[XML] Instant win objective

[Metsfanmax]

I doubt that anything has to be changed in the code to deal with assassin. It will either check the win condition first, or the player elimination first to determine who wins. If it doesn't do what they want, then they can just swap the order in which they're checked.

Right, but Rodion's point is: what do we want? It's non-trivial to decide which win objective ought to be checked first.

[DiM]

wouldn't this give a huge advantage to the player that starts the game? he already has the advantage of attacking first, now he can even take an objective without giving the second player a chance to retaliate?

with this suggestion implemented, in an ideal situation where 2 players have identical dice, the player that goes first will always win. imagine St. Pattrick's day with an instant win objective. unless player 2 has incredibly great dice, player 1 will win every time. so i highly doubt CC would want to implement something that makes the gameplay even more imbalanced.

[degaston]

I doubt that anything has to be changed in the code to deal with assassin. It will either check the win condition first, or the player elimination first to determine who wins. If it doesn't do what they want, then they can just swap the order in which they're checked.

Right, but Rodion's point is: what do we want? It's non-trivial to decide which win objective ought to be checked first.

My suggestion is that the win condition take precedence.

• By taking it, you've eliminated all opponents in one move, so who else is left to win?
• The instant win objective would be explicitly stated on the map, so I think it would be very surprising if it was turned into an instant losing condition just because it was someone's last territory.
• No one has suggested anything else.

[degaston]

wouldn't this give a huge advantage to the player that starts the game? he already has the advantage of attacking first, now he can even take an objective without giving the second player a chance to retaliate?

with this suggestion implemented, in an ideal situation where 2 players have identical dice, the player that goes first will always win. imagine St. Pattrick's day with an instant win objective. unless player 2 has incredibly great dice, player 1 will win every time. so i highly doubt CC would want to implement something that makes the gameplay even more imbalanced.

Sorry to shout, but:
I REPEAT: THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ON ANY EXISTING MAP!
Thank you.

Any map that used this feature would have to be designed so that it was not possible to take the objective too quickly, and the gameplay would have to be approved by the foundry. I don't know exactly how this might be used - I'd just like there to be more tools available to the mapmakers. That doesn't mean that you're going to use every tool all the time. Like transformations, some things may only be used rarely, but when they are, it will make the map more interesting and unique. This might be used for the ultimate doomsday device, or crossing a finish line, or for some combination of territories that is very difficult to get, and would be almost impossible to hold. I don't think it should be at all difficult to implement in the CC code, so there is little downside in adding it. Like cooking, the more ingredients that are available to you, the more interesting meal you can make.

[DiM]

Sorry to shout, but:
I REPEAT: THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ON ANY EXISTING MAP!
Thank you.

Any map that used this feature would have to be designed so that it was not possible to take the objective too quickly,

it doesn't matter where you want to use it. the fact is with identical dice the first player will always be advantaged by this.
regardless if the objective is achievable quickly or not, the first player will have more chances of getting to the objective first.

to make things more fair you'd have to figure out a way to code where the first player starts and then adjust the gameplay accordingly so that the odds even out.
and then do this gradually for each and every player so that you make sure all players have the same odds.

let's simplify things. imagine a map is like a race track with each lane representing the gameplay for each player. the finish like is the objective and whoever gets there first wins regardless of how close the opponents are. in athletics we have staggered starting positions like in this image. so you'd have to do this for your map. and unlike a track that's neat and simple, on an actual map you'd have a really really hard time trying to do this. and of course it would only work if you manage to code where each player starts and their exact order (which is impossible atm). and on top of that you'd also have to restrict this thing only for sequential gameplay because the freestyle would be a mess of abuse.

so yeah, no need to shout, no need for big red letters, the point is this can't work in a fair manner.

[Donelladan]

it doesn't matter where you want to use it. the fact is with identical dice the first player will always be advantaged by this.
regardless if the objective is achievable quickly or not, the first player will have more chances of getting to the objective first.

Yes it does matter a lot. For example if the objective is a 40 neutrals and the 1st player spend 20 troops to take it, but of course fail, then 2nd player will probably win. It is stupid example, but just to say that the map will be built taking into account that it is an instant win objective to make it a balanced game play.

Of course it you assume both player stack each side of the objective and wait to see who take it 1st, then 1st player has an advantage. But that's not gonna happen, and the map will be improved during the beta phase to prevent any unbalanced game.

Anyway I think 1vs1 is irrelevant to the question of balanced gameplay since 1v1 is unbalanced anyway.

