Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All

Author Topic: First player bias  (Read 62026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #50 on: May 01, 2012, 07:04:47 pm »
0

Donald balances the game for 3p, and all of the official tournaments are >2p.
I've always felt this, but I've never seen confirmation. Frisk told me he did some playtesting and it was mostly 4p. I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that they will play 2, 3, and 4 in testing. So I don't really know what goes on, maybe you do. I'm sure Donald does ;)

Fabian

  • 2012 Swedish Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • Respect: +542
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #51 on: May 01, 2012, 07:31:19 pm »
0

Well obviously the chess pool system I mentioned would be for 2p. I don't know what you do about multiplayer games.
Logged

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1757
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #52 on: May 01, 2012, 08:55:12 pm »
0

Chess is only ever 2 player.

Nah...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-handed_chess

(FYI: I'm not serious here...)

O

  • Jester
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 836
  • Respect: +605
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #53 on: May 01, 2012, 10:18:41 pm »
+1

Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #54 on: May 01, 2012, 10:22:06 pm »
0

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2012, 01:34:48 pm »
+1

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.

Regardless of balance purposes or inclinations of fun games(being third player is not fun) anything beyond two player will have too strong of a "kingmaker" influence to be viable competitively in any of the same sense that the two-player format has the potential to be. 

With a fair and balanced queue system I don't see any argument for allowing custom games being rated. 
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2012, 01:48:21 pm »
0

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.

Regardless of balance purposes or inclinations of fun games(being third player is not fun) anything beyond two player will have too strong of a "kingmaker" influence to be viable competitively in any of the same sense that the two-player format has the potential to be. 

With a fair and balanced queue system I don't see any argument for allowing custom games being rated. 
On the first point, you just don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not making an argument for allowing custom games (though really this is quite ironic coming from you...), but not all games between friends are custom games.
Unless you mean 'any game where you pick your opponent' by custom games. Which I think is way overboard and ridiculous.

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2012, 01:52:16 pm »
0

Pretty confident I understand what I'm talking about.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #58 on: May 02, 2012, 01:54:51 pm »
0

Pretty confident I understand what I'm talking about.
You of the 16 multiplayer iso games?

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #59 on: May 02, 2012, 01:58:45 pm »
0

Pretty confident I understand what I'm talking about.
You of the 16 multiplayer iso games?

That's your argument that three player dominion isn't a kingmaker game?  Instead of talking about the design of the game or the function of kingmakers you look up my stats?

There are more than enough scenarios where the third player can either end/not-end the game thus giving a game-winning turn to the first player or ending the game and giving the win to the second player that have nothing to do with how many multiplayer games I have played. LOL.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #60 on: May 02, 2012, 02:02:37 pm »
0

Pretty confident I understand what I'm talking about.
You of the 16 multiplayer iso games?

That's your argument that three player dominion isn't a kingmaker game?  Instead of talking about the design of the game or the function of kingmakers you look up my stats?

There are more than enough scenarios where the third player can either end/not-end the game thus giving a game-winning turn to the first player or ending the game and giving the win to the second player that have nothing to do with how many multiplayer games I have played. LOL.
No, that's my argument as to why you're wrong, not my argument as to THAT you're wrong. My best guess as to why what's coming off your keyboard is just so patently false.
Sure, there's going to be more variance in 3 player than in 2 player. You know, there's shuffle luck in 2-player too, we really oughtn't count those results. It's a dumb argument. The situation you're talking about just isn't a factor the vast majority of the time.
Even if it were, that simply means there's more variance, more uncertainty in the ranking system. It certainly is a long jump from 'gee, there's some extra problems' to 'eh, there's no point, screw it.'

Axxle

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
  • Most Valuable Serial Killer
  • Respect: +1965
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #61 on: May 02, 2012, 02:07:33 pm »
0

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.

Regardless of balance purposes or inclinations of fun games(being third player is not fun) anything beyond two player will have too strong of a "kingmaker" influence to be viable competitively in any of the same sense that the two-player format has the potential to be. 

