VS League

[DakaSha]

Hey everybody.

I am wondering if anybody would be interested in a 1 on 1 gaming league.

I personally find 1 on 1 games just as exciting as large games with the added benefit that they are quick and easier to manage. Also more turns being resolved in a shorter time gives more of a streaming gaming experience as opposed to the 'I WANT TO FRIGGEN PLAY SOME MP DOM NOW' syndrome

I am speaking of pbem games though and not blitz games. Pbem because everybody can play against everybody (no need to be on at the same time) and because there is no obligation to do ones turns as fast as possible (although there would be NO rollbacks... If extensions are needed they should be asked for. One could make it even more like a sports league by adding a maximum of three time outs rule or something which really should be enough) Also the score graphs would then be open to the (interested) public. If one uses an email client like Outlook or Thunderbird it is very very simple to play like this.

If this would prove to be popular we could start "official" 1vs1 ladders with separate divisions for the ages. The EAL, MAL and LAL. Also there could be votes on which maps to use. Of course non-ladder games could also be started through the leagues.

Now if we were totally hardcore we could even have a pro league in which every nation would have a voted for manager (the player that is considered the best with that nation) and yadda yadda... you get the point.

Anyways it would be interesting to me and I thought I'd throw it out there.

[Micah]

I'd be up for some 1v1 duels via email.

Edit: I am also lazy and don't like looking for or setting games up, so you've been warned. =)

[Alpine Joe]

I would also be up for this, in fact, im surprised more 1v1 dominions doesn't go on. it seems like on easy research you could do some interesting 1v1 games.

[DakaSha]

All of mine have been aloooot of fun so far (and yes with easy research)

[Raiel]

I'm definitely interested. However, I'm only just now jumping into MP games and I don't know how long it will be before I am comfortable with it.

[Lavaere]

I'd be interested, it sounds fun. Though how is PBEM different from LlamaServer

[DakaSha]

llamaserver is pbem.

i meant pbem(llamaserver) as opposed to networking which is how 1vs1 is usually done (when it is done)

I'm definitely interested. However, I'm only just now jumping into MP games and I don't know how long it will be before I am comfortable with it.

1vs1 is a good start for a number of reasons. you can focus on a single opponent and learn from him for instance

[Frozen Lama]

1v1 is definitaly something i'd be interested in, little busy right now, but in a few weeks maybe.

[DakaSha]

wooo already more people than i thought that would be interested :P

Ive sent a PM to llamabeast asking if it is possible to have an inbuilt league/ladder function on llamaserver if this would ever become popular. Waiting for an answer. Of course he has other things to do and that must be respected. (llamaserver is already such an enhancement to DOM MP :) )

[Frozen Lama]

probably what would have to be done is something similar to Tyrants HoF, and record all the wins for each person/against whom, and we rank people assuming they are playing *mostly against people of similar skill.

[DakaSha]

I was thinking of a chessesque system. Everybody starts with a specific numerical rank (1000 or 1500?) and after playing the rank is modified depending on the rank of the opponent.

I do not know the exact maths behind the system but it should be easy enough to find.

Also (again if enough are interested) there could be tournaments. these would have a direct impact on rank and the placing of players would of course be recorded (how often a player has won.. gotten 3rd and so on)

Tournaments could be of all flavours. They could be designed like a sports tourney where every nation is assigned one player who then dukes it out till being knocked out (again this could be point based or just "knockout" style like the soccer world cup) or players could pick a new nation every game.

If enough time/work was put into it then we could eventually have statistics (how often has a specific nation won, how often has player x won with nation y and so on)

All just thoughts

[Lavaere]

I think I know the system your talking of and used in both Chess and Go tournaments. Sadly I've forgotten how your meant to work it out. Actually something like that is also used over at Conquer Club.

Makes for a great gain, if you bet someone with a whole lot more points.

[Squirrelloid]

I'd be interested in about a month. Not so much right now though.

[Stretch]

Sounds fun! I'd join up.

[Lingchih]

I'm only in three MP games now. A bit down from my normal.

So yeah, this sounds like fun. Count me in.

[DakaSha]

well basically all we have to do is get the system set up. ill start working on it this week. until then players can always just ask other players for 1 on 1 :)

its really great fun.

[Hadrian_II]

I would also be interested to play 1v1

but there was a 1v1 league once also with an ELO system, and it died a rather fast death due to noone being interested to play games.

