1v1 maps, community opinion requested

[e_i_pi]

Mods, this thread is in GD as I wish to get feedback from the wider community, not just the Foundry folk. In time, I don't mind if it is shifted over to Foundry talk, but I would like a little time in this forum, as it is a common ground that everyone visits from time to time.

Hi all. I, like many others, enjoy the challenge of 1v1, but have found that once you reach or exceed 1750 or so points, it becomes very draining on rank. Sure, we should all be here to play the game and not worry about rank, but there are a fair few players that do avoid 1v1 due to the effect it has on rank. I am endeavouring to create a series of 1v1 maps to address the problems of 1v1 games, and increase the interest in 1v1. In order to create good 1v1 maps that will be played and enjoyed, I need to canvas the community as to the problems individuals have encountered in 1v1.

Below are issues that I have identified, though as community suggestions come in, I will add them in. Feel free to suggest or point out something that has already been mentioned, as I will also keep a tally of what problem areas are identified most commonly:

The numbers in brackets are the number of times this has been raised, or words to the effect have been raised as an issue - for my record keeping, so I can identify the most common issues

Issues with 1v1 games

• Game Setup (Sequential) - Player going first can reduce their opponents territory count, leading to instant advantage (4)
• Game Setup (Sequential) - Player going first gets any continent bonuses instantly (4)
• Game Setup (Spoils) - Flat Rate games can become imbalanced due to one player getting 2 x 8-10 and the other getting 2 x 4-6 cash-ins (1)
• Game Setup (Reinforcements) - Unlimited and Chained games are heavily reliant on where the neutral player drops at game commencement
• Cartography (Gameplay) - Maps with specifically 36-41 / 45-50 / 54+ territories can become imbalanced as each player starts on the cusp of bonus armies from territories (2)
• Cartography (Gameplay) - Maps with chokepoints can become quickly imbalanced from neutrals dropping in chokepoints (eg - Mt Gambier / Adelaide on Australia map) (2)
• Cartography (Gameplay) - Specially designed gameplay for a map can go out the window on certain drops
• Cartography (Gameplay) - Maps with high amounts of chained provinces and chokepoints can reduce the amount of attacking options, bringing games down to a dice battle rather than a strategic battle
• Cartography (Gameplay) - Map complexity can ensure that the experienced player has next to no opposition (ie - farming) (1)
• Playing (Drop) - Certain drops can all but ensure that one player will win, barring exceptionally aberrant dice from both players (4)
• Playing (Knowledge) - Particular player-skill in a map may not translate well or at all from team games to 1v1
• Playing (Luck) - Two or three rounds of particularly good / bad dice can decide a game, especially early on (3)

[Iron Butterfly]

Its why I stay away from 1vs1.

The game is decided by the drop but more importantly by placement of neutrals. A bad drop combined by being blocked by neutrals while going second equal game over.

Make a map where you flip a coin. It saves time.

[oVo]

1v1 is basically a crap shoot where almost always the player who goes first in sequencial wins. A variation of that would be freestyle where the second player to join has the opportunity to go first and get the jump on his opponent. A map like Waterloo with chained forts/no spoils potentially negates the first turn advantage as much as any map here.

A cool variation on 1v1 would be a "team" game where both players sequencially control two (or more) colors and therefore diminish the first turn advantage.

[killmanic]

The only real problem i have with 1v1s right now is in alot of maps its very hard to win from 2nd, but there are some where that isnt the case such as waterloo and supermax. The way i see it the more difficulty the more fair the map is since the player who knows the map better will win more,

[BaldAdonis]

I think 1v1 (seq) is just like any other game type, in that you can't judge it's fairness from a single game. If you win the majority of times when you play first, but you lose the majority playing second, then it's a good set up (as long as you start first or second the same amount of times). Some players will win a higher majority playing first, or lose fewer playing second, and that's why it's not a crapshoot.

[Army of Achilles]

The only real problem i have with 1v1s right now is in alot of maps its very hard to win from 2nd, but there are some where that isnt the case such as waterloo and supermax. The way i see it the more difficulty the more fair the map is since the player who knows the map better will win more,

Feudal War is the least dependent on who goes first and the drop isn't much of an issue. This is why it is the best 1x1 map in my opinion

Relatively tough to overcome going 2nd on waterloo if the opponent is good and I find supermax to be one of the most unbalanced maps for the person gong 2nd

[Natewolfman]

The only real problem i have with 1v1s right now is in alot of maps its very hard to win from 2nd, but there are some where that isnt the case such as waterloo and supermax. The way i see it the more difficulty the more fair the map is since the player who knows the map better will win more,

Feudal War is the least dependent on who goes first and the drop isn't much of an issue. This is why it is the best 1x1 map in my opinion

Relatively tough to overcome going 2nd on waterloo if the opponent is good and I find supermax to be one of the most unbalanced maps for the person gong 2nd

I love 1v1, its my favorite game style, and i get the majority of my points from them, my rank gets lower playing all these assassin and 4-way games >.< but really i win alot more 1v1 then i lose, there is a specific stratigy to playing 1v1 most of the time, and i also really enjoy supermax in 1v1 play... it is one of the few you can truely come back from 2nd place, ive done it many times and had it done to me a few.

[Army of Achilles]

The only real problem i have with 1v1s right now is in alot of maps its very hard to win from 2nd, but there are some where that isnt the case such as waterloo and supermax. The way i see it the more difficulty the more fair the map is since the player who knows the map better will win more,

Feudal War is the least dependent on who goes first and the drop isn't much of an issue. This is why it is the best 1x1 map in my opinion

Relatively tough to overcome going 2nd on waterloo if the opponent is good and I find supermax to be one of the most unbalanced maps for the person gong 2nd

I love 1v1, its my favorite game style, and i get the majority of my points from them, my rank gets lower playing all these assassin and 4-way games >.< but really i win alot more 1v1 then i lose, there is a specific stratigy to playing 1v1 most of the time, and i also really enjoy supermax in 1v1 play... it is one of the few you can truely come back from 2nd place, ive done it many times and had it done to me a few.

.
That is why I also really like 1x1 games. There will be a lot of games you can't overcome going 2nd or getting a bad drop but the best games are the one's where you do overcome that to win. The better players will save more games where the odds are stacked against them and shouldn't give away as many when they are given the advantage.

[PLAYER57832]

I probably play as many 1v1 sequential as anyone (perhaps more???).

What I like:

Fast... not necessarily "real time" by any stretch, but generally not a 3 month commitment, either... unlike some of the larger games. (this is KEY!!!)

Get to "know" someone else a bit better.

Less "complicated" play, ... Just me versus the other player, less "politics", etc.


Luck:

Just not much of an issue for me. If I get a bad drop, then the challenge is to do the best I can. Strategy DOES "rule" overall, even in 1 v 1. Though luck is certainly more a part of 1 v 1, that is more true for the lesser skilled (yes, I count here .. on most maps anyway). The biggest part is that it becomes immediately obvious in a much more dramatic way when luck is involved, rather than skill.

(that is, even if skill still matters, it becomes much easier to blame luck in 1 v 1 AND when luck truly is the decider, because the game moves much quicker, it becomes obvious pretty quickly).


Problem/Solution:

I definitely appreciate taking 1 v 1 into account and I might like to see a few maps specifically designed for better 1 v 1 play. However, I am not sure that it really is a great problem overall. ALL play types have huge variations. The highest ranked players mostly play team, freestyle because, apparently (not my type, just repeating "heresay") they can get more points that way... or perhaps just the more competetive players happen to be drawn to that game type.

