Conquer Club

I've called OP out, I'm running an experiment, a 1v1 experiment. If OP is right that 1v1 is luck, we will see an approximately 50-50 game balance. If he is wrong we could see 60-40 game balance. This will be in the form of a tournament. It will be interesting to watch.

MajorRT wrote:After playing a bunch of 1v1,winning depends on:

40% drop
30% who goes first
20% skill
10% dice

there's no getting around this in the current format, yet it's still fun to play...but DON'T expect to make many points in 1v1...

rubbish...ive seen people drop australia on 1vs 1 and still lose coz they made the wrong choices!

max is gr8 wrote:I've called OP out, I'm running an experiment, a 1v1 experiment. If OP is right that 1v1 is luck, we will see an approximately 50-50 game balance. If he is wrong we could see 60-40 game balance. This will be in the form of a tournament. It will be interesting to watch.

Not much of a callout seeing as how I have NEVER stated that 1v1 is luck. I think you are mistaken, max is gr8, the poster a few above was refering to the OP of this thread, not the OP as in Optimus Prime. I have been on the record as stating that unlimited fortifications give a severe advantage to the first player to play, as well as freestyle in 1v1 doing the same thing, but I have never said it was entirely luck.

I do believe that luck is a more sizable factor in 1v1 over more standard settings, but I don't think it is a massive factor by any means. The drop is sometime heavily favored to one player, but not all the time, and certainly not a majority of the time. I think I would know, I played hundreds of 1v1 games when they first came out. The dice are as much a factor in them as they are in any other game, you just have to know when to STOP ROLLING, as many people on this site do not.

hulmey wrote:

MajorRT wrote:After playing a bunch of 1v1,winning depends on:

40% drop
30% who goes first
20% skill
10% dice

there's no getting around this in the current format, yet it's still fun to play...but DON'T expect to make many points in 1v1...

rubbish...ive seen people drop australia on 1vs 1 and still lose coz they made the wrong choices!

Shockingly, I am in agreement with hulmey here.

max is gr8 wrote:I've called OP out, I'm running an experiment, a 1v1 experiment. If OP is right that 1v1 is luck, we will see an approximately 50-50 game balance. If he is wrong we could see 60-40 game balance. This will be in the form of a tournament. It will be interesting to watch.

Your premise is horribly flawed. You are basing the 50-50 split on the fact that the luck will be split evenly across the games. As far as you know, one player could start with Australia in all 8 games. And I don't believe that would lead to a 50-50 split.

I'm talking about 100 games, luck would even out in that many

I think the luck factor has to be diminished depending on settings and maps. The drop doesn't matter as much on a large map, or some of the newer "adjusted rules" maps. (Like New World, Age of Merchants etc). Doodle Earth, it is huge. Classic, pretty big, since most people on this site are familiar with the gameplay on that map. But looking at a map like Feudal War...I could probably be allowed to place my armies, and couldn't win, since I don't understand it.

max is gr8 wrote:I'm talking about 100 games, luck would even out in that many

Having played a few THOUSAND 1v1, I think I have a pretty good grasp of 1v1.

The truth is that ALL games are part luck, part drop and part skill.

Universally, a really bad player can lose even a "gimmee" game. A good player, conversely can turn things around purely by skill, but really uneven dice can wreak havoc on the best of plans.

The larger maps tend to give the first player a big advantage, but I found out there is more skill there than I thought before after losing soundly to someone when I started & had a bonus of almost 20 .. twice!

Realms and Fuedal give no real advantage to starting.

If the game is on a straightforward map with little room for creativity or "cleverness", then 2 *competent* players would have to base it almost all on luck. We like to pretend that when we win a game or thoroughly trounce another player it's all about skill, but you can't do a damn thing without the dice/cards gods approval, especially if the other person doesn't make any glaring mistakes. Since one of the most important thing in 1v1 is minimizing your own mistakes and not exposing yourself too badly, and neither player is making any dumbass moves, it will always come down to who got lucky at the right time. Of course, when you put different map sizes, bonuses, etc into the picture, then things may change, but if both players are familiar with the map, it will come back to luck.

bigger the map, the less the luck applies...

lord voldemort wrote:Ok we all know it...
i was recently having an argument in live chat and someone said the number of games u play against one person reduces the luck which is prolly true to a degree my argument is if 2 people come up against each other 1v1 both understand 1v1 tactics and play, both understanding the map then the game comes entirely down to luck? agree...thought comments

This is true in some respect,but not everyone has the same view/strategy on any particular map.It always has some degree of skill.

AAFitz wrote:bigger the map, the less the luck applies...

hmmm, dont agree with you there. I play Waterloo 1 vs 1 quite abit and the bonu's players have dropped is quite astounding.

Although world 2.1 is great for 1vs 1

hulmey wrote:

AAFitz wrote:bigger the map, the less the luck applies...

hmmm, dont agree with you there. I play Waterloo 1 vs 1 quite abit and the bonu's players have dropped is quite astounding.

Although world 2.1 is great for 1vs 1

i do love 2.1 for 1v1