Small World of Warcraft Small World of Warcraft

Forums

Recherche
Forums » T2R Competitive Play - English » This can't come soon enough...
Montrer: Messages du jour 
  
AuteurSujet
stemayf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 352
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2006
This can't come soon enough... Mon, 03 November 2008 23:40
Hi,

I played my SWPC games tonight against BBB-davedavis. He won 4-3. Grats to him. There were some great games, and I wish him luck in the next round against AT_Angel6.

But I doubt he'll need any extra luck - in our 7 games, he went first... wait for it... ALL 7 TIMES. What's that? 1 chance in 128? 0.0078125%? Come ooooonnnnn.....

Brice wrote on Thu, 23 October 2008 16:29

TRB erps wrote on Thu, 23 October 2008 16:16

Hi

Btw: I would like the "move starting player button" BEFORE the 1st of Nov.

It would be great if we could use this feature for the upcoming tournaments!!! Sign the petition!!!

CU
erps


Sorry, I don't think you'll get this feature for Nov 1st. More reasonably, it will appear by the end of November.



I'm not a sore loser. I respect my opponents. I wish them luck (maybe I shouldn't Rolling Eyes ). And I'm definitely not the greatest TTR player there has ever been. But going 2nd seven times in a row? In the essence of fair play, and I don't mean one opponent against the other, but the game/program against the players, we need the option to select the starting player to prevent this from happening. We all know the advantage going first has, as has been written in more than one thread recently.

Tonight was a freak incident. I refuse to believe there was anything nefarious going on. Davedavis played better than I. Luck with tickets and colours swung back and forth. Indeed, for one of one my wins, I had Sea-NY, Cal-SLC, and 10 (count 'em) locos. But it's hard to swallow a 4-3 loss when you didn't ever get to go first, even once. Especially when you have to work so hard to win going second.

Brice, we all know how hard you work. We all respect the time, effort and dedication you've given to TTR over the years. We appreciate each and every post you make to this fervent community to inform us of new developments. But if you're going to make one change, just one change in the next revision, please please PLEASE let it be this one.

Erps, where do I sign? Very Happy And davedavis, can you please tell me the winning lottery numbers for next weekend? PM me - I don't want anyone else to know... Laughing

Regards,
stemayf
      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Tue, 04 November 2008 17:11
This is my last tournament with the actual version of the java applet.

My membership card will expire in December.
      
OLE sebbo
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 439
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2005
Re:This can't come soon enough... Tue, 04 November 2008 20:52
Welcome to the club stemayf. During NC Round-Robin, Team OLE had about 11-13 games in a row without first move on our side!

During the Playoffs against CAN we stopped counting, because it was too depressing...
      
Nayeli
Senior Member
Vainqueur GoF Team Cup 2009

Messages: 349
Enregistré(e) en :
April 2005
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 00:24
20 games - 2 starts for me - nothing more to say...
      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 09:31
stemayf schrieb am Mon, 03 November 2008 23:40

...in our 7 games, he went first... wait for it... ALL 7 TIMES

I could not care less! Wink

T2R has 3 major elements of luck - tickets, starting, cards (colors/lokos). New rules to avoid the starting luck factor IMHO would not improve the game at all, it would just make the other two luck factors more important.

I think you didn't lose because of you opp starting 7 times, I think you lost because to also got bad ticks and cards, OR you played badly Very Happy
      
stemayf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 352
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 13:33
AT_Angel6 wrote on Wed, 05 November 2008 08:31

stemayf schrieb am Mon, 03 November 2008 23:40

...in our 7 games, he went first... wait for it... ALL 7 TIMES

I could not care less! Wink

T2R has 3 major elements of luck - tickets, starting, cards (colors/lokos). New rules to avoid the starting luck factor IMHO would not improve the game at all, it would just make the other two luck factors more important.



Hi,

I would agree on the three elements of luck, but I would vehemently argue that going first is of greater significance to the outcome of a series of matches than starting tickets or colours. For these, you work with what you're given, and there is always room (however small) to manoeuvre. I'm sure the majority of others would agree.