With a fair and balanced queue system I don't see any argument for allowing custom games being rated. 
On the first point, you just don't know what you're talking about.
There are plenty of times in a two player game where one player ends the game while behind.  Why wouldn't that extend into three player?
Logged
We might be from all over the world, but "we all talk this one language  : +1 card + 1 action +1 buy , gain , discard, trash... " - RTT

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #62 on: May 02, 2012, 02:10:09 pm »
0

To WW: So your argument is that I'm wrong because it doesn't happen the majority of the time?  I never said it did.   
 
And I'm not talking about variance that has nothing to do with it, Im talking about opening the door to collusion in a tournament format not variance in rankings over thousands of games. 

Axxle: Because in a two player game the tactic only costs yourself the game whereas in a three player game the tactic will have a direct influence over which of your two opponents wins.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #63 on: May 02, 2012, 02:14:16 pm »
0

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.

Regardless of balance purposes or inclinations of fun games(being third player is not fun) anything beyond two player will have too strong of a "kingmaker" influence to be viable competitively in any of the same sense that the two-player format has the potential to be. 

With a fair and balanced queue system I don't see any argument for allowing custom games being rated. 
On the first point, you just don't know what you're talking about.
There are plenty of times in a two player game where one player ends the game while behind.  Why wouldn't that extend into three player?
I'm not sure what your point is or who you're trying to make it at.
Yes, this happens. It happens at every number of players you have. This actually goes to say that things aren't that different. Except instead of one other player whose deck you have to gauge as to how fast it is for them to end the game, there's more. Just another dimension. Certainly no reason to just throw the 3-player games away, rating-wise. A difference to have them be separate, I absolutely agree.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #64 on: May 02, 2012, 02:15:41 pm »
0

To WW: So your argument is that I'm wrong because it doesn't happen the majority of the time?  I never said it did.   
 
And I'm not talking about variance that has nothing to do with it, Im talking about opening the door to collusion in a tournament format not variance in rankings over thousands of games. 

Axxle: Because in a two player game the tactic only costs yourself the game whereas in a three player game the tactic will have a direct influence over which of your two opponents wins.
No, my argument is that this happening occasionally doesn't particularly matter. That, even if you accept your premise (and I don't fully), but even if you totally accept it, it certainly doesn't imply that it's pointless to have a 3-player or 4-player rating pool.
Edit: or that the game isn't 'competitively viable' whatever that's supposed to mean...

rrenaud

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 991
  • Uncivilized Barbarian of Statistics
  • Respect: +1197
    • View Profile
    • CouncilRoom
Re: First player bias
« Reply #65 on: May 02, 2012, 02:16:31 pm »
+1

I think you guys are coming from two different perspectives.

Obi Wan Bonogi, maybe because of the poker background (where real money on the line), wants to make the rules as ungameable as possible.  Zero sum two player games, difficulty in arranging games against dummy accounts, etc, all go in this direction.  Anything I do to help my opponent hurts myself.  He is optimizing the ladder rules against the worst case.

WW's perspective is assuming a less "malicious" or "adversarial" player population, that doesn't systemically trade wins against dummy accounts, have cooperative play in >2p games, etc.  He is optimizing the ladder rules against a plausible set of real player behavior.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #66 on: May 02, 2012, 02:20:44 pm »
0

I think you guys are coming from two different perspectives.

Obi Wan Bonogi, maybe because of the poker background (where real money on the line), wants to make the rules as ungameable as possible.  Zero sum two player games, difficulty in arranging games against dummy accounts, etc, all go in this direction.  Anything I do to help my opponent hurts myself.  He is optimizing the ladder rules against the worst case.

WW's perspective is assuming a less "malicious" or "adversarial" player population, that doesn't systemically trade wins against dummy accounts, have cooperative play in >2p games, etc.  He is optimizing the ladder rules against a plausible set of real player behavior.
Sort of. But not really. I mean, yes, people are going to game the system, people are going to... whatever. I'm EXTREMELY cynical, and I do think that people will do all of those things. They'll do those things in 2 player, 3 player, 4 player, whatever. It's just, that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater and not have a rating system.

