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

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm not adding stats together; that's what gambit does. I just copied/pasted the output.

With the tool you're using you got 65% output. That's if the (right column) setting is 3 dice vs 2. Obviously not all rolls will be 3 vs 2 which is how you seem to interpret the tool's default setting
4 vs 3 -> roll once; next up is either 3d vsd 2 or 4 vs 1 (or 2 vs 2, which you won't roll)
(So your 65% isn't prefectly accurate)

So this shows 2 things
1 the way you interpret your tool is "incorrect" (I'm guessing this tool probly works best for stacks rather than small numbers.)
2 the findings are similar enough (your 65% and gambit's (59% and 72% which) averages 63%), which means the point I'm making still stands; that with minimaps 1st turn half deploy you get as close as you can to more even odds of either player being the first to get a card. You don't care about that; ppl who want a lvl playing field do.

NO, You are misinterpreting the tool. You put in the number of troops each has and it tells you the likelihood of success, PERIOD. All the way down to a 1v1 if necessary. 1000 iterations displayed.

 

[haWD96lz]

NO, You are misinterpreting the tool. You put in the number of troops each has and it tells you the likelihood of success, PERIOD. All the way down to a 1v1 if necessary. 1000 iterations displayed.

I'm busy right now, but I agree with Cards. Happy to work out the true odds of this over the weekend. Its not a large space so we can just calculate it directly.

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm busy right now, but I agree with Cards. Happy to work out the true odds of this over the weekend. Its not a large space so we can just calculate it directly.

Ah, I knew we had a stats expert, but couldn't remember who it was. Now I remember. Thanks, haWD96lz

 

[periwinkle]

Just a quick question....why did we try this half troop thing and not the first person deploy thing? Shouldn't we try to get stats on that? It seems people get less antsy because the troops deployment is the same. Not trying to stir the pot..but just asking an honest question. :questionmark:

 

[Cardinalsrule]

Just a quick question....why did we try this half troop thing and not the first person deploy thing? Shouldn't we try to get stats on that? It seems people get less antsy because the troops deployment is the same. Not trying to stir the pot..but just asking an honest question. :questionmark:

Beats me. Someone convinced Sheriff to take MrMarcos away from the new engine work to put this code in. Seems to me like it's not any more important than 1000 other tweaks that are scheduled for the new game engine, but what do I know.

 

[brianstheman]

Just a quick question....why did we try this half troop thing and not the first person deploy thing? Shouldn't we try to get stats on that? It seems people get less antsy because the troops deployment is the same. Not trying to stir the pot..but just asking an honest question. :questionmark:

From what I heard (it wasn't from Sheriff directly) the current engine couldn't do the first person deploy thing. But if people don't like a reduced chance of getting a card going first now, what will they say when there's a zero percent chance?

 

[periwinkle]

From what I heard (it wasn't from Sheriff directly) the current engine couldn't do the first person deploy thing. But if people don't like a reduced chance of getting a card going first now, what will they say when there's a zero percent chance?

well...if it is escalate...and...if the first person just deploys I rather be 2nd in gettingthe reserves....at least I think that could be a good thing....

 

[periwinkle]

Beats me. Someone convinced Sheriff to take MrMarcos away from the new engine work to put this code in. Seems to me like it's not any more important than 1000 other tweaks that are scheduled for the new game engine, but what do I know.

I agree...let's focus on the new code....tweaks can always be made later...I like to see more traffic here anyway...everyone that has been around for at least 5 years told me that the traffic was awesome for UDOs collecting....

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Just a quick question....why did we try this half troop thing and not the first person deploy thing? Shouldn't we try to get stats on that? It seems people get less antsy because the troops deployment is the same. Not trying to stir the pot..but just asking an honest question. :questionmark:

Yeah. Marcos tried to implement a "skip attack and reinforce for the first player" rule, but for some reason it wasn't working properly. So then he tried the "first player gets half the troops" rule, and that worked immediately. So we just left it as that.

====== UPDATE ======​

Anyway, here is an update. Since the number of games under the "New Rules" is still small, I'm only showing the 4 most played maps, for the most accurate results.....

|| Percent of 2nd player wins under the Old Rules
|| Percent of 2nd player wins under the New Rules
|| Percentage change under the new rules
|| Map

Old R || New R || Change || Map

39.4 || 46.5 || 07.1% || Classic Evolved
39.5 || 44.3 || 04.8% || Mesopotamia
34.7 || 49.2 || 14.5% || Barbarossa
29.7 || 50.0 || 20.3% || Europe Massive


==== Initial takeaway: =====

• It looks like the larger maps have the greatest impact, which should not be surprising, since they were skewed the most towards a first player win.
  
• Originally the second player had a 30-40 percent chance of winning, now it seems they have a 44-50 percent chance. Which seems a lot more fair IMO.