Quote:

I think you didn't lose because of you opp starting 7 times, I think you lost because to also got bad ticks and cards, OR you played badly Very Happy




Bad ticks - may be, poor colours - possibly, playing badly - almost definitely Rolling Eyes ... but going first, getting longest and with it that 20 point swing - I'm surprised a great player as yourself undervalues this! Smile I would confidently claim that the greater number of games played in the NC, SPWC or EMC are won by the player who gets the longest track, and that the majority of players claiming longest goes first.

I do recognise that the better player you become, the less luck affects your play, as you have the greater skill to adapt. But where 2 opponents of equal ranking match up, going first is highly advantageous.

The introduction of the said button would level the playing field in multiple game competitions enormously, if not totally.

stemayf

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 05 November 2008 13:55]

      
foudecoasters
Senior Member
Second Lieutenant

Pages Perso
Messages: 881
Enregistré(e) en :
March 2007
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 13:47
15 games 4 starts for me in NC ( zero start against my 2 best opponents chrismmm and matsch ... so unlucky , results: 2 loose 1-3 and 1-1-3 ... )
      
Nemo_
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 561
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 14:01
Changing starter- button could work, but not anything like other gets 1 card in 1st draw.
This would chance the game, but it would make tournament games more fair.
So i agree with change starter button but not changing the whole game.

Btw. how that button would work? How we could get it only to tournament games, i think otherwise players would change starting in normal games, and it doesnt work.
So then we would need a tournament mode, like usa eu and swiss, but there would be usa tournament also. Because i dont think startinng is not so important in eu.
      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 14:03
Angel,

You could care less, of course. All you have to do is to keep your fallacies to yourself.
      
stemayf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 352
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 14:37
Zimo wrote on Wed, 05 November 2008 13:01

Btw. how that button would work? How we could get it only to tournament games, i think otherwise players would change starting in normal games, and it doesnt work.


Maybe 'Starting player = Random / Choose' . I'm sure the genius that is Brice will solve it! Very Happy

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 05 November 2008 21:26]

      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 14:47
an interesting discussion - great! Very Happy

Did I say that starting is not important, or do I underestimate the value of going first? I don't think so Wink

But I do think that ticket draw ist the most important luck factor, quite a margin more important than cards or starting.
I think there are 4-5 "quality groups" of ticket combos, and IMHO the difference between one group to the next is about as important than starting.
e.g.
Group 1: Van-Mon+Sea-NY or LA-Hel+Dul-ElP+SSM-Okl with coming 2nd is still very much better than:
Group 3: Van-Santa+Cal-SLC or Tor-Mia+Mon-Atl coming first; where as Group 3 coming 2nd is again much better than:
Group 5: Van-Santa+Dal-NY+Bos-Miami.

You think that starting means getting longest, but I am sure that tickets are also more important in this department.
Try getting longest with Van-Santa, Dal-NY or Bos-Miami, no matter what the 2nd ticket is it will be difficult, because all 3 ticks need to connect two quite bad cities.
In contrast, tickets with LA, ElP, Okl, Den, Hel, Sea, Cal, Winni, SSM or Dul are prefect for longest, no need to start.

The question is, should luck be reduced in T2R?
If yes, I would first suggest to give new values for all tickets, e.g. 20 for Bos-Mia, 15 for Van-Mon, I think there should be other criteria than the distance only, I would gladly present new values for all US ticks!

To start as often as my opponent in every match would not be an improvement at all for me. Its just unfair, if I am allowed to start every 2nd game, if I have the better ticks every game. In practice, most of the time the different luck factors kind of equal each other out, I can't remember any best of 5+ match, where my opponent had so much luck that I had no chance.

Of course, solutions where in 2 player games the first player only gets 3 cards would be ok for me, but real ticket values would be more important IMHO.

Regards,
Michael
professional unpaid T2R theoretican Wink
      
Brice
-= Crew =-
Commandant

Pages Perso
Messages: 1925
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2002
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 14:47
stemayf wrote on Mon, 03 November 2008 23:40


Brice, we all know how hard you work. We all respect the time, effort and dedication you've given to TTR over the years. We appreciate each and every post you make to this fervent community to inform us of new developments. But if you're going to make one change, just one change in the next revision, please please PLEASE let it be this one.