[Frozen Lama]

one problem with 1v1, is that some nations are just *not meant to be duelers. Eriu anyone? MA Atlantis?

[Executor]

one problem with 1v1, is that some nations are just *not meant to be duelers. Eriu anyone? MA Atlantis?

Why?

[Frozen Lama]

obviously a skilled player can win with anyone in theory, but it seems that in blitz games certain nations, especially bless nations get a whole lot stronger, even with easy research, unless the map is pretty huge. I could be wrong here, but i don't think easy research makes up for some nations that are horrible in the early game.

[Executor]

Quite possibly, however I believe that in 1vs1 players should not disclose nations until the game starts.
Otherwise you'll plan a strategy on what the other nation is.

That how I played 1vs1 games before and it was damn interesting, except when I was playing against Kailasa cause I got crushed every single time, damn awe...

[rdonj]

obviously a skilled player can win with anyone in theory, but it seems that in blitz games certain nations, especially bless nations get a whole lot stronger, even with easy research, unless the map is pretty huge. I could be wrong here, but i don't think easy research makes up for some nations that are horrible in the early game.

In noobs vs vets there are a few nations over 300 research right now... on turn 8. With easy research starting at 20 research for level 1, if you gain a lot of mileage out of a little research you can do pretty well for yourself with that kind of research.

[Frozen Lama]

Quite possibly, however I believe that in 1vs1 players should not disclose nations until the game starts.
Otherwise you'll plan a strategy on what the other nation is.

That how I played 1vs1 games before and it was damn interesting, except when I was playing against Kailasa cause I got crushed every single time, damn awe...

Ok, i agree, if the nations are hidden until the start, it could work. The only thing with this, is if we did a tournement as DakaSha suggested, it would be by player not nation/player. and i suppose if both players picked the same nation, they could just pick again.

[DakaSha]

uhm i thought about the whole nation being disclosed until start thing but i think exactly the opposite...

if you have a nation that just randomly happens to be good against another nation (or have an appropriate pretender/strategy worked out) then the opposing nation is doomed (with 2 semi-equal players). also it would just be luck in happening to have that nation vs the other... no strategy involved

if you know the other nation then you can design your strategy to:

a) work well against the other nation
b) counter the other nations strengths


in any sports match the "weaker" team must use the opposing teams weaknesses to full extent while using there own strengths.

both teams know who they are playing against.

i also think that the whole pretender/strategy design before the game starts would be an interesting and important factor then.

'hmm im a demon nation against very strong priests... what do i do to minimize the problem or even turn it to my advantage'

(in fact in my current game against zapmeister thats exactly whats going on... and im in the advantage as the demons :P)

---


at least thats how i see it.

in theory it could also just be upon agreement of the two players (and if there is no agreement then either a default that we agree on or randomness)

[DakaSha]

Quite possibly, however I believe that in 1vs1 players should not disclose nations until the game starts.
Otherwise you'll plan a strategy on what the other nation is.

see thats exactly what i would find interesting :P

it would also (by default) lead to many new strategy guides or exploits being discovred (my point is that i hate exploits so they should be removed :P )

[DakaSha]

i would like to hear arguments for/against both options though. this would be a community thing so its not just automatically my decision :)

[Frozen Lama]

I think it kind of needs to be tested. if we find that some nations just have zero chance in an even match playerwise, we might need to make it anonymous.

for tournaments i think it would be really cool to have a bracket like playoffs and have each person select a nation, so obviously that wouldn't be anonymous.

[DakaSha]

see the way i see it is if that a nation has zero chance against another nation he is going to have a negative chance if he cant prepare. testing should be done of course... so start some games people :P

[DakaSha]

an example would be LA ermor with 10 dominion and the worst scales.
he is going to run over anybody really.

but if i KNOW its ermor i can prepare... also have 10 dominion (since i can assume hes going to use his dominion) to keep his out of my lands. make sure to create a pretender that can help deal with loads of undead (be it through items, magic, summons... whatever)

if i dont even know who im playing im toast

[Frozen Lama]

As i said abouve, i'm too busy to be in any more games now or else i would. sorry

how long does a duel usually take?

