Conquer Club

Looking for some thoughts/opinions here:

I constantly hear how 1 vs 1 games are more decided by dice, initial placement, who goes first, etc etc

Also the majority of comments tend to come from players who are at risk to lose more points in the game. After all, if you could win one game, lose three and break even on points - well if you actually care about points why the heck not! (Except you GLG, I know you hate to lose period)

I've always thought 1 vs 1 was excellent, but if you want to actually factor in skill and strategy it needs to be a multiple game match - with maps and settings being random (none of this is in regards to speed freestyle matches, which are of course an entity of their own)

So for example, if you play a 50 game one vs one match, no speed, everything else random against a player who has exactly the same points as you do - does skill or strategy factor into this or do you think its still just a crapshoot?

I mostly play 1vs1 games, and I always enjoy them more than larger multiplayer games. I think given any sample size like 50, for any game setting, you'll get a sense of which players are more experienced or tactically adept.

I'm not sure what my win percentage is in exclusively 1vs1 games, but last I had someone check it was above 50%.


--Andy

It kind of goes both ways. I feel I am one of the better one vs one players and I can win anything with the word series attached weather it be 2of3 or 51 out of 101. I have experienced a stretch of bad luck so unreal though in large series matches where it did not matter how good I was--I was going to lose--like 33% of the starts in a 75 game series--just no chance to win no matter how good you are. So the reality is it is still a mix of luck and skill, but in the long run luck is a bigger factor.

There is a reason you do not see very high ranked players (other than myself of coarse) playing 1v1 sequential games. Strategy will get you far, but luck can still outweigh any advantage your skill has.

b00060 wrote:There is a reason you do not see very high ranked players (other than myself of coarse) playing 1v1 sequential games. Strategy will get you far, but luck can still outweigh any advantage your skill has.

That and a lot of other reasons too, probably.

1vs1 is fun, and I usually like 1vs1 games on standard/classic-esque maps.


--Andy

b00060 wrote:There is a reason you do not see very high ranked players (other than myself of coarse) playing 1v1 sequential games. Strategy will get you far, but luck can still outweigh any advantage your skill has.

True. That being said, if your match is 1000 games against a player with the exact same points as you have does that not change your willingness to engage.

Most discussions I've had surrounding this always come back to the "win 4 out of 5 and lose points" statements.

As for luck outweighing any advantage, I totally agree. But with that being said, I don't see where the luck is any different than that which occurs with attacking and defending dice.

I love 8 player seq escalating games, and in these games when playing with people who (I believe) would be considered skilled and knowledgable at this setting, it still comes down to the first or second takeout and luck of the dice. If its a miss most times the next player clears the board. Could that be interpreted as luck being more of a factor in these games than skill as its the roll of the dice determining? Those 2 to 1 advantage takeouts that miss (giving the game away), as well as those suicide runs with 70% wins on attacks - skill or luck?

Anyways, where I'm rambling with this is that I don't agree with the comments that 1 vs 1 is more luck than strategy or skill. I do think this gets pointed to all the time because you can have a high win ratio with a drop in points, and that there will always be certain games that are inevitable losses prior to beginning of your first turn. This is obviously unfair, and a reason why many simply default that 1 vs 1 is all luck.

I most certainly agree that any single game, any single series of games or match size can be shown as an example of luck. I also believe that if the map choices are not random, an opponent can influence a match by choosing some or all maps which are high percentage winners based solely on who plays first.

Anyways, still looking for comments and opinions, there's no right or wrong answer here everyone, just individuals that believe their opinion is right or wrong (like me for example )

you got to much time on your hands tres not giving you enough chores
its a crapshoot?

i think luck is a big factor in all this, which makes 1v1 easier to win usually

shieldgenerator7 wrote:i think luck is a big factor in all this, which makes 1v1 easier to win usually

Or lose equally,I only play 1v1 and the effects of luck/bad luck are amplified because you only have one opponent to benefit or lose.I reckon thats why there are so many dice-bitchers in 1v1 games,the chance factor is so brutal.

chang50 wrote:

shieldgenerator7 wrote:i think luck is a big factor in all this, which makes 1v1 easier to win usually

Or lose equally,I only play 1v1 and the effects of luck/bad luck are amplified because you only have one opponent to benefit or lose.I reckon thats why there are so many dice-bitchers in 1v1 games,the chance factor is so brutal.

Yes, but if you can find a way to get luck on your side (by way of troop placement, deployment, and attacking), then it becomes a whole lot easier (though still very unpredictable as I just lost two games in a row ) to use the dice/luck to your advantage.

-SG7 ( )

AndyDufresne wrote:I mostly play 1vs1 games, and I always enjoy them more than larger multiplayer games. I think given any sample size like 50, for any game setting, you'll get a sense of which players are more experienced or tactically adept.

I'm not sure what my win percentage is in exclusively 1vs1 games, but last I had someone check it was above 50%.


--Andy

the community manager doesnt have map rank?

1v1 Ahhh. I love playing 1v1 but only on some maps. Arms race has a lot to do with drops but it's possible to win even if u dont get the best drops. I like to play trench 1v1 arms race and I have been winning more then losing. 1 map that I think is the most balenced is ww2 Poland (of maps I play) no nukes of course. It has a lot to do with the dice but what game have u played that doesn't rely on dice!