Yes, there will be an option to let an other player to start the game if you are the creator. Then after that it is still randomly chosen from the remaining players. In a 2 player games, that means relinquish starter to 2nd player which is what you want.
Note, that there are also a handful of other (highly asked) features at least coming Smile
Stay tuned to DoW Radio Smile
      
thekid
Senior Member
Vainqueur AdR European Map Championship 2010

Messages: 1054
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 15:03
stemayf wrote on Wed, 05 November 2008 07:33 I would confidently claim that the greater number of games played in the NC, SPWC or EMC are won by the [b

player who gets the longest track[/b], and that the majority of players claiming longest goes first.





I actually kept a detailed record last year that I posted and now it is copied below. I started doing it this year but stopped as it's a real pain to do. If you look at going first and longest, I didn't get it nearly as much as you would think, yet my win record was great when going first. I think going first allows you a lot more flexibility with muscle hands like van-mon and van-sfe for instance. Tickets you can complete quickly with lots of points that you don't need longest. I also am for the switching of going first, but then it begs the question, who gets it for game 7, higher seed, lower seed or random?




I played 31 games in 2007 NC. My game record was 19 wins, 10 losses and 2 ties. I went first 15 times and went second 16 times. My match record was 6 - 1. I went first more than my opponent in 3 of the matches, 2 times less and 2 were tied in times going first.

In the 15 games I went first I won 13 and lost 2.

In the 16 games I went second I won 6, lost 8 and tied 2.


In the 15 games I went first I got longest 8 times, didn't 6 times and tied 1.

In the 16 games I went second I got longest 5 times and didn't 11 times.



In my 19 wins I got longest in 13 of them and 6 I didn't. Of the 6 times that I won when not getting longest only 1 was when I went second.

In my 10 losses I got longest 0 times, didn't get it 9 times and tied longest once.


So from that I when I got longest I was 13 - 0, when I didn't I was 6 -9- 2 and the one game I tied longest I was 0 - 1.
      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 15:06
kolmo schrieb am Wed, 05 November 2008 14:03

You could care less, of course. All you have to do is to keep your fallacies to yourself.

Fair enough! You are right, in fact I do care a bit Wink

Concerning fallacies, its difficult to keep them to oneself, because mostly it needs others to point them out or prove them wrong Smile

I truly think that a start button is a nice feature for certain kind of tournaments, but I'm quite sure that in a mathematical way it won't make things any fairer at all! Twisted Evil

For 2 player games, giving the starter only 3 cards, would be a much better improvement concerning starting IMHO, albeit this would really change the game.
      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 15:26
theKid schrieb am Wed, 05 November 2008 15:03

...I played 31 games in 2007 NC...

this statistics might be significant, however 31 games are a very small sample!

Also I think you might have played better when starting, because of your tracking of this and being quite emotional when not starting all the time Wink

Anyway, nobody negates the advantages of starting.
I only question the advantages of a starting button for tournaments Wink

What if one gets eastern ticks 3 times in a row, or <4 lokos all the time. We will need a "western button" and a "lokos like Angel button" Laughing
(I really see no difference here)

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 05 November 2008 15:28]

      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 16:13
Quote:

The question is, should luck be reduced in T2R?


No, the question was more like : should we have more balanced starts in competitions ?

The fact that it's a game of chance is somewhat irrelevant to this question.

Anyway, you're not answering the question quoted, but this one :

Quote:

What is the most important luck factor in TTR ?


The two questions are related, of course. But they are not equivalent.

In case you do not know, you're again indulging into a slippery slope. Living near the Alps do not make this kind of argument valid 8-\

kolmo, theorician, sometimes unpaid

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 05 November 2008 16:19]

      
stemayf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 352
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 16:38
Brice wrote on Wed, 05 November 2008 13:47

stemayf wrote on Mon, 03 November 2008 23:40


Brice, we all know how hard you work. We all respect the time, effort and dedication you've given to TTR over the years. We appreciate each and every post you make to this fervent community to inform us of new developments. But if you're going to make one change, just one change in the next revision, please please PLEASE let it be this one.


Yes, there will be an option to let an other player to start the game if you are the creator. Then after that it is still randomly chosen from the remaining players. In a 2 player games, that means relinquish starter to 2nd player which is what you want.
Note, that there are also a handful of other (highly asked) features at least coming Smile
Stay tuned to DoW Radio Smile


Yippee! Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Thank you.