Edit: ouch i didn't even think of LA ermor in a duel... ugly

[DakaSha]

only that ugly if you cant prepare :P

and duals can be over in 15-20 turns or can go much longer. turns come in quick though compared to large scale games

[DakaSha]

i think something that would be important is that nations are decided 'simultaneously' to avoid the choosing of nations known (or thought...) to be extremely good against the first one chosen... and to avoid constant nation switches

this could be done in several ways... the first coming to mind is just pming a neutral (trustworthy) player the choices and him announcing it.

if both choose the same the choice is redone... and here something interesting happens.. kind of a rock paper scissors thing: either both choose the same again and its redone... one keeps the chosen nation and the other chooses a nation that IS considered good against the first chosen... or one player even chooses a nation considered good against the race considered good against the first. lol. im sure there was an easier way to put that :P

or of course both just choose two random other nations.

now this in a way goes against the whole point of not choosing a nation based on its strength against another but since it is controllable and in my eyes interesting and fun i think id like it.

[Squirrelloid]

I think both players should be randomly assigned a nation. This is a question about your skill at dominions, not your skills with nation X.

I wouldn't be opposed to announcing publicly which nations both players had been assigned before pretender design, but I honestly think it could be a lot of fun to hide that information until discovered in game.

Lets be honest, the only difference between this and a larger MP game is you know the other person is going to be at war with you immediately. If you can't defend a rush when you know its coming, you'd just be hosed in a larger game if one did come for you.

The advantage to hiding nations is that you might not know your opponent is going to have a good rush nation, but if he's rushing you he also doesn't know what he's going to run into. And a rush sort of presumes he knows where to go - if he rushes away from you not only has he failed to rush you, he's also weakened his position because he had to pay some opportunity costs to have a good rush.

[DakaSha]

I think both players should be randomly assigned a nation. This is a question about your skill at dominions, not your skills with nation X.

i just cant agree on that.. for to many reasons. If one wants to choose random as their nation maybe but not forced

Lets be honest, the only difference between this and a larger MP game is you know the other person is going to be at war with you immediately. If you can't defend a rush when you know its coming, you'd just be hosed in a larger game if one did come for you.

uhm this isnt supposed to be training for a larger game... also your just kind of proving my point... you only know a rush is coming if you know the enemy nation (at least a powerful rush). and the BIG difference between this and a large game is that the rush would be fatal as you have nobody to help you out of the problem.. making planned defensive strategys based on the opponent more needed. basically as i said: if you JUST HAPPEN to select a nation/strategy that can rush your opponent without much room for failure because he had no way of knowing what to expect in the least then you di\d not win due to skill. you won due to luck

again in sports.. if you know your opposing team is good in offense then you will train your defense to handle the problem and also look to use the teams lack of defense as an oppurtunity


The advantage to hiding nations is that you might not know your opponent is going to have a good rush nation, but if he's rushing you he also doesn't know what he's going to run into. And a rush sort of presumes he knows where to go - if he rushes away from you not only has he failed to rush you, he's also weakened his position because he had to pay some opportunity costs to have a good rush.

we arnt playing 1vs1 on 200 province maps :P
any decent size maps for 1vs1 is either going to be small enough to have an idea where the enemy is or the map has preset starting locations

edit: and again that would be a matter of luck...



btw HOW do you even hide the nations the player start with? its shown on llamaserver...

[Dragar]

Interesting idea, I'd play.

In terms of nation strength (in particular early game) it's a clear issue, the normal answer is diplomacy which naturally vanishes in this system.

I propose a nation handicap system. This could either be subjectively determined by the playing group before starting; or we could have a dynamic system where each game won by a nation gives a minus 1 pretender design point for all future games, and the losing nation gains one. That should balance things out over time and provide a basis for comparison for future balance modding.

In terms of nation choice it's difficult.. either both secret or the highest ranked player (if we have a league)chooses first, giving the weaker player the advantage. That could be a good leveller.

The managed team league is also interesting, although combinations of strong players with strong nations will become devastating.

I'm sure rush strategies will be honed to a fine art if this proceeds

[DakaSha]

The handicap system is interesting. and the better player selecting first.

Just one thing though.. i get the feeling that waaaay to many players are quick to call a nation bad because they are not good at using it (instead of blaming themselves as usual).

Since most players arnt "pros" (if you want to call it that) most are going to call hard to use nations like machaka or ulm bad...

Baalz almost proves that these statements are false. some nations are just meant for higher grade players.

Ive also played a couple 1vs1 games and i have to say that if research is set to easy and the players are pretty even in terms of competitiveness then the game is not a early-game-rush-only thing.

