Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WanderingWinder]

I actually DO know ways of gaming the system better than this first-turn wise, that will look totally legit, but because I don't want people using them, I won't say what they are.

Axxle: yes, probably veto helps p2 more than p1, I would guess.
Would be awesome if we could get splits on these (p1 v p2 with and without veto, and with and without identical start hands).

I don't have any problem with what Ben Warden does. I also find it weird that you guys are so reliant on point counter. Maybe I should stop playing with it so much - it might indeed give me a competitive advantage.

ecq, I've had someone do the same thing to me, but insists that he just wants to have identical starting hands. But it irks me, and I always nag back at him to just not use auto-match then. But overall, if this is my biggest problem, life is good.

[olneyce]

Anymore gems?

-Use classic proposal instead of auto-match with point counter turned off.   (Ben Warden)
-Propose these games against players that are higher level than they should be. (Ben Warden against me haha)

I was just about to put up a separate post on that.  It's annoying but ultimately fine when that happens.  Yesterday, though, I had an auto-match game proposed, declined, proposed again, declined, then a direct invite from the auto-match player with point counter turned off.  Again, the burden was probably still on me to notice that and not just click "yes" to every proposed match.  What got my goat is that the guy denied doing it when I asked him about it.  I assumed the best, then returned to the lobby and noticed that I indeed had point counter enabled so I have no better explanation.

I assume Ben Warden is above board with it.  He probably just likes to pick his opponent, rather than waiting for auto-match.  There's at least one other player, though, who uses it to gain a cheap advantage.  Annoying.

Anyhow, didn't mean to derail.  I'm still fuming just a little.

I don't even understand what Ben Warden is doing 'wrong.'  He proposes games directly.  And doesn't use the point counter.  Is that it?  The point counter is a variant.  It almost by definition can't be 'gaming' the system to not use it.

[Deadlock39]

It bugs me when it happens, but the player(s) doing it aren't doing anything wrong.  It's just, I'm sitting in the lobby, wanting to play non-veto games, and when I get proposed a game and don't realize it wasn't an auto-match, it can be annoying if it is veto.  The same goes for the point counter even though it personally bothers me less (unless I didn't realize until it is far to late for me to have any clue what the score is).

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

[/quote]
I don't even understand what Ben Warden is doing 'wrong.'  He proposes games directly.  And doesn't use the point counter.  Is that it?  The point counter is a variant.  It almost by definition can't be 'gaming' the system to not use it.
[/quote]

Never said it was wrong.  Just as I don't consider the previous example of bias-prosperity wrong.  The question was how to get to the top of the leaderboard and these are the answers.  Doesn't mean anyone is "gaming the system."  Ben Warden is an excellent player and deserves rank 1. 

[timchen]

Just make sure I understand:

is it right that it actually does not do you a favor if you log out every time after a win?

If so, how does WW get such even split between p1 and p2? admittedly I played mostly random so I win more often, but my split is ~1400 p1 and ~2000 p2.

[rrenaud]

I think the optimal "ranking strategy" is to never log out after a loss, because you squander your probable first player advantage.

Also, it seems like it would be worthwhile to know who just finished a game (stalk current games).  Never play against those people, they might have just lost.  Instead, play against someone who joined the lobby fresh.

[Axxle]

Just make sure I understand:

is it right that it actually does not do you a favor if you log out every time after a win?

From what WW said before I think he does this just so he doesn't play against the person he just beat two times in a row and thus is guaranteed 2nd position.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Fabian]

WW definitely plays the same person twice (or more) in a row, win or lose. What I believe he's describing, and he will correct me if I'm wrong, is that he doesn't end a playing session when he just lost a game, as he would be more likely than average to go first in the next game, and quitting at that point would be a "wasted" p1 game.

[WanderingWinder]

Yeah, Fabian is right rather than Axxle. I play people in long matches all the time. Probably not doing that at strategic points could help me, but I don't care about ranking that much.

[Papa Luigi]

I just checked my stats and I've won about 45% of my games and I am first player about 54% of the time (I threw out 3- and 4-player games). I have a better record as first player (62-67-3) than as second player (45-66-2). So I would say it seems to be working, at least in my case.