This will not remove the luck factor from tickets and colours (which is not want I want nor intimated in starting this thread - IMHO these particular random factors add to the enjoyment and thrill of the game, whereas repeatedly going second doesn't), but succeed in bringing the game somewhat akin to most other games and sports in competitions, when going first in a game, where there is a distinct advantage in doing so, and that is part of a series of games, is alternated between players. Serving in tennis springs automatically to mind.

And as for game seven (nine, whatever), surely the first game is randomly chosen (as tossing a coin), and the rest alternate.

stemayf
      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 18:20
Angel's opponents would be quite pleased to know that they can ask to start every game from now on.
      
Mr Bean
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 818
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 18:33
kolmo wrote on Wed, 05 November 2008 18:20

Angel's opponents would be quite pleased to know that they can ask to start every game from now on.


Hmmm, if i interpret his posts correctly he will be asking for some ticketfavours in exchange in which case i'm not so sure it would be a good deal Cool
      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 18:33
kolmo schrieb am Wed, 05 November 2008 18:20

Angel's opponents would be quite pleased to know that they can ask to start every game from now on.

Mocking every opinion differing from your own is a very smart way to end discussions - grats Uh Oh
      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Wed, 05 November 2008 21:57
Mr. Bean,

I don't know if you interpret A's posts correctly. but I know that saying :

Angel6

I truly think that a start button is a nice feature for certain kind of tournaments, but I'm quite sure that in a mathematical way it won't make things any fairer at all!


entails the belief that starting is irrelevant to your winning expectancy. In that case, the gedankenexperiment I was proposing is absolutely not a caricature of the mathematical belief that is at the root of the discussion. It merely shows two things : that mathematical belief runs contrary to our intuitions ; that mathematical belief, even if true, does not invalidate our preference to run tournaments with alternation of starts.

PS: Since you so kindly ask, Angel, a slippery slope is a fallacy where one pretends that conceding A would lead to conceding B, C, D, ..., Z, leading to an indefinite or absurd process.

[Mis à jour le: Wed, 05 November 2008 22:05]

      
Zeno
Senior Member
Cadet

Pages Perso
Messages: 582
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Thu, 06 November 2008 19:39
I do work with mathematical/economic notions of fairness, so in the first place let me say that mathematicians/economists accept random initialization as fair.

But I thought of a different question that interests me more. Does the present situation benefit a lower (higher) ability player? I was too tired to go through the calculations, so I did a set of models of best of three competitions.

In the first I took someone who has an overall 30% chance of winning a game, whose chances drop to 10% if they are going second, but rise to 50% if they are going first. If we said that they had a 30% chance of winning each game, then they would have a 21.6% chance of winning a best of three series. If we take into account the eight different possible starting scenarios, and computed the odds of winning based on the 10%/50% values, then the odds would be 21.6%. I did the same with a 30%/70% split (50% vs 50%) and a 70%/90% split (89.6% vs 89.6%).

One day I may sit down and produce the proof, but I am satisfied that angel is correct.

On the other hand, I understand stemayf's dismay at starting 0 out of 7. Starting position is a variable of luck that we can control for, and implementing this feature is bound to make many people feel better, even if there is no mathematical reason for doing so.
      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:This can't come soon enough... Thu, 06 November 2008 20:13
Hi

a) Sometimes i met with friends and we play different board games. If we do so, we change the starting player every new game. It would be absurd for us to make a random decision for every game (besides the first). This is a clear sort of fairness. The starting of a game has NOTHING to do with the rules or the game mechanics (in this case, there are game where you can bid or something like that, that's different). So reducing this factor is indeed another thing that colors or locos or ticks.

b) Why the difference between multi and two player? Make a SHIFT start button that wanders to the next player in line, who now can decide to press START or SHIFT. The community needs this feature for TAG TEAMS. With the new method you reduce the forced new starts from 50% to 25%. Good but not good enough. But the idea is very good, in a normal game NO player would press this button, so it is only forced by rules in tournaments or BEST OF X series between certain players.

c) There is in my opinion a far better method to set the starting order in a best of X match: The first game is set random. That is okay. After this it is alternating, also okay. But the LAST game, that should be random too. It is not okay that one player knows from the beginning, they have the advantage of starting in the deciding game! And it is no difference, the end is a 4:3 in starting in a best of 7 anyway. It would even be possible to determine the first game without random (higher ranked player or lower ranked player) and then alternate and then make the last game random. Another good method would be: player A starts FIRST game, B starts next TWO games, A starts TWO games, B starts ONE game, Last game RANDOM.

erps





      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Thu, 06 November 2008 20:41
Z,

How exactly did you take into account the eight different possible starting scenarii ?

[Mis à jour le: Thu, 06 November 2008 21:34]

      
Zeno
Senior Member
Cadet

Pages Perso
Messages: 582
Enregistré(e) en :
February 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Thu, 06 November 2008 22:43
This is what my sheet looks like:
						0.1	0.3	0.7
						0.5	0.7	0.9
1	1	1	1	1		0.25	0.49	0.81
			1	0	1	0.125	0.147	0.081
			0	1	1	0.125	0.147	0.081

1	1	0	1	1		0.25	0.49	0.81
			1	0	1	0.025	0.063	0.063
			0	1	1	0.025	0.063	0.063

1	0	1	1	1		0.05	0.21	0.63
			1	0	1	0.225	0.343	0.243
			0	1	1	0.025	0.063	0.063

0	1	1	1	1		0.05	0.21	0.63
			1	0	1	0.025	0.063	0.063
			0	1	1	0.225	0.343	0.243

1	0	0	1	1		0.05	0.21	0.63
			1	0	1	0.045	0.147	0.189
			0	1	1	0.005	0.027	0.049

0	1	0	1	1		0.05	0.21	0.63
			1	0	1	0.005	0.027	0.049
			0	1	1	0.045	0.147	0.189

0	0	1	1	1		0.01	0.09	0.49
			1	0	1	0.045	0.147	0.189
			0	1	1	0.045	0.147	0.189


0	0	0	1	1		0.01	0.09	0.49
			1	0	1	0.009	0.063	0.147
			0	1	1	0.009	0.063	0.147
						0.216	0.500	0.896

						0.3	0.5	0.8
			1	1		0.09	0.25	0.64
			1	0	1	0.063	0.125	0.128
			0	1	1	0.063	0.125	0.128
						0.216	0.500	0.89600



Left three columns are for 1st (1) or 2nd (0), generating the eight scenarios. The zeros and ones in the next three columns are the three ways of winning a best of three (first two, first and third, second and third). The top two rows are for the three simulations, the number on top is odds of winning if going second, the number below is the odds of winning going first. Next, take a typical line, such as 1-0-1 0-1-1 for the third player. That is for the situation in which they start the first and third game, and win the first and third game. The odds of this happening are (1-.9)*.7*.9, which is .063. At the bottom of the group of 8 is the sum of these columns divided by 8. Below that is a group in which start is unimportant, and the totals match.

Since then, I looked at the simulation some more, and discovered that if you only consider the scenarios in which the first two start alternate (the middle four scenarios), then the percentages change to .200, .500 and .902 respectively, that is the margins go in the favor of the better player. Hence I give limited support to the claim that alternating starts will tend to favor the better player.
      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Fri, 07 November 2008 05:22
It seems to me that this conclusion can be explained that way : the better player profits more from the elimination of very unlucky bounces than is hurt by the elimination of very lucky bounces. If we extend the length of the match, this would be even more visible. A strange experiment would be to extend the length of match indefinitely : alternation and randomization should give very resembling results, even if we do not know yet if they are equivalent.

*****

If skill is more apparent, then luck should be diminished. Diminishing luck increases the importance of skill. In a way, this creates a game that can be considered even less "fair", in the sense that it will be more difficult to say "sometimes you win, sometimes you don't". The ELO spread between the players should increase. If that does not happen, then luck would remain at about the same level as before.

Reducing this luck aspect of the game enhances the other chance aspects, but not in the sense that the reduction of luck is rendered insignificant. Luck is very tough to pinpoint when mixed with skill. There are better tickets than others, and there are better ticket combinations than others. There is also the relationship between both players' tickets between the players to consider. There is also the relationship between one's hand and one's tickets : some colors distributions are better with some tickets than with others.

