[GP] How to make 1 vs 1 more fair

[olipellat]

Hi Queen_Herpes.

I did not know there was a version with this option out there, but then wouldn't it reinforce the fact there is an imbalance and a need for 2nd player to attack 1st ?
I personally don't think we should have the choice, but if people are happier to start the game and have the advantage of hitting straight away (proving THEY are the 1st player...), then we should be able to have the option...?

Thanks for post

[olipellat]

Hi Evil Semp,

Let me try and explian why I feel it would be fairer for both of them :

Imagine the game being 4 regions. 4 squares aligned with 3 armies on each. The 2 left squares is for red (1,2), the 2 right for green (3,4).
* 1st scenario : Red starts, puts all armies on square 2 AND attacks square 3, he will have a good chance of gaining a region (square 3) and then to reinforce troops from square 1 to 3 or 1 to 2 depending on game option. Now, green starts, he only has 1 square left, hence receiving fewer armies, and he has not even started the game !
* 2nd scenario : Red starts, puts all armies on square 3 and waits, player 2 will be able to defend the square he wants (3 and 4) and get the same amount of armies as player 1 did...

I see this happening over and over again on map World 2.1.

A little schematic, but do you see what I mean ?


Regarding your 2nd point about player 2 having a bonus from the start :

Player 1 will be able to see the bonus coming up and prepare for it. This means on round 2, player 1 (who hasn't attacked yet) would attack with 2 lots of "naturally gained armies" versus 1 lot for player 2...


Thanks for post, olipellat

[olipellat]

Hi AAFitz,

Couldn't agree more with you...
So the question is : why is it "...while given the choice, id go first every time..." ?
I'm sure it's because player 1 has a head start in the game...

Thank for comment. olipellat

[docidiot]

Concise description:

• 1v1 first round deploy

Specifics:

• for the first round of a 1v1 game, lock the initial deploy for the second player.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• i believe it will make 1v1 games fairer, particularly in the early rounds. it reduces the advantage of going first in 1v1 games.

now, some maps provide a significant advantage to the first mover in a 1v1 game. for example, in a 1v1 game, a map such as australia gives an initial deploy of armies to 12 regions to each player. if the first player takes a territory of another, the second player starts with (absent bonus territories) a deploy of three armies (versus the four for the first player). it seems like it would be a fairer game if the second player could receive his full compliment of 4 armies that would have been due if the second player had moved first. of course, this also affects bigger maps as well, and perhaps to a greater extent. for example, a first mover in a 1v1 prison riot game can have a tremendous advantage if they attack the second mover's bonuses.

regardless of the size of the map, giving the second mover the fully deploy based on the initial drop at least gives them a chance to fight back. otherwise, the game could be over with the second mover never having a real chance.

i think this idea would work well with the idea in the "Eliminate first-turn bonuses" thread, though they could be implemented separately.

in closing, in full games, most players start with the same deploy, which, in my mind, gives everyone the same chance. while my idea does not guarantee the same initial deploy ("Eliminate first-turn bonuses" does that), my idea does at least give the second mover a chance to fight back based on the initial deploy.

also, id like to give credit to william tennant for getting me thinking about this.

[Army of GOD]

This suggestion makes too much sense.

[SirSebstar]

may i suggest the alternative of not playing those obviously biased maps on 1vs1, but instead stick to maps where the obvious numerical value of starting first is not there or a lot smaller?....

next to that, each player has an equal chance of going first, so if you play a set of games, it should work out fine.

[donkeymile]

This suggestion just makes too much sense ...

in other words I wouldn't expect it to be implemented ....

how foolish and ridiculous that they wouldn't want to improve this style of game.

[pmchugh]

Intresting though would it not come under initial troop deployment (auto/maunal) rather than turn order (sequential/freestyle?)

[Serbia]

Don't like the idea at all.

[edwinissweet]

I dont see this being implemented as a replacement for the way 1vs1 is played. Way more people play than those who participate in the forums, i think its better not to mess with the way things are set, but rather look for things to be added to what we already have. So i would say this be a game option, however, i see 1vs1 team games getting priority over this.

[steve066]

wow this is truly brilliant.
to those who say first turn advantage evens out that is true. but i'd much rather play games where
one's skills determine outcome (for better or worse). it is no challenge and little fun to win a blowout from start
and its simply depressing and boring to be on losing side. to potentially have instead hard fought games would
be terrific.

i'd wager that the more skilled a player is the more likely he would be for this idea. for those who are uncomfortable with this idea don't play it, but allow others to have that option.

s

[Frogmanx82]

Concise description:

• I propose that the player going first should not be allowed to attack, but deploy only on the first turn.

Specifics/Details:

• After the player goes first, they would be able to deploy only. No card. In a sense you could look at it like your going last to assault, but you are given the opportunity to at least have some armies on the board to compensate for the likely fewer territories you will have and that you are last to get a card. In a freestyle game there is no first player, so this would not apply to freestyle games.
  