[degaston]

Any map that used this feature would have to be designed so that it was not possible to take the objective too quickly,

it doesn't matter where you want to use it. the fact is with identical dice the first player will always be advantaged by this.
regardless if the objective is achievable quickly or not, the first player will have more chances of getting to the objective first.

to make things more fair you'd have to figure out a way to code where the first player starts and then adjust the gameplay accordingly so that the odds even out.
and then do this gradually for each and every player so that you make sure all players have the same odds.

But players don't get identical dice, and even if they did, they can make different choices about what to attack, and when. On any map, being first is an advantage, but I'd say that skill and good decision making are much greater factors in determining who wins, followed by the luck of the dice. I don't think that this feature would change that on any reasonably complicated map, and there's no way it would be used on something as simple as St. Patricks Day.

to make things more fair you'd have to figure out a way to code where the first player starts and then adjust the gameplay accordingly so that the odds even out.
and then do this gradually for each and every player so that you make sure all players have the same odds.

let's simplify things. imagine a map is like a race track with each lane representing the gameplay for each player. the finish like is the objective and whoever gets there first wins regardless of how close the opponents are. in athletics we have staggered starting positions like in this image. so you'd have to do this for your map. and unlike a track that's neat and simple, on an actual map you'd have a really really hard time trying to do this. and of course it would only work if you manage to code where each player starts and their exact order (which is impossible atm). and on top of that you'd also have to restrict this thing only for sequential gameplay because the freestyle would be a mess of abuse.

In an auto race (not a drag race), someone starts at the front, and someone starts at the back. You might say that's not fair, but pole position has a pretty low win %. And once the first car crosses the finish line, the others don't get a chance to pull him back, no matter how close they are. There are several maps where getting a particular drop is an advantage, and in Promontory Summit, people are saying that the bottom side has an advantage, but others say that that's fine, it will even out over time. If someone doesn't want to be abused in a freestyle game, then no one is forcing them to play it.

And consider a map like Das Schloss. Would the first player really have a measurable advantage if the objective was an instant win? I don't think so.

so yeah, no need to shout, no need for big red letters, the point is this can't work in a fair manner.

Sorry, but a lot of the objections to this seem to be based on the idea that it would not work with some existing map. If this were a new play mode, that would make sense, but it's not. Neither is it intended to become the standard for all new maps with win conditions. It's just intended to be an option that's available if a mapmaker chooses to use it.

[DiM]

it doesn't matter where you want to use it. the fact is with identical dice the first player will always be advantaged by this.
regardless if the objective is achievable quickly or not, the first player will have more chances of getting to the objective first.

Yes it does matter a lot. For example if the objective is a 40 neutrals and the 1st player spend 20 troops to take it, but of course fail, then 2nd player will probably win. It is stupid example,

in your example the player that tries to take an objective and fails is either an idiot that didn't calculate his chances or he's really unlucky. but we're not making maps for such situations. maps must be balanced thinking that all players have even dice.
with all players having identical dice, people will just stack near the objective until one of them has enough troops to take it and win without giving the others the chance to retaliate. which is stupid.

but just to say that the map will be built taking into account that it is an instant win objective to make it a balanced game play.

oh yeah, and while we're at it we'll also solve world hunger problem and bring peace on earth. it's so easy to say "it will be balanced" "we'll improve in beta" when the truth is if you actually think about it there's nothing to improve or balance because you can't improve something that's fundamentally broken especially when you don't have the tools to do it.

Of course it you assume both player stack each side of the objective and wait to see who take it 1st, then 1st player has an advantage.

now you're starting to make sense.

But that's not gonna happen, and the map will be improved during the beta phase to prevent any unbalanced game.

read again my previous post and you'll see this is an impossible task cause we can't decide where each specific player starts and what's the precise order they'll start. if you can't do this then you can't adjust neutral values, or modify paths or bonuses. and if you can't do this, then you can't fix anything.

Anyway I think 1vs1 is irrelevant to the question of balanced gameplay since 1v1 is unbalanced anyway.

the problem is not just with 1v1 but with all sequential games. in fact i'd say the more players in the game the less chances the last player has.

you see, in a 1v1 you might hope that the player that goes first is an idiot, or has horrible dice and you'll get your chance to take the objective. but with 11 people going before you, the chances of all of them being idiots and/or having bad dice are slim to none.


PS: don't get me wrong, i'm all for new xml options. i want more tools, i want exciting features. just look at my sig. i'm the guy in the middle
but this suggestion is simply not good. let's focus on other things that can actually enrich the map making experience.

