New 1v1 (2 player) Games Ready for Testing

[NewSheriffInTown]

SORRY - TEMP OUT OF GAMES

THREAD CLOSED

2 Player Games with New Rules

Please Read More Below​

In order to test different strategies to balance out 1v1 (2 player games), we have created a limited number of test game with a new set of rules.

These new rules are simple:

1. 1st player gets half their deploy troops on the first turn
2. after that, the game continues as normal

The following test games were chosen because some are extreme unbalanced cases, the other are our most popular maps and settings.

They are listed as:

Map

• Settings
• % of 2nd player wins / % of 1st player wins (with original rules)
• A link to that particular game

Mars

• Chance - 3 path
• 27 / 73
• Link to Mars Games

Europe Massive

• Chance - 3 path
• 28 / 72
• Link to Europe Massive Games

Rome

• Chance - 1 Anywhere
• 30 / 70
• Link to Rome Games

Classic Evolved

• Chance - 1 path
• 38 / 62
• Link to Classic Evolved Games

FIXED FORCE - Is less played, but gives even more unbalanced results

Forgotten Kingdom

• Fixed Force - Unlimited Anywhere
• 0 / 100
• (base on very limited game data)
• Link to Forgotten Kingdom Games

Classic Evolved

• Fixed Force - 3 Path
• 14 / 86
• Link to Classic Evolved Fixed Force Games

NUKES

• Fixed Force - 1 Path
• 22 / 78
• Link to Fixed Force NUKES Games

LINK TO ALL THE GAMES
password is new1v1

NOTES
intel tab will not show half the troops due until after you start your turn
please make sure game mentions "NEW...." in the note section, otherwise it might not be a test game​

 

[AuraCraft]

<3
I love that my idea is given a try


I'll play >100 if I can.
I prefer not to play too many games on the same map at the same time... so Real Time games would be great, then I'll play >2 a day

If it's possible to include these games in 32 player tournament's, they'll fill up so fast

ps
3 reinforcements might still be in favor of whoever gets to use those reinfs first... if you create more such games, maybe choose 1 reinforcement rather than 3?

 

[matildathehun]

Great idea! I'm in.

-MTH

 

[Derswick]

I'm in

 

[Cardinalsrule]

<3

If it's possible to include these games in 32 player tournament's, they'll fill up so fast

ps
3 reinforcements might still be in favor of whoever gets to use those reinfs first... if you create more such games, maybe choose 1 reinforcement rather than 3?

Can't play tourneys with test settings.
Also, since if the settings were changed in the future, the reinforcement possibilities would include 3 reinforce, so these games are "valid". I don't see 1v1 being changed to having ONLY 1-reinforce settings. Too restrictive.

 

[AuraCraft]

@cards;
This suggestion is referring to the games of this topic used to test my theory.
So don't worry Im not saying all future games should be restricted to 1 reinforcement (that would be ludicrous) just these test games. Just to avoid that they would interfere with the test results. (I havent seen any data abuot the question if 3 reinforcements favors either 1st or 2nd player)

 

[Athelstan]

I think it's an idea well worth trying (although I don't think anything will help me on Europe Massive against Welshmaz), but maybe stripping the first player to 9 instead of 13 (on Europe Massive) would be more equitable.
Like Chess, it seems to me that we should accept that there should be some "advantage of the move". What is the overall advantage of going first, averaged across all boards?

 

[brianstheman]

Athelstan, see the following thread:

https://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/9621-Proposed-Changes-to-1v1-(2-player)-games

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

(I havent seen any data abuot the question if 3 reinforcements favors either 1st or 2nd player)

It varies from map to map. I chose the reinforcement setting that statistically (based on the data we have) gave the 1st player the larger win percentage on that specific map.

Like Chess, it seems to me that we should accept that there should be some "advantage of the move". What is the overall advantage of going first, averaged across all boards?

One player will always have an advantage regardless of what we do. This is just to balance it out little. Currently there is a 37% chance of the second player winning across all boards and all settings.

 

[Athelstan]

Thanks for the responses & background, Brian & Sheriff. Having read a bit more & therefore thought a bit more, I wonder (with respect) if this is gilding the lily, or polishing the apple or whatever metaphor you choose for unnecessary. I'm not questioning the analysis, just the need. I'm convinced by the background work by AC and others, that the change would level up the probability of winning any particular game, but I'd like to look at it from the human rather than the maths viewpoint. On the one hand, given the large dataset (of pairings of all levels), we can assume that the numbers mean, in any game with two evenly matched opponents, P1 would be ~2x as likely to win as P2. But, assuming they play each other (or similar opponents) a large number of times, it will even out to 50/50 because the player order is random. On the other hand, in a game of unevenly matched opponents, a skilled P1 is pretty much assured of winning, and a skilled P2 MIGHT carry the day (despite being disadvantaged). So, levelling the field in each game, removes some encouragement from those of us who are new and struggling to find the Officers' Mess, while it does nothing for experienced players IN THE LONG RUN. On reflection, I'd vote for leaving it "as is". Again, thinking of chess, no-one stops playing it because the expectation is that white should win; rather, we like the challenge of giving white some curry. Cheers, A