The other thing is I tend to play several games in a row rather than playing just one and then leaving. I might do that if I'm playing one quick game on my lunch break, but I usually play at home and I have time to do several. I'm also more likely to log out after winning than after losing - I prefer to end on a high note, and if I lose several times in a row (which happens often; just look at my record) it makes me want to keep trying until I win.

[Captain_Frisk]

Yeah, Fabian is right rather than Axxle. I play people in long matches all the time. Probably not doing that at strategic points could help me, but I don't care about ranking that much.

I can back this up, WW graciously allows me to lose to him multiple times in a row... I always take the rematch (time permitting) because being I'm arrogant and think that I can win as 1st player.... 

Lifetime stats:
41 - 54 - 2

Fortunately, it appears to have been about 50/50 since mid February - doesn't feel that way though!

[Ozle]

I know in the proper rules it says that if you lose then let that player go first, but thats presumably presuming you are playing the same people.

If your playing a random person I would think the idea would be to go randomly last, as that last game could have no effect on the next game.

For example, I play 5 or 6 muppets and win handily, then Fabian comes along, who is vastly better than me, but just lose a game to someone above him on the leaderbaord. And now im likely to go second and be at a disadvantage?

It seems to me the original intention of the rule is to let the worse players go first, which on isotropic would be thier level rather than a game against another completel stranger.

Unless I have completely misunderstood this discussion on how isotropic works of course....

[Captain_Frisk]

I know in the proper rules it says that if you lose then let that player go first, but thats presumably presuming you are playing the same people.

If your playing a random person I would think the idea would be to go randomly last, as that last game could have no effect on the next game.

For example, I play 5 or 6 muppets and win handily, then Fabian comes along, who is vastly better than me, but just lose a game to someone above him on the leaderbaord. And now im likely to go second and be at a disadvantage?

It seems to me the original intention of the rule is to let the worse players go first, which on isotropic would be thier level rather than a game against another completel stranger.

Unless I have completely misunderstood this discussion on how isotropic works of course....

I have seen my hat.


For the longest time I have been super angry about this method of starting player assignment.  1st player advantage is HUGE.  For me, I win 67% of my games as 1st player, and 61% of my games as 2nd player.  Over my lifetime, I have played 44% of my games as  first player, and 56% as 2nd player.  Every time I start from 2nd player, I'm angry that i've lost 6% of a game.

This thread got me thinking... if we assigned starting player fairly (50% of the time)... how many games should I have won?

I've played 5313 games.

The answer?  Take a minute to think and estimate.  This rule has cost me 23.78 games or 0.448%

The takeaway: be angry that 1st player advantage is so strong, not angry at how Doug assigns starting player.  Clearly I'm going to keep playing despite those 23 wins.  If they helped other players stay with the game longer // buy more expansions... good for them!

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

I would like to see(in the official version perhaps?) a system where it has a memory of whom  you have played and the results of those matches.  First time playing someone = random.  Every game against a previous opponent = the loser goes first.

[WanderingWinder]

Actually, whoever is programming this stuff can probably pick something up form the chess servers. White/Black is a pretty big deal there too. I think generally they just keep track of how many whites/blacks in a row you've had, up to a few. If you've been white most recently, you're due black. But if your opponent is also due black, they check to see who's 'more due' whatever colour.

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

Actually, whoever is programming this stuff can probably pick something up form the chess servers. White/Black is a pretty big deal there too. I think generally they just keep track of how many whites/blacks in a row you've had, up to a few. If you've been white most recently, you're due black. But if your opponent is also due black, they check to see who's 'more due' whatever colour.

Would it be possible to take advantage of this by playing lower level opponents when queued to black(or play second)?  That was my thinking at least when I thought of the opponent memory system, though Im not sure if there is an advantage there to gain by playing lower level games as black/2p.

[Ozle]

I know in the proper rules it says that if you lose then let that player go first, but thats presumably presuming you are playing the same people.

If your playing a random person I would think the idea would be to go randomly last, as that last game could have no effect on the next game.

For example, I play 5 or 6 muppets and win handily, then Fabian comes along, who is vastly better than me, but just lose a game to someone above him on the leaderbaord. And now im likely to go second and be at a disadvantage?

It seems to me the original intention of the rule is to let the worse players go first, which on isotropic would be thier level rather than a game against another completel stranger.

