POLL - Auto Tournament game start advantage

[Furio]

This is a no-brainer. Good idea, bamage.

There is no scenario - even this one - where the start wouldn't be "more fair" if the first person wasn't able to attack. I don't think you understand the recommendation. In your scenario, left the way things are, that first player would be able to attack and would take permanent control of the game. At least this way the second player would have a chance.

Your objection is that it doesn't perfectly address the problem, in certain circumstances. It's a huge, easily implemented improvement. Not sure how you get "back to square one" from your objection.

And, like I pointed out, it also addresses the foggy courtesy-rule issue, perfectly.

I feel like the most fair thing would be to not let the person who goes first the ability to attack. Make them wait until the second round while the person who goes second can attack when they both have the same amount of troops. Just a thought

I totally agree with this. Problem solved. It would actually turn EVERY game into a more equal game, not just divvy up the advantages. And it takes the question of the odd game (e.g. the third game) off the table. It would also address the foggy courtesy rule effectively. It's a perfect solution.

It wouldn't with game with high bonus start such as Pearl Harbor for instance, if the first to start would only deploy with a +15 Bonus while the player starting second only have +8 to put down and to attack a stack of 18, where this would even out the advantage? looks like back to square one IMO

[Dukasaur]

There is no scenario - even this one - where the start wouldn't be "more fair" if the first person wasn't able to attack. I don't think you understand the recommendation. In your scenario, left the way things are, that first player would be able to attack and would take permanent control of the game. At least this way the second player would have a chance.

It is a good idea, but last time it was voted on, it was overwhelmingly rejected. Wasn't even close, something like 80-20, with a very well-attended poll.

The webmaster is really unlikely to give a second chance to an idea that has been rejected by such an overwhelming margin.

[.SCuD.]

Obviously this is better than purely random. There really is no argument against it.

I want to add another idea. Not sure where to post it as I’m not too involved in forums so I’ll just add it here. “Make the first round of tournaments random, not seeded by rank”
I’ve just entered a poly tournament. I will probably be first or second highest rank. Which means round 1 I’ll be up against someone with a ranking of about 1000. It will be a whitewash. It is very rare for me to not win 5-0 in round 1.
That isn’t fun for the low ranks entering.

It also isn’t fair on the mid ranked players if it’s done by cumulative points, not just by who wins the round (which some are... which is also a crap idea!!!). As they have to battle people ranked 2000 for their points, whilst us higher ranked players are just given free points!!!

So yeah, that’s the other idea. Do cup style tournaments purely by who wins the round. Get rid of any cumulative points cup style tournaments.
Cumulative points only works in league formats as the opponents are the same

[Tin Trumpet]

thank you. yes. finally. hooray.

actually, when setting up games, you could select random starts or even starts. then those that want to run a tournament based on luck can do so. those that want to remove a bit can also.

and if a trouney is random starts, you dont have to enter it if you dont want to

[bamage]

I'm still trying to convince myself that the webmaster is going to implement any of these suggestions.

There is no scenario - even this one - where the start wouldn't be "more fair" if the first person wasn't able to attack. I don't think you understand the recommendation. In your scenario, left the way things are, that first player would be able to attack and would take permanent control of the game. At least this way the second player would have a chance.

It is a good idea, but last time it was voted on, it was overwhelmingly rejected. Wasn't even close, something like 80-20, with a very well-attended poll.

The webmaster is really unlikely to give a second chance to an idea that has been rejected by such an overwhelming margin.

[Dukasaur]

I'm still trying to convince myself that the webmaster is going to implement any of these suggestions.

There's been quite a few little improvements, lately.

eg. https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=233832

Mad777 has been really good for keeping BW's toes to the fire. Slowly but surely, stuff is getting done again.

[rousseau72]

Absolutely, please make the first start advantage distributed evenly.
To the players that say "luck is part of the game" they are missing the point that this is a tournament. It's not just a random pickup game. If you enter a tournament, then don't you want to say you won it on skill and not based on luck?

[jfm10]

Add a beginning phase that each player rolls the dice to see who starts. This could even help out the auto snap issue.
This would have the dice issues extended to a new area but it's just my 2 cents.

[.SCuD.]

Add a beginning phase that each player rolls the dice to see who starts. This could even help out the auto snap issue.
This would have the dice issues extended to a new area but it's just my 2 cents.

That is exactly the same as random starts

[bamage]

At this point I'm happy when I get any starts at all. I've had no starts in the last 2 rounds, and 1 start in the 5-game final before that. This just seems lazy.

[rockfist]

Yeah, Bamage is against me in Portugal and he got no starts, which is nasty on a board where you start at 12 territories.

[Shoe555]

This would be fair.

[DBandit70]

I actually don´t like this. Yes it sucks not to get starts, but its part of the game.

yea I feel the same +1

[Mad777]

Thanks all for your votes and comments, results submitted to webmaster.