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

P1 would be ~2x as likely to win as P2. But, assuming they play each other (or similar opponents) a large number of times, it will even out to 50/50 because the player order is random. On the other hand, in a game of unevenly matched opponents, a skilled P1 is pretty much assured of winning, and a skilled P2 MIGHT carry the day (despite being disadvantaged). So, levelling the field in each game, removes some encouragement from those of us who are new and struggling to find the Officers' Mess, while it does nothing for experienced players IN THE LONG RUN.

In Chess, first player white wins 52-55 percent
At MajCom, first player turn wins 60-70 percent

Source:

Chess - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
MajCom - https://www.majorcommand.com/forums...(2-player)-games?p=99802&viewfull=1#post99802

Basically what you're suggesting is that an unbalance game, one that heavily favours the first player, is better because it allows new players the opportunity to defeat an experienced player if the new player happens to go first.

So why don't we just dispose of the game part, and just flip the coin as it were. As soon as 2 players join a 2 player game, then the system can determine who goes first, and award that player the victory. Maybe just throw in an extra 10% chance of winning for a higher ranked player, you know, to keep them interested. Then we can forget about playing all together.

When there is a 60-70 percent advantage for the 1st player across all boards, and an even higher 80-90 percent on Fixed Force games, then there really is no fun in playing 1v1 games. The game itself become mindless movements after the first turn. It sort of takes the fun away.

If we could get it down to 52-55 like they have it chess, then I would consider that a success. And then the game is won by skill and strategy, not by a random generated coin toss.

Afterall, have you ever heard anyone complain that chess is too balanced? And that White should have a bigger advantage so the game is more uneven? I don't think I heard that argument anywhere about anything.... except maybe in the government and corporate sectors, or maybe the casinos who what their advantage even bigger.... But never in sports or gaming.... It's all about creating a fair playing field for all players evenly, and then letting their skill and talent prevail.

 

[Hortik]

Lets try that out

 

[AuraCraft]

I chose the reinforcement setting that statistically (based on the data we have) gave the 1st player the larger win percentage on that specific map.

It's smart to run the test with europe massive and other maps with a large 1st turn advantage
However the 1st reinforcement advantage gives the first player an advantage which interferes with the test results. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to the accuracy of the test results to do the opposite?
cheers

ps love the speach about the lvl playing field

 

[luiscasanova]

Tried to join a game (Classic Evolved against brianstheman), but the password didn't work. I tried new1v1, New1v1 and NEW1V1.

 

[AuraCraft]

@Luica;
that Brian Evolved game is not part of this test run
the ones that are have a note; "NEW HALF TROOPS"

the link search results show 2 player PW games of the maps included in the test run, including some games that aren't part of the test run

 

[riskyone]

<3
I love that my idea is given a try


I'll play >100 if I can.
I prefer not to play too many games on the same map at the same time... so Real Time games would be great, then I'll play >2 a day

If it's possible to include these games in 32 player tournament's, they'll fill up so fast

ps
3 reinforcements might still be in favor of whoever gets to use those reinfs first... if you create more such games, maybe choose 1 reinforcement rather than 3?

I'm very happy that your system will get a test run. I'm sure that your analysis will prove accurate and then be implemented. Congrats.:wavey:

 

[Sebrim]

first impressino on Classic Evolved fixed (after three games): no difference. The drop is simply too decisive and there's no way to catch up going second.

 

[d-flat]

I'm very much looking forward to the stats. If you are right Sebrim then we should try again with only 2 troops for first player. There'll be a point where it works out pretty even, surely! With 2 troops at the start then a card wouldn't be a given. NB. Why do 5v3 attacks always turn into 3v3?!

 

[Sebrim]

I'm very much looking forward to the stats. If you are right Sebrim then we should try again with only 2 troops for first player. There'll be a point where it works out pretty even, surely! With 2 troops at the start then a card wouldn't be a given. NB. Why do 5v3 attacks always turn into 3v3?!

You're right - but only on chance - I'm talking about the fixed force games. Those don't evdn work with the new rules. Chance games, on the other hand, is a different cup of tea. The one that I'm in is pretty even (Europe massive)

 

[AuraCraft]

thanks risky1

@d-flat; me 2 ... but 2 instead of 3 (in classic evolved) wouldn't be the solution. there are other factors that favor p1 such as 3/4 card sets and 3 reinforcements.

@sebrim; I would say 3 Path is the main problem, so less than the drop (which isn't neccessarily in p1's favor). But even with 3path especially in FF it should be far more even than the usual 90/10. probly less than 65, or towards the 50's if no commands are available.