1 vs. 1 player games

In my opinion, there are only a few players who are willing to play 1 vs 1 games. They are rafcio77, sekretar, me (leedog) and fireman41.

We all know how the system works. Go first... have an advantage, set up well by game... advantage and having good dice... advantage. It also works for the other player as well. Just depends.

Paddlin recently made a list of mistakes that occur during Capitals games but really have not seen him play 1 vs. 1 games to ease his frustrations. That's his choice.

Out of the top 20 players, only 3 are willing to put there points on the line to get a games started. The rest want no part of them. Why? We all know why. The top 17 others might feel it's unfair, too unpredictable... and could cost them some big points losing to a new player.

Points gained or lost is supposedly based on skill... but if that were the case the top players wouldn't avoid 1 vs. 1 players games.

So one could gather the system is flawed... in the past I've suggested 10 points for a win and 10 for a loss... no matter who plays.

1 vs. 1 players games: Skill - 33% who goes first - 33% luck of dice 33%.

Since most of the experienced players know this and refuse to play them... why should so many points be at stake for a game that only 33% of your skill matters?

there aren't so many points at stake. The formula for determining points for two player games is different than the formula for > 2p games.

In two player games if your opponent has so few points that you would only gain 5 points from them if you won, you will only lose 10 points to them if you lose. You will never lose more than double the amount of points that you would gain if you had won. This means that you only have to win 66% of the time against a player who has little points in order to keep your points.

The reason why I don't play 2p games is because I don't find them fun anymore. I used to play a few 2p games right after I changed the formula in order to help get more games going but I am too busy managing the site to do that anymore.

Leedog I know on many occasions I have played 1v1 games. I don't know if im one of those 3 you speak of but I know that I have no problem playing any type of game except same time turn games. I am just not as active in playing the games in general. I do enjoy playing different types of games though. I really don't look too much into the points anymore. Vexer is right though the formula for 1v1 games has changed to accomodate for 1v1 games without the risk of losing an extreme amount of points.

Vexer, I understand what you're saying about the system but just lost a game to a new player that cost me 26 points. Why?

1. He knew how to play Risk (good player)

2. He went first

3. My dice weren't that good

And with the system here, I'm expected to win 2 out of 3 against him?

You base the system off experience in 2 players games when it's truly based on luck.

How I'm I suppose to have a chance of winning 66% percent of the time when I have no control on dice (expect that), no control on set-up (random) and no control on who goes first (random).

Why should I be in a position of losing twice as many points just because it's based off my experience when experience doesn't give me a 66% chance of winning... it gives me a 33% chance of winning at best.

Other than you, this is why most of the experienced players don't play 1 vs. 1 games... they know the chance of winning as a percentage isn't based on their skill.

What I would suggest Leedog and Vexer has said this to me before is try playing a 1v1 on the Saturn Map. I know it is not as asthetically appealing as some of the other maps but I truly found it to be a more fair setup than any of the other maps. It still will not solve the problem you have with points or who goes first but it may help with the problems you have with setup.

I have played at least 200 1v1 games. There is a very simple strategy that gets employed by experienced players in roughly the same way every time. It was fun for awhile, but has become really boring. Unless, of course, the person you are playing with is alive in the chat box. Then it is just an excuse to chat about nonsense (not god). 

Holt, just read comment... yes you do play 2 player games (against me that I've encountered) but don't really see you start the consistently... you seem to play all types.

My point is that no one seems to take in consideration why so few high ranking members play them... they know it's not worth losing the points. I'm just about ready to stop playing them myself.

I play on what I would consider one of the more complicated maps (Oregon... like the bonuses for a challenge), but when someone who never played the map before plays it like he's played 100 times before... other factors must be taken into consideration.

Well I know it's not the answer your looking for Leedog but if and when we can get around to programming a way to pick your own territories there will always be this problem with 1v1 games. It has been a concern of most since the site was created and has been brought up multiple times and discussed a hundred different ways. I hope to be able figure out a solution to this dilemma at some point.

Paddlin, you have seen me set up games on Oregon map for quite a while now and haven't joined one. Haven't seen you play Rafcio on World map or sekretar on double Caribbean. Sure, if the main strategy is to remove the other player as quick as possible... I understand (happened to me plenty of times and seems to be the best one... but if I'm set up from beginning and go first... that gets harder to accomplish... then of course throw in bad dice and your could be in some trouble.

Also Paddlin, I would have thought you might have gravitated back to 2 player games based on new players not playing multiplarer games in a experienced way.

Well you know you could say two player games are the most balanced games as well. Never heard a complaint of teaming in a 1v1... Just sayin..

Lol... this is true my friend!! =)

Though keep in mind... the last 75 games I've played have been 2 player games and in that time I gained 150 points... 2 points per game. Lol!!

Does that sound right? If my goal was to stay at the same level forever, I'm on the right track. I guess I should have used that time playing 75 multiplayer games and I guess my rank would be at least 2 levels higher?

In fact I would be willing to put this to the test. If any of the top ten players would be willing to challenge me in 10 games on 10 different maps to see if they would win 6-7 out of 10, I'm in. By no means I'm I saying I could kick ass but I'm interested in seeing the results. High noon on Thursday... message me if interested. =)

In fact... let's give it a title... "2012 2 player Challenge".

First one to message is in (though, must be top 10 in ranks).

Will also do challenge with player in lowest rank (basic, so it doesn't appear I'm just trying to get points without risking them)... message me if interested.

The special formula kicks in only if you have twice as many points as the player you are playing other wise the formula is the same. You lost 26 points and would have only gained 14 points for winning. The purpose of the formula is to guarantee that you will never lose more than twice the amount of points that you would gain. If you had beaten them two times then you would have gained 28 points which is more than 26 so the formula didn't kick in. I can modify it again so that the max loss is something more reasonable like 15 points. What do you guys think that max amount of points lost should be for 2p games?

But Like paddlin and I have been saying, it's not about the points. Once you have played enough 2p games they get boring. I am not sure what keeps sekretar and rafcio playing so many 2p games, i don't get it.

Since Leedog is making such a strong case, I think I will hop in on one of his Oregon Cities games... maybe

@ Vexer, even if you gave points to both the winner and the loser, I still don't think I would play 2 player games