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #67 on: May 02, 2012, 02:21:13 pm »
0

Rrenaud is on to something.  To be clear I'm not saying 3p+ player isn't a viable format to be rated and have a ranked pool etc.  Im saying 3p+ player is not "competitively viable" in a tournament format where there are tremendous stakes on the outcome of a single game.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #68 on: May 02, 2012, 02:23:08 pm »
0

Rrenaud is on to something.  To be clear I'm not saying 3p+ player isn't a viable format to be rated and have a ranked pool etc.  Im saying 3p+ player is not "competitively viable" in a tournament format where there are tremendous stakes on the outcome of a single game.
I disagree here, too, but....
Who's arguing that?

Edit: Well, actually, I probably agree here. But then, I'd say 2p isn't either.

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #69 on: May 02, 2012, 02:37:24 pm »
+1

Rrenaud is on to something.  To be clear I'm not saying 3p+ player isn't a viable format to be rated and have a ranked pool etc.  Im saying 3p+ player is not "competitively viable" in a tournament format where there are tremendous stakes on the outcome of a single game.
I disagree here, too, but....
Who's arguing that?

Edit: Well, actually, I probably agree here. But then, I'd say 2p isn't either.

Sure is hard to get some agreement out of you but I suppose I'll take what I can get :P

The original thing you disagreed with said "For competitive purposes anything beyond two player should be disregarded."  My sentiment here is coming from an unrealized potential competitive level of Dominion.   I don't consider the Isotropic leaderboard "competitive" in this sense and consider it by its very nature "casual."   
Logged

Robz888

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2644
  • Shuffle iT Username: Robz888
  • Respect: +3388
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #70 on: May 02, 2012, 03:38:26 pm »
0

Is the kingmaking problem all that bad in 3 player? I play a lot of IRL 3 player games, and I've never thought it was a particularly big problem.

If 2 people are playing, and I am in 2nd (but could end up in 3rd if I don't end the game) it's not kingmaking for me to end the game and cost the other two people the chance of fighting it out for 1st. Getting 2nd is preferable to 3rd. I suppose if you end the game while you are in 3rd, perhaps your are kingmaking... but, I mean, you're playing badly then, because why end the game when you are in 3rd? It costs you nothing to keep going, and you might somehow improve your standing.

So, how does kingmaking become a problem in Dominion, in 3 player games?
Logged
I have been forced to accept that lackluster play is a town tell for you.

Obi Wan Bonogi

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 254
  • Respect: +344
    • View Profile
Re: First player bias
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2012, 03:41:54 pm »
0

You are talking about proper strategy I am talking about collusion.
Logged

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2012, 03:42:50 pm »
0

Is the kingmaking problem all that bad in 3 player? I play a lot of IRL 3 player games, and I've never thought it was a particularly big problem.

If 2 people are playing, and I am in 2nd (but could end up in 3rd if I don't end the game) it's not kingmaking for me to end the game and cost the other two people the chance of fighting it out for 1st. Getting 2nd is preferable to 3rd. I suppose if you end the game while you are in 3rd, perhaps your are kingmaking... but, I mean, you're playing badly then, because why end the game when you are in 3rd? It costs you nothing to keep going, and you might somehow improve your standing.

So, how does kingmaking become a problem in Dominion, in 3 player games?

The only way is if the 3rd person has absolutely no chance of winning, and presumably, absolutely no chance of getting 2nd either. This is possible, but it almost never comes up.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2012, 03:43:05 pm »
0

You are talking about proper strategy I am talking about collusion.
You can collude just as much in 2 player.

WanderingWinder

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5275
  • ...doesn't really matter to me
  • Respect: +4381
    • View Profile
    • WanderingWinder YouTube Page
Re: First player bias
« Reply #74 on: May 02, 2012, 03:43:42 pm »
0

Also, you presumably have rules against collusion which, in a real competitive environment, SOMEONE will be able to enforce.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  All
 

Page created in 0.199 seconds with 21 queries.