Unless I have completely misunderstood this discussion on how isotropic works of course....

I have seen my hat.


For the longest time I have been super angry about this method of starting player assignment.  1st player advantage is HUGE.  For me, I win 67% of my games as 1st player, and 61% of my games as 2nd player.  Over my lifetime, I have played 44% of my games as  first player, and 56% as 2nd player.  Every time I start from 2nd player, I'm angry that i've lost 6% of a game.

This thread got me thinking... if we assigned starting player fairly (50% of the time)... how many games should I have won?

I've played 5313 games.

The answer?  Take a minute to think and estimate.  This rule has cost me 23.78 games or 0.448%

The takeaway: be angry that 1st player advantage is so strong, not angry at how Doug assigns starting player.  Clearly I'm going to keep playing despite those 23 wins.  If they helped other players stay with the game longer // buy more expansions... good for them!

I dont think im super angry about it, just quizzical.

And those numbers add up because you have played 5k games, plus, your good enough that I would imagine against a lot of the players on Iso you would still be favourite despite playing second. My example was to point out how this system is designed to give the weaker played the advantage actually can just as likely make the WEAKER player play second against the stronger player.

[Fabian]

ICC (Internet Chess Club) seems to have a great system (don't know about other chess servers) where you enter a pool and is auto-matched against an opponent and can't accept/decline. You get black every other game, and if you're due black, you meet someone who's due white, and it matches you up against someone of a similar rating. I think it might take a bigger pool of players to make that viable on isotropic (or the new app), but in theory it's pretty much exactly what I'd want. I don't like results dictating whether you go first or second, I'd like it if it was every other game like on ICC.

[Captain_Frisk]

I dont think im super angry about it, just quizzical.

And those numbers add up because you have played 5k games, plus, your good enough that I would imagine against a lot of the players on Iso you would still be favourite despite playing second. My example was to point out how this system is designed to give the weaker played the advantage actually can just as likely make the WEAKER player play second against the stronger player.

To be clear - I feel like at the end of the day - this is a completely inconsequential number.  I've played ALOT of games, and even if it was done "fairly", it wouldn't make hardly any difference!

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

ICC (Internet Chess Club) seems to have a great system (don't know about other chess servers) where you enter a pool and is auto-matched against an opponent and can't accept/decline. You get black every other game, and if you're due black, you meet someone who's due white, and it matches you up against someone of a similar rating. I think it might take a bigger pool of players to make that viable on isotropic (or the new app), but in theory it's pretty much exactly what I'd want. I don't like results dictating whether you go first or second, I'd like it if it was every other game like on ICC.

Sounds perfect.  Especially not being able to dodge/decline once you enter the queue.

[Insomniac]

ICC (Internet Chess Club) seems to have a great system (don't know about other chess servers) where you enter a pool and is auto-matched against an opponent and can't accept/decline. You get black every other game, and if you're due black, you meet someone who's due white, and it matches you up against someone of a similar rating. I think it might take a bigger pool of players to make that viable on isotropic (or the new app), but in theory it's pretty much exactly what I'd want. I don't like results dictating whether you go first or second, I'd like it if it was every other game like on ICC.

Chess is only ever 2 player. While most of us play dominion 2 player alot of people play 3-8 player. And well I don't know that that system work well unless you always play with the same number of players (ie for 3 you rotate 1,2,3,1,2,3; for 4 1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4, etc)  So it would maybe have to have a memory of what your do with each set of players. And with an increasing user base that gets to be more and more space consuming, although its probably still negligible.

Not to mention auto-match is great but sometimes you want to play with your friends and not be auto-matched. Additionally if I was first player and lost to player X and was immediatly repaired with him (he was due first I was due second) I would expect to go first as the rules dictate that the player who lost goes first and this would not be the case

[Obi Wan Bonogi]

I think for competitive purposes anything beyond two player should be completely disregarded.  And I dont think games requested against friends should count for rating.

[WanderingWinder]

I think for competitive purposes anything beyond two player should be completely disregarded.  And I dont think games requested against friends should count for rating.

I STRONGLY disagree with your first point, and somewhat disagree with the second.

[WanderingWinder]

Though, as I've said before, I think separate ratings are appropriate.

[rrenaud]

Donald balances the game for 3p, and all of the official tournaments are >2p.