This forums is for questions, answers, and discussion about First Edition rules, formats, and expansions.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#556902
Mogh, Son Of Worf wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:10 pm I understand where you are coming from and I agree that ties are undesirable. However, if the tie would only occur because of the situation that the second player caught up with the first player, then without the ties the games would have been decided by who went first (so by the coin toss pre-match).

So, your nightmare tournament in which everyone ties would otherwise be a tournament where all matches were only determined by coin tosses who started first.
Sure. And I think it's very unlikely, don't get me wrong. As someone running touraments for various games over the years, I can say that the oil flip of pregame is still preferable on many levels, because the players won't notice it the same way. Where ties tend to be as much of a feel bad as a loss when it comes to torment rankings, except now it's two players that feel bad instead of one.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#556903
HoodieDM wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 12:50 pm Sorry I disagree here. You can say that going first is the advantage, but plenty of times I've gone first and lost. So I think its a moot point.
This is something that really needs large amounts of data, and is hard to completely resolve.

How many games have any one of us played? If I've played 30 games since the meta game last speedup or slowed down, that's still not enough to really tell.

And the first player advantage doesn't have to be huge to be something worth looking at from a design perspective.


(The following numbers are made up for discussion purpose.)

Assume a data set of 10,000 games played with the same base card pool.
In a vacuum, we would ideally want player 1 to win 50% of the time and player 2 50% of the time, assuming equal skills, etc.

Chess is usually one of the golden examples of a balanced game, but white typically has a 2-4% advantage in games.


So, in 1E, if Player1 has a 10% added chance to win (55/45%), would that be serious enough?


A good player, or a lucky player, can still overcome the difference, but from a design standpoint, especially since 1E is usually played in single games, not best of 3, should try to eliminate it.

There's also many different knobs to turn for this:

Equal turns, P2 starting with an extra card, P2 getting a free play on T1, etc. It doesn't have to be as big as equal turns.
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#556905
Kova4H9 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:39 pm

I guess I should also say, I'm not saying that first player always wins. What I would say is that in a match between equal decks and equal players, where random luck goes about equally on both sides, first player will almost assuredly win. If one deck/player clearly outclasses the other deck/player, or the matchup puts one deck at a severe disadvantage somehow, or one player gets an extremely lucky/unlucky break, then its entirely possible (and probable) that the superior/lucky player/deck will win, regardless of who went first.
You've just described every game played of 1e. Every game will involve some matrix of unequal skill, matchup issues and random draw luck. So I don't understand why we are then so concerned about some unicorn chance of true match equality I've never personally encountered.

Ive lost games going second with absolute knowledge I would win on my turn but I don't know that's how it will turn out until it happens. Random selections, choice of attempting personnel, etc all still get to have a say right up till it's legit decided. As long as I can say that there was something gained by going second and I had a chance to use it to overcome one less turn, it still seems fair.
 
By Kova4H9
 - Alpha Quadrant
 -  
#556910
Hoss-Drone wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:42 pm Every game will involve some matrix of unequal skill, matchup issues and random draw luck. So I don't understand why we are then so concerned about some unicorn chance of true match equality I've never personally encountered.
I think you're selling short the number of equally matched decks out there. When I play with my dad (the illustrious Tomek97, if I recall his username correctly), an awful lot of our games are "same turn." Of course, decks will never be truly equal, but the question is, how much better does the second deck have to perform to overcome the fact that they have one less turn? As it is, from a turn standpoint, second player has to perform about 10-20% better in order to win. Ideally, that number should be as close to 0% as possible (that's an opinion, but I can't imagine someone saying that 1st player deserves to win if their deck performed worse than the other player's).

I am curious, what sort of informational advantages do you get from going second? I mostly play speed decks, so my games are as multiplayer solitaire as possible :) I hardly care what my opponent is doing at all, to be frank. I'd be interested to hear from players with different playstyles what advantages they get from going second, and if it's really enough to shave off roughly a turn from the game.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#556914
boromirofborg wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 4:32 pm
Chess is usually one of the golden examples of a balanced game, but white typically has a 2-4% advantage in games.
It's been a while since I played competitive chess, but it's worth pointing out that black plays differently than white. That's why I asked the earlier question about how one might adjust their strategy to play second. In chess, black plays the opening largely on the defensive and some believe white can force a draw if they wish. But in 1e, adjusting one's strategy on the fly is more difficult. Of course, chess also has no random chance, which means white is always on the front foot, no well placed dilemmas to bring them up short.

