, head to head challenges, clan wars, or whatever.
I'm just sick of starting second in 6/7 games in certain challenges/tournaments ect. there should be an option to determine a fair split of first turns for a list of games.

The only solution to this is mirror games, exact same drops just change the color, so in 1 game you are green and in the other red.

spiesr wrote:MERGED: determine equal/equal-1 amount of games for players to start

My suggestion is not about autotournaments, it s about any tournament, clan war, callout challenge between same players/teams.

There should be an option, when creating a serie of games, to link them together and spread evenly who gets to start

betiko wrote:

spiesr wrote:MERGED: determine equal/equal-1 amount of games for players to start

My suggestion is not about autotournaments, it s about any tournament, clan war, callout challenge between same players/teams.

There should be an option, when creating a serie of games, to link them together and spread evenly who gets to start

Agreed.

Right.

So how about fixing things so dices go evenly too? Haven't you been in games where you got all the good dice; and in other games where the opponent got all the good dice? Weren't any of those tournament games?

Oh. Wait. There are probably still some among us that believe that skill alone can compensate for rolling all 1s and 2s vs. the opponent's 5s and 6s

If it's random leave it random. Otherwise it smells too much like choosing the winners in advance (or a programming situation that could lead to that).

Besides. First turn doesn't guarantee a winner, and isn't necessarily an a huge advantage on some of the maps and settings.

Could this not draw even more attention away from community-run tournaments, as people start to focus mainly on autotournaments to reduce the luck factor?

stahrgazer wrote:Right.

So how about fixing things so dices go evenly too? Haven't you been in games where you got all the good dice; and in other games where the opponent got all the good dice? Weren't any of those tournament games?

Oh. Wait. There are probably still some among us that believe that skill alone can compensate for rolling all 1s and 2s vs. the opponent's 5s and 6s

If it's random leave it random. Otherwise it smells too much like choosing the winners in advance (or a programming situation that could lead to that).

Besides. First turn doesn't guarantee a winner, and isn't necessarily an a huge advantage on some of the maps and settings.

Are you seriously arguing that if we constrain the proportion of first turns then we should make the dice deterministic as well? Sorry but that's ludicrous. The proportion of first turns going to each player is not supposed to be a deciding factor in tournament outcomes whereas understanding and accommodating the random behaviour of the dice is a fundamental part of the strategy in any Risk variant.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Could this not draw even more attention away from community-run tournaments, as people start to focus mainly on autotournaments to reduce the luck factor?

I'm not sure if I said this earlier in the thread but I'd be happy for this to be applied to all tournaments, not just autotournaments.

D4 Damager wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:Could this not draw even more attention away from community-run tournaments, as people start to focus mainly on autotournaments to reduce the luck factor?

I'm not sure if I said this earlier in the thread but I'd be happy for this to be applied to all tournaments, not just autotournaments.

But if this was the case the tournament organiser could potentially have to re-create games over and over.