Anyway, looks promising.

Special thanks to Number2 for playing a huge amount of these 1v1 games!

 

[Bluebonnet]

quick question sheriff. number 2 plays a ton of fixed force nowadays. almost exclusively from what i see since the new 1/2 deploy started.

did you apply the same filters when you ran the data?

https://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/9621-Proposed-Changes-to-1v1-(2-player)-games/page2

All data below is:
2 Player Games
Casual 24 Hour
All Reinforcements Types
Chance Only (Not Fixed)

 

[riskyone]

Yeah. Marcos tried to implement a "skip attack and reinforce for the first player" rule, but for some reason it wasn't working properly. So then he tried the "first player gets half the troops" rule, and that worked immediately. So we just left it as that.

====== UPDATE ======​

Anyway, here is an update. Since the number of games under the "New Rules" is still small, I'm only showing the 4 most played maps, for the most accurate results.....

|| Percent of 2nd player wins under the Old Rules
|| Percent of 2nd player wins under the New Rules
|| Percentage change under the new rules
|| Map

Old R || New R || Change || Map

39.4 || 46.5 || 07.1% || Classic Evolved
39.5 || 44.3 || 04.8% || Mesopotamia
34.7 || 49.2 || 14.5% || Barbarossa
29.7 || 50.0 || 20.3% || Europe Massive


==== Initial takeaway: =====

• It looks like the larger maps have the greatest impact, which should not be surprising, since they were skewed the most towards a first player win.
  
• Originally the second player had a 30-40 percent chance of winning, now it seems they have a 44-50 percent chance. Which seems a lot more fair IMO.

Anyway, looks promising.

Special thanks to Number2 for playing a huge amount of these 1v1 games!

Europe Massive went from 30% to 50%, For that map, that's great. Big difference in barbarossa also. I think on Meso and Barbarossa, I would rather go second. Bluebonnet's comment, I would also like to know if that included FF:smokin:

 

[brianstheman]

Europe Massive went from 30% to 50%, For that map, that's great. Big difference in barbarossa also. I think on Meso and Barbarossa, I would rather go second. Bluebonnet's comment, I would also like to know if that included FF:smokin:

OK Risky, I'll play you and allow you to go 2nd Over 1k games, that should be 8 extra wins for me.....I need a lot of W's to catch you in the all time rankings!

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

quick question sheriff. number 2 plays a ton of fixed force nowadays. almost exclusively from what i see since the new 1/2 deploy started.

did you apply the same filters when you ran the data?

https://www.majorcommand.com/forums/threads/9621-Proposed-Changes-to-1v1-(2-player)-games/page2

All data below is:
2 Player Games
Casual 24 Hour
All Reinforcements Types
Chance Only (Not Fixed)

I ran it again today and removed Fixed Force games. (keeping the other filter the same as above)

Classic Evolved increased 0.4 percent from 46.5 to 46.9
And Mesopotamia decreased 0.5 percent from 44.3 to 43.8

The other 2 maps did not change.

Essentially the results excluding FF are the same.

 

[d-flat]

I fail to understand what the problem is with these new rules. Whichever way you choose to look at it, it's got better. I understand that it isn't perfect, but I'm failing to even understand the argument against it.

For me, it has removed so much frustration from the OG that is 1v1 Classic Evolved.

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

I fail to understand what the problem is with these new rules. Whichever way you choose to look at it, it's got better. I understand that it isn't perfect, but I'm failing to even understand the argument against it.

For me, it has removed so much frustration from the OG that is 1v1 Classic Evolved.

There is no problem with the new rules! They made 1v1 games a lot more balanced.

I'm glad it removed the frustration. It would for me too. Now players have the choice of which games they want to play.

 

[LustyNarwhal]

I like this. Are there any plans to integrate this as a selectable option in the standard "Start a Game?"

 

[NewSheriffInTown]

Yes, but it would most likely get integrated only for the new game engine (currently beta). There would be too much mucking around with the frontend/backend of the current site, and it might break.

 

[Hortik]

HI Sheriff,

Do you think it is possible to have an option on the "Create a Game"-Page where we can just tick a box if we want the new rules?

Just to avoid coming back on the forum and copy paste the sentence .

Cheers,
Hortik

 

[Cardinalsrule]

HI Sheriff,

Do you think it is possible to have an option on the "Create a Game"-Page where we can just tick a box if we want the new rules?

Just to avoid coming back on the forum and copy paste the sentence .

Cheers,
Hortik

Hi Hortik,
I think that falls under the Sheriff's comment about 'too much mucking about with the frontend/backend'. Going to have to wait for the new game engine to have it as a set option.

 

[Hortik]

Alright,

My bad I didnt read the previous questions :banghead: