a tournement of mirrored games were player A goes first on map 1 vs player B and player B goes first on mirrored drop on map A
if this needs clarification, imagine any one vs one game where you went first ; you play that game and the exact same map and drop except your opponent has your drop and goes first ... those are mirrored games ... perhaps a tournament round would be 6 pairs of mirrored games against your opponent ,:
probably easiest to do by scenario ; but maybe a coder thinks it could be done on a random map and random drop
would require red always going first so team A or player A in 1 v 1 starts half the mirrored games , as does team B :
could start times be staggered , so player A and B receive half their red games day one , and the mirrored half day 2 to allow them equal opportunity to see and copy vs improve their opponents start strategy?
in the 1 vs 1 championships even in 25 or 27 game matches I've had significant advantages in drops and getting first turns i think...
caveat; of course is still the luck of players familarity with random map or scenario and dice... also tneed to consider a tiebreaker ; e.g. fewest turns in victories , or a single game that isn't mirrored. or the way auto-tournaments are settled now ; first to join wins (@#$%) ! :
I wish either my father or my mother, or indeed both of them as they were in duty both equally bound to it, had minded what they were about when....
If 2 player fog game,please allow 12 hour snap courtesy, or post what I could have seen.... Thank you
So if "mirrored games" is offered as a game option and you click it when you are creating a game, then another player selects to play it in waiting games, that player who selects it is actually signing up to play 2 games against you. In game 1, player 1 goes 1st, then in 2nd game player 2 goes 1st. If that is what your saying then I like the idea. That is a great option to have when creating games. I would think that it would be easy to implement not only in 1 vs 1 games but every other setting as well. NOT JUST TOURNEY'S, regular games would work out great with this option!!!
Theoretically you can set this up using scenarios can't you? Specify territories for red / green and then in your tournament set up two games, and alternate who's red?
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
It would work icepack. But it would be better if this could be coded as an option for any kind of maps, and with a random drop.
Simply like that, first game is generated normally with a random drop. Second game is a copied of the first one, but both players are exchanged, and the same one start. And that for all maps.
If possible also for team games.
concrete wrote:So if "mirrored games" is offered as a game option and you click it when you are creating a game, then another player selects to play it in waiting games, that player who selects it is actually signing up to play 2 games against you. In game 1, player 1 goes 1st, then in 2nd game player 2 goes 1st. If that is what your saying then I like the idea. That is a great option to have when creating games. I would think that it would be easy to implement not only in 1 vs 1 games but every other setting as well. NOT JUST TOURNEY'S, regular games would work out great with this option!!!
How would that work in more than 1 v 1? In 3 player you'd need 6 games to get every combination of who goes in each position; 24 games for 4 players, and so on. Can't see it catching on for 12 player games.
For 1 v 1 though, I like the idea. Just gets a bit tricky for a freemium with one game slot.
concrete wrote:So if "mirrored games" is offered as a game option and you click it when you are creating a game, then another player selects to play it in waiting games, that player who selects it is actually signing up to play 2 games against you. In game 1, player 1 goes 1st, then in 2nd game player 2 goes 1st. If that is what your saying then I like the idea. That is a great option to have when creating games. I would think that it would be easy to implement not only in 1 vs 1 games but every other setting as well. NOT JUST TOURNEY'S, regular games would work out great with this option!!!
How would that work in more than 1 v 1? In 3 player you'd need 6 games to get every combination of who goes in each position; 24 games for 4 players, and so on. Can't see it catching on for 12 player games.
For 1 v 1 though, I like the idea. Just gets a bit tricky for a freemium with one game slot.
Premium only perk, problem solved.
fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
concrete wrote:So if "mirrored games" is offered as a game option and you click it when you are creating a game, then another player selects to play it in waiting games, that player who selects it is actually signing up to play 2 games against you. In game 1, player 1 goes 1st, then in 2nd game player 2 goes 1st. If that is what your saying then I like the idea. That is a great option to have when creating games. I would think that it would be easy to implement not only in 1 vs 1 games but every other setting as well. NOT JUST TOURNEY'S, regular games would work out great with this option!!!
How would that work in more than 1 v 1? In 3 player you'd need 6 games to get every combination of who goes in each position; 24 games for 4 players, and so on. Can't see it catching on for 12 player games.
For 1 v 1 though, I like the idea. Just gets a bit tricky for a freemium with one game slot.
Premium only perk, problem solved.
Even with premium, it would probably be an uweildy solution. A six-player game wouldn't just require six games, it would require 6! games (every permutation of drop and start order.)
I don't disagree with making it a premium perk, but it would still probably work best only with game types that could be mirrored with 2 games only -- 1v1s, polys, 4P dubs, 6P trips, and 8P quads.
“Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
In multiplayer game, drop and first turn are not so much a problem as in 1vs1.
I agree with Dukausaur, this would be useful, and realistic, only in game with 2 teams ( 1vs1/2vs2/3vs3/4vs4/poly),
In 6 players games I never care that I start or not so much with the drop.
My bad, I figured it was a given low #'s of players was better. So yes...awesome option for 1 vs 1, and poly. My love of the idea wasn't for 6 player games. Hopefully we'll see this as an option in game creation.
A lot of tournaments try to eliminate the "luck part" by making best of 3, 5 or 7.
In tournament the purpose is that the most skilled player win, not the luckiest.
Therefore this would be a nice addition for tournaments.