[DiM]

But players don't get identical dice, and even if they did, they can make different choices about what to attack, and when. On any map, being first is an advantage, but I'd say that skill and good decision making are much greater factors in determining who wins, followed by the luck of the dice. I don't think that this feature would change that on any reasonably complicated map, and there's no way it would be used on something as simple as St. Patricks Day.

so since the first player has an advantage you want to give him even more advantage and they pray that dice screw him so that the gameplay is balanced?
or maybe you'll reserve the first spot for retards and force good players to go second just to even things out, since the good players will be capable of taking the good decisions? WTF?

any suggestion that in any way or form adds an advantage to a certain player should get an auto-rejection. end of story.

And consider a map like Das Schloss. Would the first player really have a measurable advantage if the objective was an instant win? I don't think so.

you have the right to think so, but that doesn't make it right.
truth is simple math and statistics will show you that this suggestion gives an advantage to the player going first. sure that advantage can be bigger or smaller depending on map size, number of players and settings, but it's still an advantage.
i thought suggestions are meant to make things fairer, but maybe i was wrong.

Sorry, but a lot of the objections to this seem to be based on the idea that it would not work with some existing map. If this were a new play mode, that would make sense, but it's not. Neither is it intended to become the standard for all new maps with win conditions. It's just intended to be an option that's available if a mapmaker chooses to use it.

no, my objections are based on common sense / math / logic / personal mapmaking experience, take your pick.

mapmakers should have only options that aid them in their work towards creating balanced maps. they should not have options just for the sake of having them.

[Donelladan]

Of course it you assume both player stack each side of the objective and wait to see who take it 1st, then 1st player has an advantage.

now you're starting to make sense.

Well no that doesn't make sense. 1vs1 game, if my opponent stack near the objectif, I'll go for bonus and I'll win the game......
Currently in 1vs1 game nobody go for objectif (except trench game or freestyle for some map), and I don't think instant win would make it change, except if the objectif was easy to take, which shouldn't be.

Then for multiplayer game, an obvious strategy would be to prevent it to make it possible to someone to take the objective. So multiplayer game would be balanced by the simple fact that if one player becomes strong enough to take the objective, then other players should team up to prevent it.
Of course case is different if you play with noob, but I don't see how turn order really changes anything here.

Look at a city mogul trench for example. Being 1st in a multiplayer game doesn't help that much at all. And if someone control all the subway and has 300+ troops he will win the game. So if this may happens, other player usually do something to prevent it.
I see city mogul trench as a good example at what should happen in a game with instant win objectif. As soon as someone is potentially able to win, other player will move to block it. OR they are dumb but you can't blam the suggestion for that

[DiM]

Well no that doesn't make sense. 1vs1 game, if my opponent stack near the objectif, I'll go for bonus and I'll win the game......

lol you're still not getting it.

let's try to make this as simple as possible.

player A and B get X troops per turn.
the objective has Y neutrals.

Player A goes first and puts X troops near the objective. Player B does the same.
on the next turn player A puts X troops again and now he has 2X. at this point if 2X is statistically enough to defeat the objective's Y then he'll attack and win with no chance for Player B. if it's not enough to take, then he'll continue to stack. now player B puts his X troops and makes a 2X stack. let's assume 3X is enough to take the objective but 2X isn't cause if it were, then player A would have taken it. so player B has 2 options:
1. attack the objective and pray for great dice. and in most cases he'll fail since 2X is not enough.
2. try to attack player A and ignore the objective. in which case the objective is irrelevant.

so you see? worst case scenario, the insta-win objective gives an advantage to the player going first and completely screws the whole idea or making balanced maps, or best case scenario it's completely ignored and thus becomes a useless feature.


PS: i feel like i've explained this in a very clear way over the course of my last posts so i will stop now. there's no point trying to make it even more clearer.

my final words are these:

any suggestion that in any way or form adds an advantage to a certain player should get an auto-rejection. end of story.

