New Options for 1v1 (2 player) Games!!

[NewSheriffInTown]

New Options for 2 Player Games

Players now have the option to play and create a 1v1 game (2 players) using the new 1/2 troop rule.

There are TWO OPTIONS for 1v1 (2 player games)

How it works:


FIRST STANDARD OPTION:

• By default, all 2 player games will give both players the same troops in the first round.
• All unmarked games will work this way by default, nothing needs to be done to create and play the traditional rules

SECOND NEW OPTION:

If you see a 2 player game that has the words: "NEW RULES: HALF TROOPS FOR 1ST PLAYER " in the notes, then the following 1/2 troop rule will apply:

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

For the new 2 player game option to work, the note section of the game must have the words "NEW RULES: HALF TROOPS FOR 1ST PLAYER".

That's all! Have fun!

Click Here for Available Games

Pro Tips to Create New Games

For those of you who wish to create a 2 player game with the new 1/2 troop rules, then continue reading below.

How to create a game with the new rules:

Creating a 1v1 game with the new rules is simple. You basically create any 2 player game as you normally would, but you need to add a specific text in the notes/tags: section of the game to activate the new rules.

The new rules will only work if the following text is added to the notes/tags section:

<b>NEW RULES: HALF TROOPS FOR 1ST PLAYER</b>

The text must be added exactly as above, including the <b> and </b> on each end.

Adding that text to the note section will active the new 1/2 troop rules. THAT'S ALL!

CORRECTION - This rule will work on small maps. Instead of 3 troops, the first player will get 2 troops. So go ahead and create any game on any map you want!

We will check in a couple months to see the results.

Good Luck and Have fun!

 

[matildathehun]

There's a lot of debate to the validity of this move of trying to even up sides in two-player games. As some have pointed out, it's almost academic -- you go first, you win.

So, I jumped on board with two Mars games. I went first in one game, which I won -- but it was way closer than it would have been. I went second in the other game, and though it's not over yet, it's looking good for me.

A sample size of two is not enough to decide whether or not things have been evened up in terms of percentages. But the other factor is playability -- is it fun? I can say in both cases, yes. (And I'd be saying that even if I'd lost that game, though admittedly not as whole-heartedly...! lol)

My two cents.

-MTH

 

[AuraCraft]

@Mathilda
that's nice to hear, ty ; )
I'm happy to be able to contribute

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

There's a lot of debate to the validity of this move of trying to even up sides in two-player games. As some have pointed out, it's almost academic -- you go first, you win.

So, I jumped on board with two Mars games. I went first in one game, which I won -- but it was way closer than it would have been. I went second in the other game, and though it's not over yet, it's looking good for me.

A sample size of two is not enough to decide whether or not things have been evened up in terms of percentages. But the other factor is playability -- is it fun? I can say in both cases, yes. (And I'd be saying that even if I'd lost that game, though admittedly not as whole-heartedly...! lol)

My two cents.

-MTH

That's great. That is exactly the aim of this experiment. Trying to increase the fun factor! Thanks for the feedback.

 

[JCUK]

I am still not 100% convinced this is a solution but from these games I have played it certainly feels a lot closer as expected...an initial win in my books. You need a lot more stats to get some adequate evidence. The games I have won and lost on these settings seem more determined by the drop than anything else.

What i would like to see is the ability to choose where starting troops are placed at the start of the game in alternate order rather than a random drop at the start. In casual this would take a very long time and likely not feasible but in RT this would be a great feature and would make the game more exciting. I believe you would get more players players playing RT which is where you get more players hanging around more than a couple of games and then leaving.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

I am still not 100% convinced this is a solution but from these games I have played it certainly feels a lot closer as expected...an initial win in my books. You need a lot more stats to get some adequate evidence. The games I have won and lost on these settings seem more determined by the drop than anything else.

What i would like to see is the ability to choose where starting troops are placed at the start of the game in alternate order rather than a random drop at the start. In casual this would take a very long time and likely not feasible but in RT this would be a great feature and would make the game more exciting. I believe you would get more players players playing RT which is where you get more players hanging around more than a couple of games and then leaving.