There IS certain argument for seperating the various game play types in scoring or awards somehow, but any change like that is a long way off. So, there will always be basic differences in scoring .. that is, the ultimate conquerer or even who is at high rank is not necessarily the one who is best at all game types. Playing 1 v 1 IS probably far less likely to get one up to Conquerer, for many reasons. (in particular, the "cost/benefit" of playing low ranked players when at the very top becomes MOST pronounced in the 1 v 1 type, where you stand to gain fewer points than in multiple player games with low rankers, but can still loose the maximum possible to lose in just one loss).

So, to sum ... new maps are a nice idea, but I am not sure it really will solve a 1v1 problem (or that there is any more of a problem there than elsewhere, except as noted).

Specific play issues:

one-sided drops are an issue, but if play is "mandated even" care has to be taken that the map is not "boring". I personally like AOR, but one complaint a lot of people voice is that there basically is "just 1 strategy" (DEFINITELY in AOR 1... but even in versions 2 and 3). If you change the maps to decrease variability, you risk making all maps like that.

Some people (myself probably) actually LIKE the random drop nature. Sometimes we "win", sometimes we "lose" ... but the key is to do what we can with what we got, not worry strictly about points. I admit, it is fun to wind up with a Pearl Harbor drop that starts with 25 armies. ... and I just take the drops that give me only 9 as a "cost of doing business". Again,then the challenge is perhaps not to win, but to delay as long as possible. Ironically, sometimes that is a good way to learn nitty gritty strategy. (and sometimes it is just plain frustrating! )


I am not sure about the rest of what you wrote. I will think about it some more and then comment. The above I have already thought about for some time. Those other issues ... give me time to "process".

And thanks for taking on this issue, from the outset!!!!

[e_i_pi]

So, to sum ... new maps are a nice idea, but I am not sure it really will solve a 1v1 problem (or that there is any more of a problem there than elsewhere, except as noted).

A lot of really good stuff snipped - just responding to this comment

I'm not really looking to solve the 1v1 "problem". You'll notice I haven't referred to it as an overall problem, but as issues surrounding 1v1.

I believe 1v1 games on the current maps are good, and I enjoy that all maps can be played 1v1. But one thing I realised a little while ago is that Feudal has 6 players max. So that got me thinking - what if you make a map that's 2 players max? You can make the map totally symmetrical, and so long as there are plenty of attack routes allowing different strategies, then it is possible to create a map that is solely for 1v1, and therefore tailored to avoid the issues that commonly arise in 1v1 games.

Sure, you get good drops sometimes, and bad drops others, and as you said, you take the good with the bad. But if both players are ensured to start on exactly equal footing (with the exception of play order) then all I need to do as a mapmaker is deal with the issue of luck. Once that is done, then you have a map that is based primarily upon strategy and skill. This is basically the aim of running this ad lib focus group

[redhawk92]

i like new world we all start even

[Natewolfman]

So, to sum ... new maps are a nice idea, but I am not sure it really will solve a 1v1 problem (or that there is any more of a problem there than elsewhere, except as noted).

A lot of really good stuff snipped - just responding to this comment

I'm not really looking to solve the 1v1 "problem". You'll notice I haven't referred to it as an overall problem, but as issues surrounding 1v1.

I believe 1v1 games on the current maps are good, and I enjoy that all maps can be played 1v1. But one thing I realised a little while ago is that Feudal has 6 players max. So that got me thinking - what if you make a map that's 2 players max? You can make the map totally symmetrical, and so long as there are plenty of attack routes allowing different strategies, then it is possible to create a map that is solely for 1v1, and therefore tailored to avoid the issues that commonly arise in 1v1 games.

Sure, you get good drops sometimes, and bad drops others, and as you said, you take the good with the bad. But if both players are ensured to start on exactly equal footing (with the exception of play order) then all I need to do as a mapmaker is deal with the issue of luck. Once that is done, then you have a map that is based primarily upon strategy and skill. This is basically the aim of running this ad lib focus group

as i said in the foundry thread, i love the idea and hope it happens! i would love to see some 1v1 maps in play!

