Conquer Club

I don't know how many people have experienced this. I guess quite a lot. And they take it with a grain of salt.

I'm talking about bonuses at the start of a game. Usually, the randomizer works perfectly. Other times though, said program will give a humongous bonus to a player. Take this game for instance: http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2326652.

2 player game and one already has a +5 bonus at the start. How in the world are you supposed to win there? I will give some answers

1] The player who had a bonus goes last thus enabling the others to equalize the playing field on the way to round 2.
2] If the player with a bonus goes first, he/she rolls dice from hell and thus the advantage. Usually though, a smart player will secure his borders before attacking.
3] Errr... (I have no more)

So this begs these questions:
Does the "randomizer program" work perfectly? The answer is a resounding "NO".
Can the randomizer work better than this? The answer is a resounding "YES"
How? Well, I'm no programmer. Nor am I a mathematician. Nor am I in any way conversant with how programs and calculations work, especially here.

I do know this: if one adds a program that asks the mother program before the start of a game if every player has the same number of armies to deploy, then then game proceeds. If there is a discrepancy, then the game goes back to the randomizer, then to the added program again. Then loop till one gets a game where everyone deploys equal number of armies at the start.

Is it going to be expensive to add said program? I don't know. That's one question I hope the game developer answers (and implements ).

thinktank wrote:So this begs these questions:
Does the "randomizer program" work perfectly? The answer is a resounding "NO".
Can the randomizer work better than this? The answer is a resounding "YES"
How? Well, I'm no programmer. Nor am I a mathematician. Nor am I in any way conversant with how programs and calculations work, especially here.

I do know this: if one adds a program that asks the mother program before the start of a game if every player has the same number of armies to deploy, then then game proceeds. If there is a discrepancy, then the game goes back to the randomizer, then to the added program again. Then loop till one gets a game where everyone deploys equal number of armies at the start.

I don´t get it .... at first you said that the programm is not perfectly random?
And after you give advice how to controll randomness by making some checks?

Randomness means that each case has the same chance for happening. Bonus for start, no bonus, all cases are equal.

I guess that you don´t want a random start position. What you want is a start position with same chances for every player. You see the difference?

I agree that only a few players will be happy if their opponent starts with a bonus .... but drop belongs to the games as dice and all the other stuff. If you look for a fair drop option, do you want to make a system check after for the dice? Maybe prevent that a player can lose 10 roles in a row? Could be more fair .... but do you really want that? Random drop and dice are important parts of the game .... you can change them .... but the game would be an other one after.

happens all the time. just played a bamboo jack where the other team landed on 4 bonuses, 2 each... did we whine? no we broke what we could then kicked them to the curb in a few rounds... it happens. you make adjustments. you kick ass. you leave with their points and dignity.-0

seul is right, and besides it is possible to beat them 1v1 when they start with a bonus or two....or three... ive done it

Herakilla wrote:seul is right, and besides it is possible to beat them 1v1 when they start with a bonus or two....or three... ive done it

Well, it's hard. Here's a good case study: Game 2211252 Even taking (arguably) the best player in a given setting against a (presumably) awful player, the bonus and starting first was enough to win.
It wouldn't be hard to override the bonuses in the first round, so that players have a chance to break them. OP's suggestion really limits the number of possible drops (think Pearl Harbor: each player will need two of each plane, or 4 of one set and give 4 to the other player, etc.).

Thanks for using my most painful recent CC moment as an example!! It was only the fact that he had TWO bonuses on the drop and knew the map well enough in order to grab THREE MORE on his first turn that made it so damn hard. Even so, in the middle of that game I did stabilise to a position where he had no bonuses and we were almost even on territories. Unfortunately I had take huge risks to achieve that and left myself very thin.

I am indifferent to this suggestion, in that the luck of the drop is an important aspect of the current game we all play. If luck was that much of an issue for us then we would be playing chess instead.

That said, it would be possible (probably quite easily) for Lack to programme a re-randomise on the basis of the bonuses. Something similar is already in place to ensure that no-one gets an objective on the drop (not that there is a map in use or even in development where this could be an issue) - if my memory serves me the code will reset the drop up to 50 times until noone has an objective from the start. A similar thing could be done for all games, but would need to be a bit more flexible - especially as some maps (Seige, PH, Montreal, Malta to name a few) have unavoidable bonuses on the drop. One way could be to include in the map's xml a list of "unacceptable" bonuses on the drop, so any of the planes in PH would be fine, but anything more than +3 would not. Re Waterloo, maybe bar any bonus on the drop at all.

And would this apply to just the first person who takes a turn or everybody?

Another alternative would just to ignore non-territory count bonuses for everyone on the first turn, but that seems unnecessary (and yet another thing to confuse beginners).

Even given games like the one BA linked to, I personally would not like this to change. If it did, then the next step would be to make the dice "fair" - a very different concept to "random", which would ruin CC forever.

I don't see the point in this any more than the point of not allowing someone to roll double sixes back to back to back. There's always luck. This is just one version.

I've been dealt great drops in games only to have my opponent pull sixes out of their ass all game long and completely destroy me on every meaningful attack. Believe me, I would certainly preferred the dice.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Thanks for using my most painful recent CC moment as an example!!

I would've thought that was your missus removing your other account... but meh!!

C.

It's not much different than say, playing somebody better than you in the first place... but you'll never get anywhere by avoiding that situation. Who cares about the drop? The only thing that can happen is you'll lose the game, but maybe learn how to play against the odds in so doing... worth more than just equalizing the drop.

A bigger issue is when you have one of those "Spartan pass through the mountains" situations, and its all blocked up with neutrals. Talking strickly 1v1 now, I notice that there can be a significant variation from map to map as to how many starting neutrals are placed... and I know it's possible to make sure that particular spots start neutral, but I wonder if anyone has a particular example where they think a particular bonus area should always have some number of neutrals.

For example, in Scotland, you get a much better (i.e., more balanced) game if Dumfries starts neutral, and, on the other hand, if both Mull and Ross start neutral, the game will 80-90% of the time go to whoever can take +2 for the Isles. Some deal for Middle Earth with the Lindon bonus. Anyone else have similar issues. I never play Classic, but it seems that for 1v1 Austrailia is the same thing...

If you are all going to play 2 player games - expect to see drops that aren't going to be favorable fairly often.
Stop moaning and play a 4-6 player game to reduce 'unfair drops'

Kemmler wrote:My king of the moutnains record is spotless since I always start with kings

I've played "Kings" where one person starts with lots of Kings, but I disagree that you always win... that map has a really good design as there are so many attack points to break bonuses that I've been able to come from behind on that one with some type of decent strategy.

Did I mention the time I started on 8-thoughts with a +6 bonus, and lost to a cook and a corpral... of course guessing wrong on whether the cook was going to deadbeat didn't help things! Starting bonus means very little if its a fluid map... and I also suspect that its better not to be playing unlimited fort in these type of situations, but it could vary.

yeti_c wrote:

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Thanks for using my most painful recent CC moment as an example!!

I would've thought that was your missus removing your other account... but meh!!

C.

we aren't allowed to mention this, EVER...-0