Handicapping option for second player

[seekmeup41]

Concise description:
A game option that would provide additional armies for the second player in 2-player games

Specifics/Details:
I propose that there be a game option where you could specify the number of additional armies the second player is given in Round 1. This could range from say 0-10. I propose this option because many of us really enjoy 2-player games but on certain maps (e.g., Arm's Race, Pearl Harbor) there is a huge advantage for going first. This advantage was so bad in Pearl Harbor that the site actually changed the map, only to revert back to its original map. My suggestion does not require changing the maps or the bonuses; it only attempts to even the playing field in the very first round. After that, the game plays as normal.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
The benefit is that it makes each game based more on skill. If you go first on Pearl Harbor you are on average going to have about 16 army bonus where the second player usually has about 8-10 armies (because of the 1st player attacks). This becomes too much to overcome. It can be done but I consider myself an expert in Pearl Harbor and I still only win about 15-20% of the games when I go second. I find that so frustrating that I don't play that map anymore. And whenever I go first the second player makes the same complaints that I do when I go second. No one likes it! Thus, allowing the person that sets up the game to provide some advantage to the second player (or disadvantage to the 1st player) would at least try and reduce first player advantage.

Second, adding this option would allow the CC statisticians to compile a database of precisely how much advantage (in armies) does going first provide. Sure we can run stats on the likelihood of winning a 2-player game if going first (for example, I reckon it is about 75% for Pearl Harbor) but that difference score does not tell you how to make things even. If we had a database that said (for say the Pearl Harbor map) with 0 additional armies 1st player wins 75% of the time, with 1 additional army it is 72%, with 6 additional armies it is 58%, with 9 additional armies it is 46% and so on, then we would have a whole new way of handicapping each map.

I know there are many people on this site that like the "risk/luck" of possibly going first, just as there are people on this site that like the possibility of winning an attack on 50 armies with only 25. I am not one of those people. I play this game for strategy. I would like games to be as even as possible from the start, and then let strategy dictate the winner. I think this option would provide an interesting way of testing how to make things even from the start, and the stats it will generate could be very helpful for future game changes. And at least this way, when you start up a Pearl Harbor game and given the 2nd player a 6 army advantage you know it will be (subjectively) even and one might adjust their strategy accordingly. I would play Pearl Harbor again if I had this option. Equally, I would play Pearl Harbor again if there was an option for an automatic rematch with the same drops but you switched the drops (or switched who went first).

Seek

[JoshyBoy]

I must say, I think we can all understand what you are driving at here. In most 1 v 1 games, it's definately an advantage and you are trying to provide a solution. However, I would like to challenge you on two points, just to get you thinking and developing your suggestion.

First, would this be applicable in both freestyle and sequential? If this was applicable in freestyle then neither player would move because they would be waiting for the extra troops for going second.

Also, how would you determine the number of troops to be handed out? Say for example, it's 1 v 1 on Luxembourg. How many extra troops would the second player get? You see, 3 extra troops might not be enough to combat the disadvantage, but then 6 extra troops might give you an overwhelming advantage, and end up being unfair on the firrst player. As another example, Hive. How many troops would you give there? An extra 5 troops on Hive would be pointless for your first turn, it would have to be something like 15 to 20 extra troops to counter the handicap of going second.

I like this idea, and my own suggestions for solutions to these two points would be to make it available in sequential only (because freestyle would just mean both players waiting around etc.), and the handicap would be maybe double troops. So on Luxembourg, instead of a starting 3, it would be 6.

[TheForgivenOne]

What also happens when Second player starts with a bonus that can't be broken?

[greenoaks]

What also happens when Second player starts with a bonus that can't be broken?

then there should be an option for the 1st player to get additional troops on their second turn

[Army of GOD]

What also happens when Second player starts with a bonus that can't be broken?

And what if the first player drops a bonus? That's an even bigger advantage. At least the first player has a opportunity to break the bonus.


Agree with this sugg 100%. Or, at least allow the second player drop the same amount of troops that the first player does (instead of the first player being a noob and getting really lucky, killing 4 territs on the first round).

[seekmeup41]

I must say, I think we can all understand what you are driving at here. In most 1 v 1 games, it's definately an advantage and you are trying to provide a solution. However, I would like to challenge you on two points, just to get you thinking and developing your suggestion.

First, would this be applicable in both freestyle and sequential? If this was applicable in freestyle then neither player would move because they would be waiting for the extra troops for going second.

Also, how would you determine the number of troops to be handed out? Say for example, it's 1 v 1 on Luxembourg. How many extra troops would the second player get? You see, 3 extra troops might not be enough to combat the disadvantage, but then 6 extra troops might give you an overwhelming advantage, and end up being unfair on the firrst player. As another example, Hive. How many troops would you give there? An extra 5 troops on Hive would be pointless for your first turn, it would have to be something like 15 to 20 extra troops to counter the handicap of going second.

I like this idea, and my own suggestions for solutions to these two points would be to make it available in sequential only (because freestyle would just mean both players waiting around etc.), and the handicap would be maybe double troops. So on Luxembourg, instead of a starting 3, it would be 6.

You raise two important points. First, it only makes sense for sequential. I never play freestyle; it aids people who have fast computers, fast network connections, and all the CC plugins. Hence, an uneven playing field for some players.

Second, with respect to number of additional armies to allocate to the second player, this is an unknown. This is exactly why I want to add this option. I think of it as more of an experiment that we are all subjects for. I have not played Hive but you have, and since you have some estimate of what a fair advantage would be (maybe 15) you would allocate that amount. Basically, if one were to add my game option to a game they start, they are doing so to specifically make the game even. As such, one would (I assume) provide the second player with the number of armies they think they need to win if they were to go second, but not more than that in case they happen to go first. This suggestion has a way of self-regulating itself given its function is to make things even.