If an advantage does exist, it is also hardly a problem exclusive to this game. Most ccgs I'm aware of contain a first turn bias. WotC does not publish data on it anymore, but I've seen unofficial data that claims first turn wins 52-54% of the time in MTG. Both yugioh and pokemon have explicit rules in place to mitigate first turn advantage (I'm told by friends that yugioh's first turn advantage is so unbalanced that the meta almost self destructed until first turn attacks were banned).

None of this is really an answer to the question, but more data would be interesting. I think it's obvious that all things being equal, a player would choose to go first, but how unbalanced would it have to be to warrant a rule change?
User avatar
 
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
Continuing Committee Member - Retired
#556917
Kova4H9 wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:14 pm I hardly care what my opponent is doing at all, to be frank.
This right here is where you give yourself away. It means that all the things you could be doing to gain advantage, you aren't doing and it makes me think that you are seeding dilemmas with a shotgun or magic 8ball :D :P
Last edited by Hoss-Drone on Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#556918
From a previous discussion on the same topic:
JeBuS wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm Let me go at this a different way, if I may.

The rules enshrine a way for the player to lose while playing the perfect, flawless game.

Suppose two players are playing exactly the same deck. The stars align, and their shuffles also were identical. Their cards appear in hand in exactly the same order. They play their cards on the same turns, in precisely the same order. Random selections are all identical.

But the player who went first wins. For no reason other than he went first. He won simply because the rules prescribed that he would before the game even began, not because he played better than the other player.
User avatar
 
By boromirofborg (Trek Barnes)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
1E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
2E North American Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
#556923
phaserihardlyknowher wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:43 pm None of this is really an answer to the question, but more data would be interesting. I think it's obvious that all things being equal, a player would choose to go first, but how unbalanced would it have to be to warrant a rule change?
Oh, I agree 1e is far from alone in it. And I think for me personally around the 10% Aera is where things start to be noticeably unbalanced.

I'd be interested in things that, even if they don't flat out solve the problem, make it where if given the choice, the player might choose to go second.

In magic, it's been a while since being on the draw was the correct choice, but the idea is still there, and it does pop up from time to time.


So, what would be enough to move that needle. To make me decide, even 5% of the time, that this deck, under these conditions wants to go second?

And, as a corollary, since the 1st player advantage is increased by faster games, which is already a possible issue, what came be done to solve one that might benefit the other?



___________


Here's my crazy, out there, not even remotely tested idea: Player 1 has an automatic computer crash on their first turn.






So, they still get first play, first draw, all the seed phase, etc. But they can't do their crazy jumpstart until turn 2.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#556929
JeBuS wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:14 pm From a previous discussion on the same topic:
JeBuS wrote: Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:00 pm Let me go at this a different way, if I may.

The rules enshrine a way for the player to lose while playing the perfect, flawless game.

Suppose two players are playing exactly the same deck. The stars align, and their shuffles also were identical. Their cards appear in hand in exactly the same order. They play their cards on the same turns, in precisely the same order. Random selections are all identical.