But either way as lama said: tests will have to be done.

[DakaSha]

oh i misunderstood the handicap system.. i dont think i understand what you mean? also it cant be controlled which makes it kinda bad for any type of league play

[Squirrelloid]

I think both players should be randomly assigned a nation. This is a question about your skill at dominions, not your skills with nation X.

i just cant agree on that.. for to many reasons. If one wants to choose random as their nation maybe but not forced.

I cover this is more detail below, but you'd rather rank someone who's amazing at one nation but sucks at all the others higher than someone who's good with most or all nations? Because that's what your proposed system will end up doing.


Lets be honest, the only difference between this and a larger MP game is you know the other person is going to be at war with you immediately. If you can't defend a rush when you know its coming, you'd just be hosed in a larger game if one did come for you.

uhm this isnt supposed to be training for a larger game... also your just kind of proving my point... you only know a rush is coming if you know the enemy nation (at least a powerful rush). and the BIG difference between this and a large game is that the rush would be fatal as you have nobody to help you out of the problem.. making planned defensive strategys based on the opponent more needed. basically as i said: if you JUST HAPPEN to select a nation/strategy that can rush your opponent without much room for failure because he had no way of knowing what to expect in the least then you di\d not win due to skill. you won due to luck

again in sports.. if you know your opposing team is good in offense then you will train your defense to handle the problem and also look to use the teams lack of defense as an oppurtunity

I don't think professional sports is the relevant reference. I'd look at two things: Starcraft tournaments and CCG (notably Magic) tournaments.

In Starcraft you have the option of selecting your race (and letting everyone know what you're playing) or randoming (and hiding that information at game start). I don't know what the average decision by professional starcraft players is, but its at least an interesting strategic choice.

In Magic you have no idea what deck anyone is playing until you sit down and start playing. And this is in an environment where some deck archetypes do hose other deck archetypes (at least it used to be - its been 10 years since i competed). You try to gauge the metagame, play an archetype you think will get screwed the least and screw others the most, and try to sideboard against archetypes that truly screw you in games 2 and (hopefully) 3.

Even closer to the situation I advocate, Magic has formats where your deck composition is somewhat random. Ie, sealed and draft. These are honestly the most fun competitive magic formats to play. Not only do you have no idea what decks you'll run into, but you don't even know what your deck will be until you get to the tournament.

If we want to go with a more 'classic' analogy, you don't get to specify 'white' or 'black' in chess. Its determined randomly.

Or we could go with Warhammer, a game many elements of dominions 3 were explicitly modelled on, in which you have no idea what your opponent is going to be playing going in.

Basically, hiding your opponent's 'team' until the game begins and you've made all the pre-game decisions you're going to make is *typical* of most 1v1 competitions. Forcing you to random only makes things more fun, afaict, when playing in a format which allows that to occur.

It also helps truly rank players by their skill, because then the people who are good at every nation rank higher than the person who is awesome with one nation but never even played any other one. If someone won 100% of their games as white in chess and 30% of their games as black, would you think it fair to only rank them by their white games?

---------------

Finally, you're playing against the other *player*, who you do know going in. Players develop styles and preferences for different strategies. By knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the *player* you can make a guess as to how he'll likely try to play the game, even absent any information on which nation he receives. (It may be he's a player who loves a bless strategy but gets handed a bad bless nation, so he does something different because he has to. But your preconditioned expectation is he will use a bless strategy if possible and you should at least plan on potentially having to deal with it.)

I mean, just because you know your opponent in a football game has a great defense and decent running game doesn't mean he won't try mostly passing if you have great running defense but bad passing defense. And you just might be Dallas playing the Packers in Greenbay during a snowstorm - something you couldn't have predicted at all which dramatically favors Greenbay. All you know going in is the strength(s) of the *player(s)*, not the conditions under which the game will happen.



The advantage to hiding nations is that you might not know your opponent is going to have a good rush nation, but if he's rushing you he also doesn't know what he's going to run into. And a rush sort of presumes he knows where to go - if he rushes away from you not only has he failed to rush you, he's also weakened his position because he had to pay some opportunity costs to have a good rush.

we arnt playing 1vs1 on 200 province maps :P
any decent size maps for 1vs1 is either going to be small enough to have an idea where the enemy is or the map has preset starting locations

edit: and again that would be a matter of luck...