But if we add this option and we have a hundred games with this option for each map, then we now begin to have empirical evidence of exactly what the map handicap should be. Then the game option could be adapted so that this specific amount it added to Round 1 rather than having the person that starts to game enter their own number of additional armies.

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions.
Seek

[seekmeup41]

What also happens when Second player starts with a bonus that can't be broken?

I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps "what happens when second player is allocated a really big bonus"? Surely this is the same in the current situation in Pearl Harbor where I have gone first and was provided with a 22 army bonus. By the time I was done, I took 8 of my opponents territories and they got a 4 army bonus. I have finished Pearl Harbor games in 3 rounds. That is pretty impressive given the number of territories on that map. This is more a reflection of the disadvantage given to the second player than my skill level.

Yes it is possible that the person starting the game could give the second player so many armies that they would have an advantage similar to the Pearl Harbor advantage for the first player. But they then risk automatically losing if they go second. Again, I think this would self regulate. I capped the bonus between 0-10 armies but some people think that might not be enough. For now, we would have to allow the person starting the game to enter what they think is fair. The could be listed in the game finder so that one does not have to join a game if they think this army advantage is unreasonable.

Also, once this option is added and we begin to generate statistics, we would know what a reasonable range of additional armies might be, thus once a map has been selected, the amount of possible additional armies could be restricted so that on average, for a given map, second player won 40-60% of the time with X to Y additional armies. Thus, the CC stats themselves would eventually kick in to make sure that someone could not start a game and provide too much or too little second player advantage.

Seek

[greenoaks]

What also happens when Second player starts with a bonus that can't be broken?

I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps "what happens when second player is allocated a really big bonus"? Surely this is the same in the current situation in Pearl Harbor where I have gone first and was provided with a 22 army bonus. Seek

no it is not

what tfo was pointing out is sometimes a player gets a decent drop and that player goes second.

under your system they get a territory bonus plus the additional troops you propose.

how does that make the game fairer ?

[seekmeup41]

What also happens when Second player starts with a bonus that can't be broken?

I am not sure exactly what you mean, perhaps "what happens when second player is allocated a really big bonus"? Surely this is the same in the current situation in Pearl Harbor where I have gone first and was provided with a 22 army bonus. Seek

no it is not

what tfo was pointing out is sometimes a player gets a decent drop and that player goes second.

under your system they get a territory bonus plus the additional troops you propose.

how does that make the game fairer ?

I see what you are saying. All I can add is that if player 2 gets dropped a bonus and player 1 doesn't manage to break that bonus before player 2 starts then yes, now player 2 as an additional advantage given my suggestion. But surely the odds of getting "dropped" a bonus are 1) often small, 2) equal for both players, 3) but unequal in likelihood of actually being "received" as player 1 WOULD get any dropped bonus but player 2 WOULD only get his/her bonus if unbroken after player 1s attacks.

Thus I see the frequency in which the point you raise actually occurs is quite small. In fact, I would guess that the likelihood of player 2 actually receiving a bonus in round 1 must be half that of player 1, so I would see my suggestion "helping" player 2 get even much more often than actually giving player 2 a clear advantage. In other words, my suggestion would cause the game to be more fair much more often than actually giving the 2nd player a clear advantage, as in the concern you raise.

Ultimately all I am proposing is a way to reduce the advantage disparity between player1 and player2. No system is perfect and it is just a game option; not a permanent change. But I do think this suggestion would in fact make the "average" game much more even between the first and second player.

[TheForgivenOne]

I see what you are saying. All I can add is that if player 2 gets dropped a bonus and player 1 doesn't manage to break that bonus before player 2 starts then yes, now player 2 as an additional advantage given my suggestion. But surely the odds of getting "dropped" a bonus are 1) often small, 2) equal for both players, 3) but unequal in likelihood of actually being "received" as player 1 WOULD get any dropped bonus but player 2 WOULD only get his/her bonus if unbroken after player 1s attacks.

Not all the time. On a map like doodle earth, Luxembourg, or even Classic, it is quite easy for Player to drop a bonus and have player 1 have next to no chance at breaking them. Whether it be bad dice, or having that bonus surrounded by neutrals. And it does have more than enough for players to complain about it, a lot.

[Army of GOD]

But TFO, the chances that the players drop a bonus are equal. With the current system, the first player could drop a bonus and the second player doesn't even get to go. If the second player drops a bonus, then the first player always has a chance (maybe a very, very small chance, but still a chance) to break it. The second player is at a ridiculous disadvantage with the current system and if we switch over then the first player may possibly be at a disadvantage but only if the second player drops a bonus.

[JoshyBoy]

To be honest, I think there are as many pros as cons here. There are so many different scenarios which could occur, and which could give either player an advantage, that just giving extra troops to the second player in every games, would still create an imbalance (for example, second player in a Luxembourg game drops a bonus of three by good fortune, and although the first player gets to go first, they can't break them, resulting in the second player getting 12 troops on their first turn --- 3 + 3 bonus x 2).

You could argue this both ways until you are blue in the face, so looks like a stalemate. If you don't like risking the disadvantages, don't play those silly 1 v1, luck-based games.

[greenoaks]

You could argue this both ways until you are blue in the face, so looks like a stalemate. If you don't like risking the disadvantages, don't play those silly 1 v1, luck-based games.

+1