But the player who went first wins. For no reason other than he went first. He won simply because the rules prescribed that he would before the game even began, not because he played better than the other player.
I'm not entirely sure I understand this reasoning. Is the implication that some advantage be given to the second player that would guarantee a draw if the game were played perfectly by both players?
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#556933
JeBuS wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:20 pm If two players played equally in such a case, shouldn't they have a draw, rather than rules-mandated win/loss?
Uggh, this isnt an equasion. Sometimes you are going to play well and lose. So it goes. A whole chunk of players win far more games than they lose (which I am sure is not just because they win too many tosses). Yeah sometimes the ball doesnt bounce your way, but that happens in every sport. Germany had more good chances than england today, but england won. If you lose because of a coin flip, it is no worse than losing on a 1 in x random chance (which happens enough). Sure we can gather data, but pretending their are perfect games and that should be a draw is rediculous. Their are blind dilemmas and random draws, there is no such thing as a perfect game.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#556934
pfti wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:26 pm
JeBuS wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:20 pm If two players played equally in such a case, shouldn't they have a draw, rather than rules-mandated win/loss?
Uggh, this isnt an equasion. Sometimes you are going to play well and lose. So it goes. A whole chunk of players win far more games than they lose (which I am sure is not just because they win too many tosses). Yeah sometimes the ball doesnt bounce your way, but that happens in every sport. Germany had more good chances than england today, but england won. If you lose because of a coin flip, it is no worse than losing on a 1 in x random chance (which happens enough). Sure we can gather data, but pretending their are perfect games and that should be a draw is rediculous. Their are blind dilemmas and random draws, there is no such thing as a perfect game.
I don't understand how it's a defensible position to say that one of those player deserves to lose, by rules mandate.

"Sometimes luck is bad" isn't a defense when it's the rules telling you to lose.
User avatar
Online OP Coordinator
By pfti (Jon Carter)
 - Online OP Coordinator
 -  
2E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#556935
I am saying the idea of two equal players should make a tie is a myth a in a game with randomness. If we want a perfect game to win, we should be able to stack decks and prohibit random draws.

Right now ELO is a reasonable predictor of outcome, which suggests that for most players if you go first or second doesnt usually change outcome (but there is sill a chance for upset which makes things fun).

Basically, I am asking for a better argument than saying that a hypothetical, but impossible situation, should result in a tie.
User avatar
Director of Operations
By JeBuS (Brian S)
 - Director of Operations
 -  
1E Deep Space 9 Regional Champion 2023
#556937
pfti wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:47 pm I am saying the idea of two equal players should make a tie is a myth a in a game with randomness. If we want a perfect game to win, we should be able to stack decks and prohibit random draws.

Right now ELO is a reasonable predictor of outcome, which suggests that for most players if you go first or second doesnt usually change outcome (but there is sill a chance for upset which makes things fun).

Basically, I am asking for a better argument than saying that a hypothetical, but impossible situation, should result in a tie.
Like I said, it seems like an indefensible position to state that all other things being equal, one player must lose.

There have been times where I've won the game, simply because I went first. I know the opponent would have scored more points than me on their next turn, if they were afforded it.

I've also been on the flip side of that, where I know I could have won if I was afforded the same number of turns as my opponent.

The players aren't playing by the same rules. One player is playing a game where they can win if they do everything right. Another player is playing a game where they will lose if they do everything right, but their opponent also does everything right.
 
By phaserihardlyknowher (Ben Daeuber)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#556938
JeBuS wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:20 pm If two players played equally in such a case, shouldn't they have a draw, rather than rules-mandated win/loss?
I agree, I just wanted to make sure I understood.

I suppose the risk is swinging the pendulum the wrong way with any mitigation. And if first player advantage is small, that's a real risk.
pfti wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:47 pm Basically, I am asking for a better argument than saying that a hypothetical, but impossible situation, should result in a tie.
What's being described is essentially the state of chess, there's no hidden information and since we have so much data on every chess game that's played at the high level (and many lower levels), it should theoretically be possible to play each position to a draw. However, only half of high level games end in draws and the point balance hovers at 55% for white (lower in blitz, probably because of error in optimal play). And chess has a fraction of the variation of possibilities you can put on the table for a 1E game that can swing things one way or the other, to say nothing of hidden information.

This isn't to say I disagree with the sentiment that the "perfect game" should end in a draw, but rather that without knowing how close the balance is, it's really hard to make a guess about the impact of any mitigation, where advantages may vary by deck type, seeded dilemmas, card draw, etc.
Card Page Glitches

So, it's seeming on some sets that the cards on th[…]

Question for noob

Awesome. Thanks everyone for all the help!

Only works when RS is played after AIV. This is be[…]

Still a few weeks left to get registered for the[…]