I think playing with enough provinces that your starting location isn't obvious is necessary. Otherwise rushes will dominate all gameplay. Similarly, preset starting locations are an *awful* idea.


btw HOW do you even hide the nations the player start with? its shown on llamaserver...

I'm sure the code which displays by nation could easily be caused to display by player name, or even just say 'player 1' and 'player 2'. Heck, all you'd have to do is have a quick mod script which you copied the relevant nation/army info into that named the nations 'Player 1' and 'Player 2' and the llamaserver code as its currently implemented would work great. Its not like you need data on any nation except the two being played, although you would have to upload the relevant mod for every game, so there are advantages to convincing someone to rework the llamaserver code for use with this style of game (say as an option in creating new games).

[Dragar]

What I meant was that at the beginning all nations have the same number of pretender points. Each completed game shifts starting points for new games up or down 1 depending on who won.

Control is definitely an issue - I'm not sure the best way to handle that. I'm sure it would be possible though, perhaps with too much admin intervention required.

Without some sort of handicap, playing a league where people will naturally want to do well, I think we'd get serious over-representation of the more powerful nations.

Another option would be to split the nations into tiers that only fight each other. So within EA there would be three tiers, perhaps:

Tier 1 - niefels, sauro, mictlan, lanka, hinnom

Tier 2 - vanheim, abysia, ermor..

Tier 3 - kailasa, yomi, marverni ..

This would keep duels relatively fair, albeit restrictive of variety

Note that I think players should be limited to 1 duel at a time (within the league) so that we don't get a vast gap in numbers of games played by different players.

[DakaSha]

sorry but basically i find most of that mute simply because this is when it comes down to it supposed to be fun... and i think most players have fun when they play races they like and feel like playing and less fun when playing races they dont like (or simply dont want to play). your just forcing restrictions on decisions. if i think of an awesome pythium strategy then i want to use it. and not wait 18 games until i randomly get them

still:

again your just contradicting yourself. you use starcraft as an example (i seriously do not know why) but you ignore the fact that some players are ranked high due to their specialization with a single race.

whats wrong with being ranked high due to using a single race? i DONT WANT to play with MA ulm as i find them boring (for now). but my only way to be considered a good player is by exceling at them to the point of being able to pay them on the flip of a coin... no. that would just ruin the game for me because its no fun.

the chess analogy is uhm... yeah...

I can decide on play according to my player much better if i know his race then if i "know" his playing style (which is quite far fetched in a game this complex). decent players arnt going to go for a bless when the nation doesnt warrant it. unless they want to throw you off guard. again this would only be possible if both nations were known from the get go.

i also stated early in the thread that stats on players would be nice (how often a player wins with a specific race).. so if you think somebody sucks because they dont like a nation you can point the finger then (which i too would do.. but id respect their choice 100%).

If races were unknown until encountering them (as in wesnoth) id be somewhat more accepting of forced random nations... but only somewhat.

smallish maps are a must. hands down

i cant see whats wrong with letting the player decide if he goes random. (which you use as an example)

id even say whats the problem with two seperate ladders? im just not going to manage the random one as i would this one. you could do that and all would be well :P

[DakaSha]

What I meant was that at the beginning all nations have the same number of pretender points. Each completed game shifts starting points for new games up or down 1 depending on who won.

Control is definitely an issue - I'm not sure the best way to handle that. I'm sure it would be possible though, perhaps with too much admin intervention required.

too complex for my tastes and control is non existent (at least without much supervision as u say)

Without some sort of handicap, playing a league where people will naturally want to do well, I think we'd get serious over-representation of the more powerful nations.

that is a very valid point

Another option would be to split the nations into tiers that only fight each other. So within EA there would be three tiers, perhaps:

Tier 1 - niefels, sauro, mictlan, lanka, hinnom

Tier 2 - vanheim, abysia, ermor..

Tier 3 - kailasa, yomi, marverni ..