  The player who goes first gets to choose their spot on the board and deter others from attacking. There is an advantage currently in going first by getting first card, first deployment, first assault. In a two player game the player 2 is often knocked out of a region before they even go. This way the person who assaults first will have to go up against better defended territories. It just evens things out.
  
  I played Risk this way for many years in two player and team games, its been tested.

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

• Two player games would see the most benefit as the player going first would have more armies on the board, but player 2 would be able to cut into their bonus. Right now player two is just behind all the way. I posted in a non form post and saw some silly arguments that this would have to carry all the way through the turn order or that somehow player 2 would have an even bigger advantage. That's just not the case.

[Funkyterrance]

I agree with this to some extent. Some setting are more apt to have an early advantage than others and certain maps as well. For instance, I have always thought that king of the mountains was almost always determined in a 1v1 by who goes first. I love this map but stopped playing it because of this aspect. If there is a way to make first turn advantage go down, I am all for it. My thoughts have always been that neutrals strategically placed would be a good solution to this problem.

[TheFissk]

i don't know if that would even the playing field because the 2nd player now has the advantage of going first

[squishyg]

Try playing escalating. Most players deploy, but don't attack on their first turn. This issue you're having is more problematic on smaller games with only 2 players. Experiment and see if a different setting works for you.

At the end of the day though, someone gets to go first.

I'm not a fan of imposing unnecessary site rules on players. If you don't like a particular setting, don't play it.

[stahrgazer]

The person who goes first should be allowed to deploy only and not attack. This would especially make two player games more fair but it would be more fair for any game. It would seem simple thing.

No. That gives player 2 even more of an advantage, because with "assault odds" he's more likely to remove a larger number of troops in addition to taking a region.

As it is, your chance of going first is 50-50, which can be an advantage especially on some maps. On other maps, it's not as big of a deal, and spoils luck can change that advantage anyway.

[Frogmanx82]

stahrgazer your logic is terrible. If I go last to assault but have more armies on the board that is more fair, no two ways about it, on any game, with any number of players, but especially in a two player game. There is really no reason not to institute this as a standard rule. Its not about a setting. This suggestion would make going first less of an advantage and assaulting last less of a disadvantage. We would have better games, especially in two player.

[stahrgazer]

stahrgazer your logic is terrible. If I go last to assault but have more armies on the board that is more fair, no two ways about it, on any game, with any number of players, but especially in a two player game. There is really no reason not to institute this as a standard rule. Its not about a setting. This suggestion would make going first less of an advantage and assaulting last less of a disadvantage. We would have better games, especially in two player.

My logic is not terrible.

It would make going first a detriment, and going second even more of a benefit than going first currently is.

Check assaulter's odds.

[spiesr]

Going first can present some advantages depending on the situation. However, there have been better suggestions on how to remedy this. Here is a partial list:
First Turn Troops Calculated on Game Initialisation
Eliminate first-turn bonuses
Fair play Troop allocation at start of game
No continent bonus the first turn
These suggestions are for the most part better than this one. But, they have been rejected. So explain how this idea is somehow better than those...

[TheForgivenOne]

You are also supposed to follow the form we gave you. It helps us, as suggestions mods, and other users out.

[Delete Me]
PLACE THE NAME OF THE SUGGESTION IN THE SUBJECT LINE!

Things to remember when posting a new suggestion are that the dice are random, and that lots of analysis has been done on them both internally and public by community members. Also, please take time to search for previous similar suggestions and, if possible, to check current and archived threads before posting something "new". Delete the xxxxxxx, and substitute your text.

Any questions, contact one of the Suggestions Moderators.
[/Delete Me]


Concise description:

• xxxxxxx

Specifics/Details:

• xxxxxxx

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

• xxxxxxx

We didn't just put it there for you to look at it all pretty like. You're supposed to use it

[greenoaks]

The person who goes first should be allowed to deploy only and not attack. This would especially make two player games more fair but it would be more fair for any game. It would seem simple thing.

this would give the person going 2nd an advantage but we could reduce that by insisting they must also deploy and not attack.

[TheFissk]

but then the 1st player is going first AGAIN. plus you get some sort of wierd half manual deployment, so if that is what you want play manual

[greenoaks]

but then the 1st player is going first AGAIN. plus you get some sort of wierd half manual deployment, so if that is what you want play manual

then we'll just have to insist the person going 3rd also deploys and doesn't attack

[thebest712]

stahrgazer your logic is terrible. If I go last to assault but have more armies on the board that is more fair, no two ways about it, on any game, with any number of players, but especially in a two player game. There is really no reason not to institute this as a standard rule. Its not about a setting. This suggestion would make going first less of an advantage and assaulting last less of a disadvantage. We would have better games, especially in two player.

My logic is not terrible.

It would make going first a detriment, and going second even more of a benefit than going first currently is.

Check assaulter's odds.

it is terrible.

and I like the idea

[jrh_cardinal]

Would be terrible for freestyle, and if I had first turn I would miss on purpose so I got twice as many armies to deploy AND attack with in the second round