Conquer Club

I know that this isn't the first time that this idea has been posted before, but is there any interest in a singles scoreboard?

yes there is interest. a lot of it i might add.

perhaps in the future we'll have separate scoreboards for singles doubles or triples.

but i doubt it. a true board is impossible.

calculating all the scores for a specific game type seems almost impossible because you can't simply eliminate the points lost and gained in doubs and trips since those points affected your score which in turn affected your loss/gain in singles games. and your scores affected the scores of other players.

for example if somehow my first game should get deleted not only my current score should be recalculated but the scores of all the players i've met since then.

and imagine that a singles scoreboard calculation would require a lot of calculating because if let's say your score is calculated to reflect just the singles then all the scores of the players you've ever met should be redone according to your score and in turn all the scores of the players they've ever met. but wait you aren't the only one that influences the players you've met. they are also influenced by each player they've ever met so i guess it's impossible. i'm dizzy.


however an inaccurate board can be done and it wouldn't be hard at all. just do the math for the profit in each game type regardless of the score influences.
this is very easy to implement but wouldn't be as accurate. although i think it would satisfy everybody.

I think we need singles maps first. As a lot of the current maps are not balanced for 1v1 play. Classic does it the best. Middle Earth isn't bad. Some of the more symmetrical maps do a good job.

Some Problems.

Analysis 1v1 can be played on maps that always (or at least 90% of the time) favor who moves first in a 1v1 setting. Nobody has put the required math and statistics into studying which maps are like this, and then sending said information to lackattack so he can block 1v1 on them. 3 player games lack this problem because the first player can be countered by the two other players working together for short moments.

Technology The site currently doesn't allow for 1v1 only maps, or maps designed with only 1v1 in mind. We would need to be able to enforce start positions, or carefully craft maps that only in extreme conditions favor the first player enough to guarantee victory if the first player has average luck and always makes the correct moves. (I'd say 5% of the time would be acceptable) Thanks to luck risk is not a 'solved' game, but when the second moving player is almost always working with 10% probability of winning assuming the first is rational and skilled there is a problem.

Demand Not enough people are requesting 1v1 specific maps. If they did the current foundry may not accommodate them. Getting new ideas passed is difficult, and often impossible. The current foundry doesn't even want to accommodate maps smaller then World 2.1 saying they are too big. (I still don't understand this, and won't until World 2.1 is removed from the site or revamped to fit current size restrictions.)

Awareness I think before we see a change someone may need to exploit the problem. If someone took the time to figure out which maps are severely imbalanced towards the first person, and then only joined those games against players higher in rank then themselves they could effectively farm points. They have a 50% chance of winning if they are competent. And winning will net them more points then they lose if they end up moving second assuming the ranks don't radically change before the game is over.

This exploitation is already happening, but players abusing it are incorrectly assuming that play is always imbalanced towards the first person on all maps. So we have yet to see anyone having abnormally high ranks as a result of 1v1 play exploitation.

well there's doodle earth

I thought that too, about doodle earth. But I very very easily won going first.

That may have been a fluke, I haven't analyzed it.

Coleman wrote:I thought that too, about doodle earth. But I very very easily won going first.

That may have been a fluke, I haven't analyzed it.

with 6 countries each in a 1v1 game, whoever goes first is basically guranteed a win
cause then the first guy can break any fort chains his opponent might have, crippling his armies, and bring all of your own guys into a big army and erase the rest of him. I won in round 3 in a 1v1 game on doodle earth.

Coleman wrote:I think we need singles maps first. As a lot of the current maps are not balanced for 1v1 play. Classic does it the best. Middle Earth isn't bad. Some of the more symmetrical maps do a good job.

Some Problems.

Analysis 1v1 can be played on maps that always (or at least 90% of the time) favor who moves first in a 1v1 setting. Nobody has put the required math and statistics into studying which maps are like this, and then sending said information to lackattack so he can block 1v1 on them. 3 player games lack this problem because the first player can be countered by the two other players working together for short moments.

Technology The site currently doesn't allow for 1v1 only maps, or maps designed with only 1v1 in mind. We would need to be able to enforce start positions, or carefully craft maps that only in extreme conditions favor the first player enough to guarantee victory if the first player has average luck and always makes the correct moves. (I'd say 5% of the time would be acceptable) Thanks to luck risk is not a 'solved' game, but when the second moving player is almost always working with 10% probability of winning assuming the first is rational and skilled there is a problem.

Demand Not enough people are requesting 1v1 specific maps. If they did the current foundry may not accommodate them. Getting new ideas passed is difficult, and often impossible. The current foundry doesn't even want to accommodate maps smaller then World 2.1 saying they are too big. (I still don't understand this, and won't until World 2.1 is removed from the site or revamped to fit current size restrictions.)

Awareness I think before we see a change someone may need to exploit the problem. If someone took the time to figure out which maps are severely imbalanced towards the first person, and then only joined those games against players higher in rank then themselves they could effectively farm points. They have a 50% chance of winning if they are competent. And winning will net them more points then they lose if they end up moving second assuming the ranks don't radically change before the game is over.

This exploitation is already happening, but players abusing it are incorrectly assuming that play is always imbalanced towards the first person on all maps. So we have yet to see anyone having abnormally high ranks as a result of 1v1 play exploitation.

NONE of the current maps is good for 1v1. not even classic or middle earth or the symmetrical ones. WHY? because they still rely heavily on the luck factor. and the initial deployment.
i've played 1v1 on classic and when a guy gets europe in turn 1 you're screwed. i've also seen guys start with both australia and south america and besides the fact that they had a big bonus they were also protected by neutrals. so at this point all the maps suck at eliminating the initial deployment importance.

at this moment there are in production only 2 maps where initial deployment means nothing. and where it doesn't matter if you go first or second. those maps are Feudal Wars and Age of Realms. because the gameplay they provide ensures nobody gets a bonus and that the initial attacking goes against neutrals not against other players.


PS: and doodle earth is the crappiest map on 1v1. luck plays a major factor there especially if you play unlimited fortifications and flat rate.

in one game i started second with a crappy deployment the other guy was all over me and i was going to lose but the first 3 cards formed a mixed set for me and i easily cleaned my opponent. no skill just luck.