That's definitely something to consider. It would take a lot of coding, but it would be a nice feature....

And as long as the games feel closer, then it's a step in the right direction!

 

[riskyone]

That's great. That is exactly the aim of this experiment. Trying to increase the fun factor! Thanks for the feedback.

+1

 

[Sebrim]

I created a bunch of new games - please join me!
https://www.majorcommand.com/GameFinder.php?newestFirst=1matchany=1&mapid=&setting[8]=2&players=Sebrim&active=1&showDups=1

 

[welshmaz]

Thanks for these updates. Chang50 and I tend to play first player deploys and does not attack and this works well.

 

[brianstheman]

What i would like to see is the ability to choose where starting troops are placed at the start of the game in alternate order rather than a random drop at the start. In casual this would take a very long time and likely not feasible but in RT this would be a great feature and would make the game more exciting. ..

Wouldn't this turn out like a game of tic-tac-toe? P1 deploys Aus, P2 to block deploys Aus. P1 changes tack and deploys Africa. P2 deploys Africa.

Seems cool in theory, but in practice this phase should be P2 deploying right next to P1s last deployment.

 

[Dalinar]

Very glad to see this change as a long time fan of duels. Would like to see data on how this turns out, but a step in the right direction at the very least. I'd been planning to disappear back into retirement, but maybe I'll generate some data first.

Will be curious to see if this plays out consistently across ratings. I have a hunch it may have less effect at higher ratings, but it'll be in the data.

 

[MNatt]

I like it. It makes it less easy for the person going first to determine the shape of the game.

 

[EasyToKill]

Well, I have to conclude that on smaller maps it forces you to make a choice. Either take the 2 extra troops and cede the first attack, deploy only, or take the chance of bad dice and then you're essentially going 2nd with normal rules.

 

[brianstheman]

Well, I have to conclude that on smaller maps it forces you to make a choice. Either take the 2 extra troops and cede the first attack, deploy only, or take the chance of bad dice and then you're essentially going 2nd with normal rules.

Regardless of dice, the first player also has an advantage in being able to reinforce first, in addition to any numerical advantage gained by the deploy.

 

[JCUK]

Wouldn't this turn out like a game of tic-tac-toe? P1 deploys Aus, P2 to block deploys Aus. P1 changes tack and deploys Africa. P2 deploys Africa.

Seems cool in theory, but in practice this phase should be P2 deploying right next to P1s last deployment.

I played on a site with this setting many years and surprisingly it didn't begin like a tic tac toe, peole went for commands and then after few troops were in one command the other player would deploy in the command you were going for.

Another option could 50% random and 50% selected.

 

[EasyToKill]

[/B]

Regardless of dice, the first player also has an advantage in being able to reinforce first, in addition to any numerical advantage gained by the deploy.

So you're going 2nd but get first reinforcement. Not much of an inticement. Looking at it from the angle that I stated, I have to say I will NEVER want to play a game with those settings on a map where the players start with 3 or 4 troops.

 

[brianstheman]

But someone always goes second.

Apparently the stats show a 2:1 advantage when doing so under old method. The point is not so the first person continues to "hold serve", but to even the odds somewhat. First deploy and reinforce is still better than doing either second. So first player not attacking at all will still have an overall advantage.

Basically I'd still rather go first even if my advantage is smaller.

 

[brianstheman]

Will be curious to see if this plays out consistently across ratings. I have a hunch it may have less effect at higher ratings, but it'll be in the data.

Agree, think overall win percentage for any particular player shouldn't move too much, while the splits between 1st/2nd turn become less severe.

At first, I didn't like the idea of a change. My own win percentage on second turn is around 50%. But looking at sitewide data, it is clear that most players have a very different experience.

Hopefully any change makes the overall experience of playing from either first turn or second turn feel more winnable.

 

[AuraCraft]

@Brian - altruistic of you to inform me when Sheriff started the topic about solving the 1st turn advantage so I could suggest my solution

I just found a bug though. messaged Sheriff

 

[Sebrim]

I also found one: if the first player misses his turn, he gets the full first deploy in deferred troops something to keep an eye on when this option is made permanent