This would keep duels relatively fair, albeit restrictive of variety

that would work but
a) i dont 100% believe in the severe unbalance yet
b) do we really want that much restriction?

i do understand your point though

Note that I think players should be limited to 1 duel at a time (within the league) so that we don't get a vast gap in numbers of games played by different players.

that makes sense. non-ranked games can always be played

[DakaSha]

how about this:

bonus to points added for a win with nations you have played less

and

more points lost if using nations you always use

:)

i think that solves alot. system would have to be worked out but in theory it works.

if you win 100 times with Pythium but never with another then winning with them will not gain u much points at all (even if the opponent is of higher rank.. which would be possible even if he has lost more but uses different races)

[Squirrelloid]

how about this:

bonus to points added for a win with nations you have played less

and

more points lost if using nations you always use

:)

i think that solves alot. system would have to be worked out but in theory it works.

if you win 100 times with Pythium but never with another then winning with them will not gain u much points at all (even if the opponent is of higher rank.. which would be possible even if he has lost more but uses different races)

What do we mean by 'a lot' and 'less'? How wide a spread do we consider a proper repetoire for a well-rounded player? And how many games before we start kicking in bonuses or penalties?

Impressions:
I'd say you need a good 20-30 games under your belt before we can even begin to assess if you're using a nation you don't 'normally' use, and even at that point it would be 'hasn't played a ranked game with this nation'.

'a lot' should be a decreasing percentage that kicks in around game 5 (where if you've played ~80%+ with a given race you start getting penalized for using it) and gradually drops to ~20% (which still allows a little less than 1/5 games using a favored race if you really want to use a particular race over and over again). Even 20% might not be low enough. I mean, between age and race there are like 50 choices - I'd expect a well-ranked player to be at least decent with ~30 of them.

--------

On the subject of random - would you be ok with random if you got to pre-emptively veto a few races before a race was generated for you? Ie, you know you absolutely hate playing Bandar Log and Ulm, so you (publicly) veto those before races get randomed, and your random is chosen from the set of all (appropriate - MA in this case) races excluding the vetoed ones. Allowing 2-3 vetoes should be sufficient to keep people from playing races they absolutely loathe.

[DakaSha]

Impressions:
I'd say you need a good 20-30 games under your belt before we can even begin to assess if you're using a nation you don't 'normally' use, and even at that point it would be 'hasn't played a ranked game with this nation'.

'a lot' should be a decreasing percentage that kicks in around game 5 (where if you've played ~80%+ with a given race you start getting penalized for using it) and gradually drops to ~20% (which still allows a little less than 1/5 games using a favored race if you really want to use a particular race over and over again). Even 20% might not be low enough. I mean, between age and race there are like 50 choices - I'd expect a well-ranked player to be at least decent with ~30 of them.

although i dont know about the precise numbers (would have to be discussed) the system seems sound.


On the subject of random - would you be ok with random if you got to pre-emptively veto a few races before a race was generated for you? Ie, you know you absolutely hate playing Bandar Log and Ulm, so you (publicly) veto those before races get randomed, and your random is chosen from the set of all (appropriate - MA in this case) races excluding the vetoed ones. Allowing 2-3 vetoes should be sufficient to keep people from playing races they absolutely loathe.

if (due to this threads discussions and players favoring it) we were to use a forced random nation selection method i would say the flip side. that you choose from 3 (or 5) nations that you would like to play and they are randomized.

i would still be for exposed nations before pretender design though.

and im just plain against forced randomization :P
even more so now that we seem to be on to a system that would penalize people who only use a very limited number of nations.

i dont even think that 30 is valid. i see it as having a table loaded with tools and specializing in a few and being fairly decent with the others.

of course if somebody (possibly yourself) is good with all nations and uses them equally often then it WOULD be reflected in his ladder position provided he actually wins now and then :P

i really like the concept of penalizing players who only play a very limited number of nations and rewarding players who can use them all (and i would say that players using lots of nations are rewarded more than the others are penelized for various reasons)

[DakaSha]

it really is a compromise (although i actually prefer it now that its been mentioned :P ) and solves the old dominions problem of favored nations while technically allowing people to play as they wish

its like choosing to not pay for a dumb browser game and receiving 20% less experience.... only that its perfectly fair as it reflects overall skill and not amount of money one is willing to invest

even dragurs '1 game at a time limit' helps this as playing alot more games to make up for it wont be that possible.

you can be listed high on the ladder.. even at first if your GREAT with a single nation. but you can climb that ladder faster (and remain at the top) if you are good with alot of nations

[Hadrian_II]

I would say it is important to know which nation your enemy is going to play so that you can plan your strategy accordingly. Even when the nations are randomly picked you should know what your enemy will play before you design your pretender.

Also the only thing i would forbid are games that put a water nation against a land nation.

[DakaSha]

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

i have to admit im not experienced enough with this situation though. just so far it seemed like it would be fine.