[Kaskavel]

1. My assasin-instant win senario was more of a joke, it is not a serious issue. One of the 2 will get priority, logicaly that would be the objective
2. While I have my hesitations about the suggestion, it is not correct to always try and imagine how someone will spoil the game, The argument "First player who stupidely attacks the objective, will offer the game to the next one" is identical to the argument "a stupid escalating sweep by a player will offer the game to the next one". And yet, people play multi-escalating all the time.
In fact the game would be similar to escalating. Stacking to objectives. Or stacking next to objectives. Calculating your chances. Calculating next player chances and react defensively by a block. Blocking etc.
Also, I need to emphasize that there is at least one existing map where this is suggestion ALREADY happening!
Antactica map and probably some more similar maps I have not noticed.
Is it not capturing the Pole usualy an instant win, especialy in escalating spoils? Or, even more accurately, is it not capturing all the bases (the usual continuation if the pole is conquered in practice) an instant win objective? It is. If the designer of the map stated his winning conditions as "Objective is to capture, but not hold, all bases", instead of "Anyone who does not hold a base gets eliminated", the map would be exactly the same. No difference except for the fact that in the current rules if only some players lose their bases, they are out of the game. It is a map that already uses the OP's suggestion by using OP's concept.
When a suggestion is made, try to make comparisons with similar existing situation. The suggestion seems very good to me, but we still need to think about it carefuly for many strange issues, like the assasination one. Or, for example, the nuclear-instant win combination. In Antarctica, getting the uclear Pole spoil is overwhelming advantage.

[Kaskavel]

Well no that doesn't make sense. 1vs1 game, if my opponent stack near the objectif, I'll go for bonus and I'll win the game......

lol you're still not getting it.

let's try to make this as simple as possible.

player A and B get X troops per turn.
the objective has Y neutrals.

Player A goes first and puts X troops near the objective. Player B does the same.
on the next turn player A puts X troops again and now he has 2X. at this point if 2X is statistically enough to defeat the objective's Y then he'll attack and win with no chance for Player B. if it's not enough to take, then he'll continue to stack. now player B puts his X troops and makes a 2X stack. let's assume 3X is enough to take the objective but 2X isn't cause if it were, then player A would have taken it. so player B has 2 options:
1. attack the objective and pray for great dice. and in most cases he'll fail since 2X is not enough.
2. try to attack player A and ignore the objective. in which case the objective is irrelevant.

so you see? worst case scenario, the insta-win objective gives an advantage to the player going first and completely screws the whole idea or making balanced maps, or best case scenario it's completely ignored and thus becomes a useless feature.


PS: i feel like i've explained this in a very clear way over the course of my last posts so i will stop now. there's no point trying to make it even more clearer.

my final words are these:

any suggestion that in any way or form adds an advantage to a certain player should get an auto-rejection. end of story.

I am sorry but the colonel is right. If one stacks near the objective, teh othe rplayer will simply attack his stack. It is not working.

[degaston]

I wasn't picturing that this would be used on any map with a single objective territory - though some creative mapmaker might find a way to make it work. Something like Das Schloss or Third Crusade are the closest I can think of right now. If someone has part of the objective, then his opponents need to focus on preventing him from having the strength to take the rest. If they're unable to do that, then too bad.

DiM, your example of stacking near the objective did not seem particularly relevant. What is this hypothetical map with a single objective territory that players can stack next to on their first turn? If you go first in Das Schloss, where, exactly, are you putting your troops when you go first?

I average over 700 dice rolls per game. When you combine random dice, random cards, random drops, different skill levels, different map experience, and different bonuses available to each player, I would really like to see your proof that going first has any statistical correlation with who wins.

[DiM]

I would really like to see your proof

nah man, not worth my time. the current objective is implemented like it is now, precisely to offer the the second player a chance to respond, to retaliate, in other words to make things fair.
this suggestion tries to take out the very thing that made the objective fair, under the (false) claim that the gameplay will be somehow (magically?) balanced.

at this point any further debate is a waste of my time. but you guys feel free to keep on arguing it's a good idea and all that. i'd rather you chose a better xml thing to develop and support, but everybody is free to do whatever.

[degaston]

I would really like to see your proof

nah man, not worth my time.

I kind of suspected that the math, statistics and logic were not that simple after all. What you have is an opinion, which is fine, but don't claim that it is a fact without having any proof.

the current objective is implemented like it is now, precisely to offer the the second player a chance to respond, to retaliate, in other words to make things fair.
this suggestion tries to take out the very thing that made the objective fair, under the (false) claim that the gameplay will be somehow (magically?) balanced.

