two ways to balance advantage of going first in 1 v 1 games

[william tennant]

Concise description:
Two related ideas:
In 1 v 1 games, for first turn deployments of six or more, player moving first gets half deployment.
In tournaments with series of 1 v 1 games (best of five, etc.) tournament organizer can manually assign who goes first to balance out the advantage.

Specifics/Details:
One on one games, especially in tournaments, are a staple of this site, but a significant number of maps, the ones with large initial deployments, overly reward the player who randomly gets selected to go first. I have had some tournaments decided more by this factor than by dice or strategy. When you're deploying enough in turn one to knock your opponent's deployment down by, say, two armies, before they even get to move, it can start a downward spiral that can be impossible to pull out of.

I've also played a number of tournaments when I'm playing 1 v 1 in a series, and had occasions when I moved last (or first) in 5 of 5 games. It would be terrific if the tournament admin could assign who goes first so that, say, in a five game series each player would have at least two starts (four games could be assigned, and the fifth game could be random).

Both of these ideas seem like they would be easily programmable, no?

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:
There is enough luck in the game with the dice, we don't need this other random element to overly contribute to the outcome of one on one games.

[Dukasaur]

I agree.

[Rodion]

I like both ideas.

[IcePack]

-1 for me

[jcmagno]

Sounds fair.

[Swifte]

In hive, that would mean I would get 18 and my opponent almost certainly would still get 36... that doesn't seem right.

As for the tournament idea... that's been about a loooong time, so no, I assume it is not in fact easy to program. Would love to see it happen, but it's never going to.

[jcmagno]

In hive, that would mean I would get 18 and my opponent almost certainly would still get 36... that doesn't seem right.

As for the tournament idea... that's been about a loooong time, so no, I assume it is not in fact easy to program. Would love to see it happen, but it's never going to.

what kind of hive you play??

[Swifte]

You don't know how to play the secret Hive games? Then I can't tell you.

I got the number of terrs required for max troops mixed up with the actual number of max troops per turn in my head. My bad.

I still think 'half' is too extreme.

[Dukasaur]

You don't know how to play the secret Hive games? Then I can't tell you.

I got the number of terrs required for max troops mixed up with the actual number of max troops per turn in my head. My bad.

I still think 'half' is too extreme.

Maybe it could be scaled to the size of the maps? Although admittedly that creates a further complication.

[Donelladan]

The best way to balance 1vs1 is, imho, that the first player can only deploy but not attack. It goes directly to the reinforcement phase after deployment.
It works for all maps relatively well, doesn't matter if you'd drop 3, 6, or 12 on the first turn.

But, I don't think we should make a specific rule for the 1vs1 game.
Therefore I don't support this suggestion, neither mine nor the one from the OP. If we were to implement one I'd prefer the one I offered ( which has been taught to me by josko.ri ).

[willedtowin1]

Why fix something that aint broke =/

If you want to "RISK" playing 1 vs 1 and not going 1st.................
its your own problem. That's the "RISK" you take.

[DoomYoshi]

It's a 3 to 6 player game. The fact that 1v1 is the most popular setting proves that people don't know what's good for them.