[DakaSha]

Archiving of ones turn files for the current league games one is playing should also be mandatory simply because its easy to do and wins/losses will be clear in case of disputes

[Hadrian_II]

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

Boring game no player will be able to defeat the other one until late game, so the games will be about getting tatarians first.

[DakaSha]

k. anybody else second this? as said i just dont have enough experience in this matter

[DakaSha]

how do people feel about mulligans for catastrophic events in the first couple turns? (lab fire, troglodyte attack, half population gone)

[WingedDog]

Random events could be set to rare at the beginning of the game.

[hEad]

As far as nation selection goes, you could employ a random choice sort of thing.

Each player puts in 3 nations they would like to play. Each player is then randomly assigned one of the nations from the pot. This way selecting the strong nation may backfire as the other player gets it instead.

Another possibility is the addition of a new nation. I've been mucking around modding a nation that has no recruitable troops at all but gains 7 of each gem type per turn. This way i have to build the mages i want from scratch through empowerment. I have also included in the mod an easy access gift of reason spell so the game is very much about summoned GoR'd thugs and indi armies and its great fun. It would be quite balanced for an MP outing and 1 v 1 would be vicious.

[vfb]

how do people feel about mulligans for catastrophic events in the first couple turns? (lab fire, troglodyte attack, half population gone)

I think your 1-on-1 league sounds fun, but I'm not so interested in the whole competitive ladder idea. That's probably why the idea of mulligans makes me cringe. :)

@WingedDog: if you set random events to rare, there's really not much point in taking turmoil/luck scales, which are going to be pretty unlikely in 1-on-1 anyway, so you're cutting down on diversity.

[Executor]

I like the idea of 1vs1 league as well, don't really care if the wins get singed in or not doe.
This should be made a sticky.

[rdonj]

You know, if you're talking 1vs1 ladder games there's one mod that really springs to mind... Dr. P's Mirror Match (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=41453). It has identical nations and would be pretty much perfect for a ladder scenario.

[quantum_mechani]

I think you guys are getting way too concerned over how 'fair' the matches are. Having people pick nations would mean lots of nations never used, rare events would screw over the strategy of any ballsy person who wanted luck or god forbid turmoil, and any standardized map is just boring after a game or two.

To some it up in a cliche, it's about the game not the winner. Baalz and I have played a bunch of fun duels with just random maps/random nations (though I do recommend the easy research).

[Executor]

The settings should really be left to the two players playing. I'm for random nations myself, however if people want to play Arco vs Marverni it's their choice.

As there is interest for 1vs1 games, I say a sticky be made for organizing such games, with some voluntary players admining (nation selection, and such).

Now what I think would be interesting, is a turnament.
For eg. 16 players sign up, and we play by knock out until there there are two players left for the finals.

[Raiel]

I worry a little about the "Only 1 Game at a time" restriction. While I do agree that there should probably be a limit, this would still result in major differences on the number of games played per player.

If this is to be competitive (as is intedended), then noobs are probably going to need more time in each turn to effectly analyze situations that most vets are going to be feflexively familiar with... any game with a new player will almost certainly go longer than a game between two vets.

Edit: I should have said that turns involving a new player will each take longer than those between experienced players.

[llamabeast]

1 game at a time is not much, being as they might easily last a month or two each.

[DakaSha]

[QUOTE=quantum_mechani;700444]I think you guys are getting way too concerned over how 'fair' the matches are...
QUOTE]

we have come up with a solution for that. at least i think it is a solution.

also i ave thought about 1 game at a time and it is pretty restrictive.

[Lavaere]

what does balance matter, if you choose someone you like playing. your gonna learn how to fight the other nations eventually

[DakaSha]

i dont think balance is that much of an issue in the first place as i have stated before

@quantum
i didnt quote you correctly i was referring to the overusage of only 'powerful' nations

[Executor]

Anyone interested in a 1vs1 with me?

[DakaSha]

im in too many games right now :)

btw im planning on getting a cheap website up for the ladder but it may take awhile

[DakaSha]

looks like a friend is probably gonna make the core website that i can modify

[GrudgeBringer]

SURE.....if YOU play EA Marverni and I play EA Arco.

[DakaSha]

ill be the first to take you up on that challenge ^^

edit: also it wont be that easy to get to the top of the ladder by always playing so called "powerhouses". so you play EA arco all you want ^^

[WingedDog]

EA Arco is a powerhouse?