[geigerm]

Agreed, I absolutely love the idea of having "1v1 maps," as I play a lot of 1v1 tourney games. To me, the biggest issues that I can think of in 1v1 play have already been cited:

• Players going first can knock down their opponents' armies before they even take a turn. That's not a huge issue to me, but it might be nice to have players start far enough apart that decimating your opponent in the first round isn't necessarily possible.
• Players who earn bonuses on the drop potentially have a huge advantage. Code things so that people can't earn a bonus right away, or everyone earns equal bonuses (such as Feudal or AoR, for example).
• Flat rate cards can be extremely unfair, especially on a small map. With that said, I don't think you can remove flat rate as a choice; you may just want to make the maps big enough that the cards don't have too much of an impact. And other factors often even this one out.
• Building on that, the luck factor--whether with cards or the dice--can sometimes decide the game. If you can come up with a way to even that out, great, but I would think it's very hard. And I suspect that although I remember particularly bad runs of luck, most of my 1v1 losses are due simply to being outplayed!

All in all, I love the idea and am anxious to see how things shake out as you attempt to come up with some 1v1 maps.

[Army of Achilles]

Agreed, I absolutely love the idea of having "1v1 maps," as I play a lot of 1v1 tourney games. To me, the biggest issues that I can think of in 1v1 play have already been cited:

• Players going first can knock down their opponents' armies before they even take a turn. That's not a huge issue to me, but it might be nice to have players start far enough apart that decimating your opponent in the first round isn't necessarily possible.
• Players who earn bonuses on the drop potentially have a huge advantage. Code things so that people can't earn a bonus right away, or everyone earns equal bonuses (such as Feudal or AoR, for example).
• Flat rate cards can be extremely unfair, especially on a small map. With that said, I don't think you can remove flat rate as a choice; you may just want to make the maps big enough that the cards don't have too much of an impact. And other factors often even this one out.
• Building on that, the luck factor--whether with cards or the dice--can sometimes decide the game. If you can come up with a way to even that out, great, but I would think it's very hard. And I suspect that although I remember particularly bad runs of luck, most of my 1v1 losses are due simply to being outplayed!

All in all, I love the idea and am anxious to see how things shake out as you attempt to come up with some 1v1 maps.

you can get rid of the luck with cards by playing no cards or escalating

[e_i_pi]

you can get rid of the luck with cards by playing no cards or escalating

Definitely true AoA. Also, I like flat rate, as you have to "play the cards" so to speak. Do you wait until you have that spoils as a province, or do you play early and forego the extra +2? I think with suitably large maps, the flat rate spoils issue is solved, as once you get more than about 4-5 cash-ins, generally speaking the numbers even out, or are at least made less significant by the extended play, and therefore extended period in which to flex your strategy muscles.

[PLAYER57832]

So that got me thinking - what if you make a map that's 2 players max?

I think it will really depend on the details. I am intrigued and will keep posted. (still thinking over your other points).

[geigerm]

you can get rid of the luck with cards by playing no cards or escalating

I absolutely agree, and given the choice, that's what I do. But in a tournament (which is primarily what I play), I often don't have that choice.

Definitely true AoA. Also, I like flat rate, as you have to "play the cards" so to speak. Do you wait until you have that spoils as a province, or do you play early and forego the extra +2? I think with suitably large maps, the flat rate spoils issue is solved, as once you get more than about 4-5 cash-ins, generally speaking the numbers even out, or are at least made less significant by the extended play, and therefore extended period in which to flex your strategy muscles.

Agreed as well--as I said, this is primarily an issue with small maps, and I wouldn't want to eliminate the choice. And there's some definite strategic differences that can make a flat rate game very interesting. I just don't think you want to design the type of map where a player who manages to luck into a mixed set in the first three rounds gains an insurmountable advantage.

[Stephan Wayne]

i know its luck but i love them
i have succues on arms race
and i will play anyone any time any map any settings 1vs1

[redhawk92]

i know its luck but i love them
i have succues on arms race
and i will play anyone any time any map any settings 1vs1

yes i love them