1vs1 tournaments

Hello, I suggest an improvement for 1vs1 elimination tournaments. In a series of matches between two players, there should be an automatic way to alternate the player starting the game in first position. The starting order is very important in these games. For example, if in a series of three games the same player starts three times in first position, this is an unfair advantage for him.

I think that the tourney organizer can end a game and redo it until everyone gets at least one start.

Yes, I proposed that in the current tournament, but Hoodlum and Blagoje_Jovovic pointed out that is too demanding for the organizer to do that manually, especially for a large tournament with a lot of rounds.

This is another reason why I never do 1:1...tourney or no.

For example 5 rounds, in which case someone will always be damaged (someone will play first three times and someone will only play twice) how it will be specifically determined who will play the two games first [u]DreamStreet wrote: Posted: 17 Mar 2021, 20:43 Post #176 I believe that going first in a 1v1 is not as big of an advantage as one might think. Maybe it is if you are playing a huge map like World Expanded or Texas, but so far for the tournament, we are not playing huge maps like that. I won first round and second round 2-1 and I went second in two games both rounds and first in only one. Still managed to pull off the win. When it comes to 1v1 games, strategies always depend on the setups and who goes first. My suggestion is that if you go second and the first player gained a big advantage first turn, try to reinforce and fortify and leave bigger numbers of troops on some territories. Those are always more prone to the other player getting bad dice if he tries to attack those. [/u] I still personally think it's total nonsense (it's just my opinion), it's random and it reflects the competitive spirit, the drop, the order of play, As for me personally, it won't be difficult for me to create games that way, but only if the majority votes that rule as valid.

should I then delete the game with the starting bonus for a player? if we are talking about equality in the game - equality as well as advantage at the start do not give the winner automatically. the dream street clearly testified to that

Yes. I have been advocating for a “fair drop” setting for years where territories are assigned by region first to it is impossible to have a bonus on the drop.

Please understand me, I am only the creator of the tournament and I do it according to the already established rule Another question is whether I like that rule or not but if I have to answer that question YES, I like it others may not like it.A matter of taste For now, only the two of you are expressing dissatisfaction with the random drop and the order of play I don't think there are many more such players and that most of them will be with me anyway :)

Ok BJ, I'm not here to question your skills as a tournament organizer, nor am I here to ask you for further efforts. In fact, I am here to ask for an improvement in the organization of future 1vs1 tournaments, which perhaps could also help future organizers. I mean, maybe it's not too difficult to create an algorithm that simplifies the creation of the games, where you just have to choose the map and enter the name of the players once and the rest is automatic. In my opinion, the starting position is very important in this type of game. As a matter of fact, at the moment in the current tournament there have been 91 games, the first player won 56 times while the second 35 times. I think these data are self-explanatory.

the experience of the players should be taken into account, as well as the data at the level of 1000 games in order to get some optimal result let's consider chess as a game, white pieces have the same result as the one you got, white pieces play first, that's a logical explanation isn't it, so someone has to start first, there's a sametime option for people who think differently. I fully understand what you are proposing, but in no case can this equality be achieved, the difference can be relatively reduced, but the results in favor of the white pieces (the one who plays first) will always be represented to the same or slightly reduced extent. You overlook one even more important factor, THE DICES, you can play every game first and due to the action of the bad dice you will lose every game, there is an option for that, ballanced dice I see what you suggest as a creation of sametime 1vs1 ballanced dice

I am certainly interested in how developers see this as an option and a possibility of application in practice and the general opinion regarding that equality that you and dough boy are proposing

You can't go by the support (or lack there of) in the forums. A very small % of people actually engage with the forums. Heck I have been trying to get us to change our Dominator badge for well over a year now and while there is widespread support, there has been zero traction. I have also suggested that we do other things and while there is some support (more than disagree), that too hasn't been done. Frankly, there isn't really a user vote system in place where features can be suggested and people vote on what is added/fixed next.

yes but if we look at how much has been done since the creation of the site to date, you will agree it has been done and more than enough staff is guided by the logic of doing the things that are most urgent and most important and whether the rank will look like this or that its essence and value remains the same, the image is just a difference. Also in this topic, there would probably be a reaction if it were not just the individuals in question