[DakaSha]

i dont know i dont think like that anyways... im just assuming thats what hes trying to imply :P

[Executor]

GB, was that directed at me? I don't mind taking Marverni if you wanna play.

If you don't, is there someone else interested in a 1 on 1?

[Dragar]

so tempting, i really shouldn't take on any more games though, sorry :(

[GrudgeBringer]

Yeah Executer, I have a new build on Arco and would like to try it agianst one of the best (that be you).

I still don't think I would win but I might put up a good fight with this build and playing with/agianst you has always had me going away learing something.

If you want to play (remember I am computer challenged) let me know and we can set it up.

BTW, that wasn't a smart A** challenge, it was just directed at a friend.

[GrudgeBringer]

DarkSha, I have NO thought that EA Arco is in any way a powerhouse. In fact with me at the helm I should get a running start whoever I played.

I think your Idea is great on a ladder, but I am not that versed on many nations and I think there is a LOT of people who would love to play 1 on 1 but not agianst a really good player playing a powerhouse Nation.

There was a ladder called Leadeaters about 8 years ago (had to do with stratgy games across a broad spectrum) and they assigned points for the particular battle you where going to play, side you took and skill levels.

I played Cilvil War Generals 2, but there where a number of games involved in this 'Ladder' all mixed together with points for battles, Draws, Minor wins, and Major wins (likewise you took points off for the same losses).

It also factored in WHO you where playing so If a General played a privite and got a major win he might get 20 point....iF the privite won, he might get 100.

(Eveyone started as a reruit and went up the ranks..Privite, corporal ect)

It was a different era and differnt type of games as they where mostly tactical and there certainly was no magic. But the premise remains the same.

I don't get to toot my horn very often but I retired as the only 5tar General they ever had ( As I siad it was mostly on one game CWG2 and there where only 2 sides to take so it wasn;t that big of a deal, but it was to me at the time).

You might look at this post and see if there is something you could take out of it that would make EVERYONE feel like it was worthwhile to play Executor ect.

Also you might want to set up games like Marverni agianst Arco..or perhaps Mictlan agianst Pangea ect...

Just an opinion.

[Squirrelloid]

Grudge:
The chess-style system does take into consideration relative skill levels as measured by current ranking. Of course, it requires playing a number of games for your ranking to accurately reflect your skill level, but the chess system does everything you're asking.

[GrudgeBringer]

Point well taken!!!:up:

[Executor]

GB, that's great news.
You have mail, let's get start this game!

[DakaSha]

yeah GB we will be using a modified chess system :)

[Psycho]

I am up for a duel. Anybody interested?

[DakaSha]

you might have to create a separate thread. dont know if people really check this

[Executor]

I'm interested in a duel.

[Psycho]

I'm interested in a duel.

You're on. Let's move the conversation into a separate thread: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?p=702279#post702279

[vfb]

why would you forbid water against land? both have the same disadvantage really as long as the map is specifically designed for this type of match

Boring game no player will be able to defeat the other one until late game, so the games will be about getting tatarians first.

DakaSha and I played MA Van vs MA R'lyeh on Silent Seas. He retired in turn 31 because he got bored, but I force hosted the game twice after he retired, and he got killed by dom death in turn 33.

I wasn't bored. And not a Tartarian in sight, not even a Bane Lord. :)

Admittedly, the map favors the land nation, and also a blood sacrificing land nation is probably going to stomp any water nation even with equal land/water territory, if you take dom 10 (I did).

[DakaSha]

as said i blame it more on the map (and my incompetence) then the land/water nation pick

[the Vanishag]

I'd like to play some VS games - add me to any list of players interested. I don't really care if there's a ranking system or not. (my 2c)

[vfb]

as said i blame it more on the map (and my incompetence) then the land/water nation pick

There were more than a couple of occasions where you came really close to causing some significant damage to me. And I agree it's not a good map for this matchup. So I don't think you played incompetently at all!

It's easier to get out of the water than to get in, especially for R'lyeh, so the land/water distribution might be okay. But the Silent Seas layout leaves you deprived of any solid block of underwater provinces in which to consolidate dominion, and like you said it's got a lot of deep sea, penalizing your gold income.

Did you have heat scales? I almost always go cold-3 underwater. I think heat scales gives you a 5% income hit (per tick) underwater, but cold doesn't.