So, have you been arguing somewhere that losing conditions are unfair, and any map that uses them is unbalanced, because the person who lost doesn't get a chance to respond? As Kaskavel already pointed out, there are maps that have something close to this already. (but not exactly like it, because you can't define a losing condition for all opponents.) Trench can result in an effective instant win condition when the opponents have no way of preventing a win no matter how many troops they have. Assassin mode is also like an instant win against a moving target. None of these things fatally unbalance a map - they just require different strategies to deal with. If you don't want to use it, fine, but to say that it is impossible to create a balanced map with it is simply wrong.

i'd rather you chose a better xml thing to develop and support

I've made a couple of other XML suggestions, and I have a few more ideas in mind that I plan to suggest.

[Metsfanmax]

in your example the player that tries to take an objective and fails is either an idiot that didn't calculate his chances or he's really unlucky. but we're not making maps for such situations. maps must be balanced thinking that all players have even dice.

That never happens. No one attempts to balance a map so that the player who goes first has some disadvantage that compensates. You can't, because you don't know where the player who goes first will be. Your entire vision here is not reflected in any of the current mapmaking; it is only being applied to this current concept.

As others have pointed out, there is an inherent advantage to the first player, and that's just how it is in any turn based game like this. It's not helpful to say "we shouldn't do this because the first player has an advantage." That will always exist.

[DiM]

in your example the player that tries to take an objective and fails is either an idiot that didn't calculate his chances or he's really unlucky. but we're not making maps for such situations. maps must be balanced thinking that all players have even dice.

That never happens. No one attempts to balance a map so that the player who goes first has some disadvantage that compensates. You can't, because you don't know where the player who goes first will be. Your entire vision here is not reflected in any of the current mapmaking; it is only being applied to this current concept.

that's exactly my point. i'm puzzled. you're confirming my point and yet your post sounds like you're trying to disagree with me.

As others have pointed out, there is an inherent advantage to the first player, and that's just how it is in any turn based game like this. It's not helpful to say "we shouldn't do this because the first player has an advantage." That will always exist.

so the first player has an advantage, right? that's clear. why would you want to add something that increases that advantage? this is my point. you should be searching for something that decreases it or even nullifies it completely. when no player has a distinct advantage the gameplay is perfect.

[Metsfanmax]

in your example the player that tries to take an objective and fails is either an idiot that didn't calculate his chances or he's really unlucky. but we're not making maps for such situations. maps must be balanced thinking that all players have even dice.

That never happens. No one attempts to balance a map so that the player who goes first has some disadvantage that compensates. You can't, because you don't know where the player who goes first will be. Your entire vision here is not reflected in any of the current mapmaking; it is only being applied to this current concept.

that's exactly my point. i'm puzzled. you're confirming my point and yet your post sounds like you're trying to disagree with me.

I am disagreeing with you, because you're saying that mapmakers try to balance out against first player advantage when they clearly don't. You're inventing a mapmaking principle that doesn't -- and couldn't -- exist and then applying it to this new idea as a reason to reject it, which does not make any sense to me.

so the first player has an advantage, right? that's clear. why would you want to add something that increases that advantage? this is my point. you should be searching for something that decreases it or even nullifies it completely. when no player has a distinct advantage the gameplay is perfect.

If you want to decrease first player advantage, go do it in a way that directly achieves this, like the proposal bigWham brought up a while back, or a number of suggestions in this forum. This proposal doesn't increase first player advantage, or if it does you haven't demonstrated it. As far as I can tell it just gives the first player another way to win. Think about it -- if we carried the equal dice and strategy to its logical conclusion, first player would probably win every time, with or without objectives. So why is this uniquely bad?

[DiM]

i'm clearly failing to make myself understood properly. almost everything i'm trying to express, you're getting either completely wrong or at least in a distorted way.
maybe it's because english is not my native tongue, maybe i just have a weird way of thinking or lack proper communication skills. so i give up trying to explain.
as far as i'm concerned the idea is bad and will cause imbalance to the game. that's it, i've got nothing more to add.

[Metsfanmax]

i'm clearly failing to make myself understood properly. almost everything i'm trying to express, you're getting either completely wrong or at least in a distorted way.
maybe it's because english is not my native tongue, maybe i just have a weird way of thinking or lack proper communication skills. so i give up trying to explain.
as far as i'm concerned the idea is bad and will cause imbalance to the game. that's it, i've got nothing more to add.

Your English is fine, I just disagree with your reasoning.

[Kaskavel]

There is no case this suggestion increases first player's advantage, except only of a ridiculus simply objective, like Third crusade map. Your reasoning does not stand to logic Dim. In 1 vs 1 the first player must not stack next to the objective, because the second player will attack him. In multiplayer, players will guard parts of the objective and turning becomes irrelevant.