Knowing how to manage these parameters is the main reason why the game is fun. So if they get more important with the control of who starts, so much the better. Even if we end up with the same old stupid game where you can't win because you're playing Angel who has four times in a row Sea-Ny, Van-Mon and ten lokos.

Experience shows that starting is important. If the mathematical shows otherwise, then we have a problem with the model. In any case, the simplest and laziest standpoint is to consider alternation of starts as a mere convention, like card players takes turn to deal the deck of cards.

Alternating starts is not the first step to a long process where TTR slowly will become chess. We should not be afraid of that possibility, considering the time it takes to implement a button... (Sorry, Brice, I can't resist.) In any case, Angel's suggestion of recalculating the tickets is very intriguing, just for the sake of it. It could be expanded in a separate topic. (As I am not the calculating guy, I preferred to say : let's drop Bos-Mia, mainly for the fun of saying it.)
      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Fri, 07 November 2008 10:20
kolmo schrieb am Fri, 07 November 2008 05:22

Experience shows that starting is important. If the mathematical shows otherwise, then we have a problem with the model.

Nobody ever said that starting is not important, we only doubt the luck reducing factor of the starting button!

In theory reducing luck should improve the chances of the better player. But Zeno's model shows that a starting button will NOT impove the chances of the higher ranked player nor the chances of the lower ranked player, so the button will not reduce overall luck Wink
I'm not a mathematical genius, maybe the starting button just "transfers most of the starting luck to more importance of ticket luck and color/loko luck" (I'M not sure about this).

So, I think the starting button will have the advantage that nobady has to be "afraid" of never starting, and of course erps is right that in private rounds we would never chose random start in every game. Thumbs Up

Alas, the starting button also has a disadvantage: Every game has to be startet by another player, because every game has to be started by the player who should not start the next game (because he started the last and only the starting player can give his opponent the starting advantage). Thus, every player gets another color every game, which might be confusing IMHO! Thumbs Down

I would be interested in a T2R variation that levels chances for every game, like the following:
-) Changing the ticket values so that "bad connectivity" (Bos-Mia needs at least 5 moves), "bad cities needed" (Van-Santa has 2 cities that you can not reach with a 4+ track) and some more factors are taken into account.
-) Every player starts with 2 lokos to reduce color/loko luck.
-) The starting player only gets 3 cards (no matter how many players there are).
-) In 3+ player games, the 2nd player only gets 1 loko.
-) In 4 or 5 player games, the 1st and 2nd player only get 3 cards, and the 1st and 3rd player only get 1 loko, the 5th player gets 3 lokos (only 5 lokos would remain to draw).

Maybe there are better solutions, but such a change IMHO would really reduce luck in T2R.

[Mis à jour le: Fri, 07 November 2008 10:27]

      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Fri, 07 November 2008 13:35
Z

[I]f you only consider the scenarios in which the first two start alternate (the middle four scenarios), then the percentages change to .200, .500 and .902 respectively, that is the margins go in the favor of the better player. Hence I give limited support to the claim that alternating starts will tend to favor the better player.


Since alternation favors the better player, we must infer that alternation reduces luck. How significant is this reduction depends on further analysis.

All the above suggestions seem very interesting.

[Mis à jour le: Fri, 07 November 2008 15:44]

      
erps
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 1633
Enregistré(e) en :
July 2005
Re:This can't come soon enough... Fri, 07 November 2008 20:29
Hi

I am not a full qualified mathematician but i think there is a serious fault in all this. You can't calculate with fixed numbers all possible orders because that must lead to the same result in any way. It's like the fact that it doesn't matter in a random lineup who plays who to calculate the overall chance for a team. But for the single event it is important.

So the only example that matters is this:

We have players from equal strength, so normally there is a 50% chance to win after a series of N games (N is even!).

So we now say that not starting reduces the chance to 40%. And one player is not starting all N games. I see a now a big difference to the expected result. And this goes for every number of games not starting down to N/2.

So don't say this has no effect. It is not fair and no one in his right mind would do a tournament systeme with a random starting if it so easy to alternate.

And Angel, your disadvantage you mentioned is imo no. As i understand it, not the CREATING player has the MOVE button (that would not make sense at all), the STARTING player has this button. So it doesn't matter who starts the game, the moment the little point shows who is starting, this point can be moved.

bye, erps
      
Angel 6
Senior Member
Vainqueur Nation Cup AdR 2007

Messages: 1108
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2004
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sat, 08 November 2008 12:09
Brice schrieb am Wed, 05 November 2008 14:47

...there will be an option to let an other player to start the game if you are the creator...

erps, I think you are right, but you should tell Brice, not me Smile
      
TIC wasdenn
Senior Member

Messages: 264
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2005
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sat, 08 November 2008 22:23
All very interesting, but heading into the wrong direction.
I would definitely not want to reduce the overall luck factor in TTR, eg by averaging ticket combos out etc. .

A big part of the fun in this game - at least for me - is that lower skilled players have a real chance to win against higher ones, now and then, if the difference is not too huge.

If the luck factor is reduced or almost removed - as it would be by angel's ideas - the fun for lower ranked players would be removed, too.
Losing almost every game is definitely not fun. You would end up playing only against plaers with a skill level very close to your own. Social aspects of the game would suffer accordingly.

So don't tamper with the basic mechanics of the game, including the ticket weights.

My two cents.

wd
      
Nemo_
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 561
Enregistré(e) en :
December 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sat, 08 November 2008 23:19
wasdenn wrote on Sat, 08 November 2008 23:23


A big part of the fun in this game - at least for me - is that lower skilled players have a real chance to win against higher ones, now and then, if the difference is not too huge.



Beautiful words, but most dont feel same after 5 lose cause of very bad luck
Laughing

[Mis à jour le: Sat, 08 November 2008 23:20]

      
Truckerteller
Senior Member
Chef de train, Niveau 1

Pages Perso
Messages: 976
Enregistré(e) en :
October 2007
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sat, 08 November 2008 23:43
Changing tix values: WHY IS SEA-NY WORTH 22?
Via Chicago, it's 20 trains...
      
stemayf
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 352
Enregistré(e) en :
May 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sat, 08 November 2008 23:56
Truckerteller wrote on Sat, 08 November 2008 22:43

Changing tix values: WHY IS SEA-NY WORTH 22?
Via Chicago, it's 20 trains...


This, and LA-Miami (20 to 19, via Dallas) were changed in the 1910 edition, weren't they?

Regardless, my original post demonstrated my frustration in losing a sequence of matches, in part I felt, through never having the opportunity to go first. Many worthwhile comments have been added to the thread since then. But the game must remain as it currently is in all aspects bar the option to change starters. Colours/ticks must remain as random as they are. The rules and mechanics make the game what it is, and are the reasons why we all play it.

I've probably had more than my 2 cents by now. Smile I'll leave you all to it.

stemayf
      
*player277410
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 556
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2006
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sun, 09 November 2008 02:30
I would not tamper with tickets : I would only remove Bos-Mia, or replace it with Bos-St-Louis (9)...
      
*player396123
Senior Member

Pages Perso
Messages: 219
Enregistré(e) en :
November 2007
Re:This can't come soon enough... Sun, 23 November 2008 05:53
AT_Angel6 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 04:20



I would be interested in a T2R variation that levels chances for every game, like the following:
-) Changing the ticket values so that "bad connectivity" (Bos-Mia needs at least 5 moves), "bad cities needed" (Van-Santa has 2 cities that you can not reach with a 4+ track) and some more factors are taken into account.
-) Every player starts with 2 lokos to reduce color/loko luck.
-) The starting player only gets 3 cards (no matter how many players there are).
-) In 3+ player games, the 2nd player only gets 1 loko.
-) In 4 or 5 player games, the 1st and 2nd player only get 3 cards, and the 1st and 3rd player only get 1 loko, the 5th player gets 3 lokos (only 5 lokos would remain to draw).

Maybe there are better solutions, but such a change IMHO would really reduce luck in T2R.



Baron LIKES!
      
    
Sujet précédent:Points of guests
Sujet suivant: EMC - Round 2 - Schedules and Results
Aller au forum: