|
Post by Cona Chris on Aug 6, 2008 10:52:03 GMT -5
I do not have evidence that going first in Monopoly doesn't give that person a huge advantage, but do you really think this is the case? In Attacktix, if I go first, I get two free shots and don't even have to knock them over (a solid hit backing them up 3 tix works too) and can choose who to go after (if you have OBKs, I'll target a trooper perhaps, etc.). Do you really think that who goes second has the same chance to win, all other factors being equal.
I agree that simply saying 66% of the time isn't in itself valid and no, it isn't a highly scientific double-blind sample, etc., etc., but . I have almost 300 games worth of data, so over that many games, all those variables above you mention would tend to even out. Maybe not perfectly, but 66% is a HUGE amount over 50%.
I'll run 30 matches of the same team versus each other and post the results - alternating which side goes first in case there are differences in the springs or something. I'll keep the data you suggest above, although some of those may be influenced by whoever goes first (all things being equal I have a better chance at getting more succesful attacks and more multiple kills if I go first because I am always ahead or at least even on number of attacks taken)
I was thinking of a good balance of strikers and shooters: S2 OBK (Recover) Yellow Clone Red Clone 2 JKs 1 Tusken Raider 2 S4 Greedos
Let me know if you'd prefer to see another team. It may take me a while to get all 30 matches done, but I will post the results when finished.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Aug 6, 2008 15:01:44 GMT -5
I just have 1 question.
If you do find that 66% of the time player 1 wins.
What do we do about it?
This isn't sarcasm in the slightest degree, so don't take it that way. This discussion is already getting a little hot.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Aug 6, 2008 15:27:11 GMT -5
I do not have evidence that going first in Monopoly doesn't give that person a huge advantage, but do you really think this is the case? I was being facetious, but in fact in Chess and Checkers, the first to move MAY have an advantage but it again comes to STRATEGY. "Bobby Fischer believed chess is a theoretical draw, which may be the case. But we're only human, and a lot of time, if not most of the time, chess is about who makes the more mistakes, whether that is losing a pawn, losing a critical outpost or diagonal, etc. I think white should be able to carry a slight initiative with correct play, and has an advantage in the sense that, if white makes a mistake, he loses his edge and is on the defensive now. If black makes a mistake, the repercussions will be more serious. To put it simply, if it was baseball, white gets more strikes than black before they're out." In fact there may be MORE free shots, depending on the team selection. If there were 2 destroyers, a Leia, and a Han as ST, perhaps 5. If you also had some marvels and the Spidey on the Pole, then 6 shots. Add an R2-D2 and make it 8 shots! You see my point? I am not saying that white does not have an advantage - I am saying that it is not nearly as significant as some make it out to be. The fact is that it is HARD to hit a figure and knock it back 3 inches and NOT knock it down. When you play all your games at home you play on the line. This means that the figure only has to go 1/2 a tix. I totally agree with the statement then that White has a huge advantage. BUT THATS NOT HOW THE GAME IS SUPPOSED TO BE PLAYED. I would argue that at any point in the game there are figures that are close to an edge or in a disadvantageous position. So, the answer is to PLAY BETTER. Put the R2-D2 next to a Destroyer or Tusken that will use it's appendages to help STOP HIS DEATH. This argument all comes down to "I want to play with whatever figures I want without any regard for the possibility of getting killed quickly or not going to play first". I've had my Obi Wan come up black plenty just like you've had a field of Ewoks come up black when all odds are against it. Technically, the odds are BETTER that you get to go first than an Ewok comes up white, but you still play Ewoks. Look, I'm not saying that we need a huge orchestrated deal to prove or disprove anything. What I am saying is that the statistics do not mean anything without a CONTROL point and a little bit of perspective. All I am saying is that you can pretty easily look at the data you have and determine a LOT of different factors for winning. Why don't you look at these things: Of the 66% of times that were won by the first player, what % of those were with superior numbers? What about % of successful attacks? What about % of specials coming up? Of those specials, which were relevant to attacks? The proof is here: 50% of the time (statistically) Tim went first, and I'd argue that he went first a lot less because he was complaining a LOT about it (and rightly so) at Tixcon. He went undefeated in 2 tournaments, of which he played a likely 15 matches. Based upon what you are saying, he should've played first at least 7 times (50% black/white) and in the 8 games he played as the second player, he should've lost 2-3 of them. But alas, he did not!?!? HOW CAN THIS BE?!?!? Because the first player only has an advantage IF THEY GET AMPLE EXTRA ATTACKS AND HAVE MORE FIGURES. The 2 extra shots to start don't amount to anything if your opponent has 5-10 more figures than you do. Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, this will be an exercise in futility. Just take the data you have and post a comprehensive results spectrum as in real life the teams will not be equal and play will not be equal. There really is no way to determine with certainty what the spread is. Just take the data you have and determine these things: I. Specials a. What % of times does the winning team have more specials come up? 1. Of those times, which were those that affect figure count (Vengeance, Vanquish, Recruit, Rally, Rescue, Recover...) 2. Of those times which were those that affect attacks? II. Extra Attacks a. What % of times does the winning team have effects/specials that grant extra attacks? III. Figure Count a. What % of times did the winning team have a higher figure count? b. What % of the times did the team with the higher figure count win when it went first? c. What % of the times did the team with the lower figure count win when it went first? I'd bet hard currency that there are factors that VASTLY outweigh the first shot theory. The other thing is that if you played the Tixcon way, where you start on the start line and don't move 2 tix forward, that all the data is rubbish anyhow since it's invalidated. Chris, please don't take any of this personally as you know I'm your dude, I just cannot believe that the player who goes first has a HUGE, insurmountable advantage. This is casting an aspursion upon EVERYONE who is griping that there is too much of an advantage. Even at 16%, it's not that much. Remember that you go into the game with a 50/50 chance, and if you go first all you get is a 16% advantage, AT BEST, from going first.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Aug 6, 2008 15:40:01 GMT -5
I just have 1 question. If you do find that 66% of the time player 1 wins. What do we do about it? This isn't sarcasm in the slightest degree, so don't take it that way. This discussion is already getting a little hot. Hey Chris - based upon your current data that you've already compiled, what is the actual exact % of times that the winner went first, disregarding anything else?
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Aug 6, 2008 20:30:53 GMT -5
I just have 1 question. If you do find that 66% of the time player 1 wins. What do we do about it? This isn't sarcasm in the slightest degree, so don't take it that way. This discussion is already getting a little hot. If it turns out that we agree with the stats I will provide per Pete's latest message (so not the same team vs. same team 30 times), I would encourage others to see if they notice this as well when they play. If it's an issue then let's try to fix it somehow. The fact is that it is HARD to hit a figure and knock it back 3 inches and NOT knock it down. When you play all your games at home you play on the line. This means that the figure only has to go 1/2 a tix. My board has the figures on the starting line, but they are not "out" unless they fall off the board, so I am playing essentially the same way as the rules were intended. This argument all comes down to "I want to play with whatever figures I want without any regard for the possibility of getting killed quickly". Well, tough shlt. I've had my Obi Wan come up black plenty just like you've had a field of Ewoks come up black when all odds are against it. Technically, the odds are BETTER that you get to go first than an Ewok comes up white, but you still play Ewoks. It's not about me wanting to play with whoever I want. I would argue I benefit from going first as much as anyone. This really has nothing to do with my personal results believe it or not - just about every match I watched at TixCon had the person going first winning and I just don't like that. Look, I'm not saying that we need a huge orchestrated deal to prove or disprove anything. What I am saying is that the statistics do not mean shlt without a CONTROL. All I am saying is that you can pretty easily look at the data you have and determine a LOT of different factors for winning. Why don't you look at these things: Of the 66% of times that were won by the first player, what % of those were with superior numbers? What about % of successful attacks? What about % of specials coming up? Of those specials, which were relevant to attacks? Over 300 games, those variables all balance out. I have games with effect droids, games with DDs - it's not like there are just 10 games or something. In pro sports, the home team wins more often than the visitor, and yet each game is different with different people/strategies/conditions... yet when consistently over hundreds of games teams win more at home than on the road, that's significant. The proof is here: 50% of the time (statistically) Tim went first, and I'd argue that he went first a lot less because he was complaining a LOT about it (and rightly so) at Tixcon. He went undefeated in 2 tournaments, of which he played a likely 15 matches. Based upon what you are saying, he should've played first at least 7 times (50% black/white) and in the 8 games he played as the second player, he should've lost 2-3 of them. But alas, he did not!?!? HOW CAN THIS BE?!?!? Because the first player only has an advantage IF THEY GET AMPLE EXTRA ATTACKS AND HAVE MORE FIGURES. The 2 extra shots to start don't amount to crap if your opponent has 5-10 more figures than you do. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one... if I have figures that recover and you have all clones, I don't have an advantage if I go first? My stat of 66% doesn't mean Tim will lose 2 or 3 times at TixCon... It just means that in the long run, Tim will lose more often when he goes 2nd than 1st. Just take the data you have and determine these things: I. Specials a. What % of times does the winning team have more specials come up? 1. Of those times, which were those that affect figure count (Vengeance, Vanquish, Recruit, Rally, Rescue, Recover...) 2. Of those times which were those that affect attacks? II. Extra Attacks a. What % of times does the winning team have effects/specials that grant extra attacks? III. Figure Count a. What % of times did the winning team have a higher figure count? b. What % of the times did the team with the higher figure count win when it went first? c. What % of the times did the team with the lower figure count win when it went first? I'd bet hard currency that there are factors that VASTLY outweigh the first shot theory. The other thing is that if you played the Tixcon way, where you start on the start line and don't move 2 tix forward, that all the data is rubbish anyhow since it's invalidated. I do not and have never played the TixCon 2008 way at my house, so the data isn't rubbish. I can get the info above info and see. That may take me some time to cook a few queries up in Access. This will be interesting to see. Chris, please don't take any of this personally as you know I'm your dude, I know - I love you too Pete! ]I just cannot believe that the player who goes first has a HUGE, insurmountable advantage. This is casting an aspursion upon EVERYONE who is griping that there is too much of an advantage. Even at 16%, it's not that much. Remember that you go into the game with a 50/50 chance, and if you go first all you get is a 16% advantage, AT BEST, from going first. The advantage is not insurmountable, but significant. If it is 16%, that is a lot, that means who goes first has a 66% chance to win and the second person a 34%... that's double the chance, and I do think that is huge. I did bring this up over a year ago and it's didn't get much traction then - the time seemed right after TixCon to bring it up again based on comments others made before me. Hey Chris - based upon your current data that you've already compiled, what is the actual exact % of times that the winner went first, disregarding anything else? Right now I have 276 games in the database (I have 20 more that I haven't entered in yet). Right now 168 of the time (61%) the time going first won. This is less than 66%, but I have experimented off and on with different ways to begin the game (first team gets one attack instead of two, second team gets to stack figures, team moving first gets no shots) and I was estimating that the percentage would be higher if all games were played the way the start guide intended, so let's just go with the data and not my estimating and assume 61% - which if true would still be significant (61% would mean person going second has a 39% chance, that's 1.5 times). Interestingly, when it's a 100 point game the person going first is 12-3 (80%) - these are included in the above. Yes that's right, only 15 100 point games, I usually play 200 points per team. I'll start working on the rest of the stats tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Aug 6, 2008 20:49:23 GMT -5
Sounds like you're on the right track. If the current number is 61%, then the delta is 11%. The spread is 22%, yes, but the person who goes first only gets a 11% advantage from the moment that they choose the color correctly. That's really my point - the person who goes first only gets a 10(ish)% better chance to win.
And the "I want to play with my figures...." speech was NOT directed at you in any way. That is what I perceive the need to change the rules to boil down to - the desire to be able to select any figures and place them as desired without reprocussion.
I can think of one way to easily fix this - why not select who goes first and THEN place the figures? That allows a person to, from the get-go, set their starting position in the order that they desire with the knowledge of what the order of battle will be ahead of time.
I was also not STATING that the data is rubbish - you know my enthusiasm for the 'score sheet' and how disappointed I was that we didn't keep score at Tixcon, I was merely stating that IF the start line scenario at Tixcon was being used that the data was invalidated to some degree, but I should have added that the invalidation would only truly affect the first turn.
We better low-key this - Carmen's on the other thread getting salty at me for getting in your shorts! =D
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Aug 7, 2008 7:47:34 GMT -5
I can think of one way to easily fix this - why not select who goes first and THEN place the figures? That allows a person to, from the get-go, set their starting position in the order that they desire with the knowledge of what the order of battle will be ahead of time. I like this idea a lot - I actually play this way at home, but never realized I was doing it... I was also not STATING that the data is rubbish - you know my enthusiasm for the 'score sheet' and how disappointed I was that we didn't keep score at Tixcon It does take a little time for me to keep the stats and I didn't want to slow the game/day down. Plus in retrospect I'm glad those 2 beatdowns you gave me aren't recorded We better low-key this - Carmen's on the other thread getting salty at me for getting in your shorts! =D Orange always did turn you on
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Aug 7, 2008 8:39:40 GMT -5
1. They are recorded....in my head! =D
2. If you've been doing that all along with the placement, then the data is based upon that and the 11% advantage still exists.
3. Only your oranges. =D ROFL...gonna be sick...
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Aug 7, 2008 19:51:08 GMT -5
Drum roll please.... I have the statistics from the matches in my database. This post is a little busy, but I think it validates the advantage in going first.
I. Specials a. What % of times does the winning team have more specials come up?
Out of the 241 matches in which one team had more specials than the other: The team with more specials went 156-85 (65%). Of that, the team going first won 73% of the time (94-34), 8% advantage over "average" of 65% Of that, the team going second won 55% of the time (62-51), 10% advantage over "average" of 35% (one minus 65%)
This may not mean much as not all specials are created equal of course, but over time I would think they would balance out... it seems that even if you get more specials, it's still a big deal if you go first.
1. Of those times, which were those that affect figure count (Vengeance, Vanquish, Recruit, Rally, Rescue, Recover...)
Out of the 241 matches (coincidence that it matched the above) in which one team had more specials that resulted in recovery, rally, vengeance, capture and the like that the other team: The team with more of these type specials went 153-88 (63%). Of that, the team going first won 69% of the time (87-39), 6% advantage over "average" of 63% Of that, the team going second won 57% of the time (66-49), 20% advantage over "average" of 37% (one minus 63%)
This would seem to indicate that the best way to reduce the chances of the person going first is to have a team loaded with Recover/etc. type powers (and hope for whites)!
2. Of those times which were those that affect attacks?
Out of the 223 matches in which one team had more extra attacks due to Special Powers or Effects: The team with more extra attacks went 14-83 (63%) Of that, the team going first won 72% of the time (86-33), 9% advantage over "average" of 63% Of that, the team going second won 52% of the time (54-50), 15% advantage over "average" of 37% (one minus 63%)
II. Extra Attacks a. What % of times does the winning team have effects/specials that grant extra attacks?
I put this up in 1.a.2. above
III. Figure Count a. What % of times did the winning team have a higher figure count?
Based on the 216 matches in which the number of figures on both teams were different, the team with more figures was 137-79 (63%).
b. What % of the times did the team with the higher figure count win when it went first?
They went 85-32 or almost 73%, which is 10% higher than 63% (default winning % for having more figures).
c. What % of the times did the team with the lower figure count win when it went first?
They went 52-47, almost 53%, which is 16% higher than 37% (One minus 63%, the default winning % for having fewer figures)
So both ways, having fewer and having more figures, get a boost from going first and the bigger advantage goes to the team that has fewer figures when they go first (16% vs. 10%).
SUMMARY
All in all it seems that consistently teams do better when they go first, no matter what else happens to them along the way (if they get a lot of whites, have more figures, etc.).
I'm not sure that any other numbers I have can be more convincing than the above. 61% winning PCT by going first versus 39% going second... that's 1.5 times more. Also keep in mind that these are for mostly 200 point games... I have only 15 games recorded that were 100 points and the person going first was 12-3, so that's not enough data, but it would stand to reason that the advantage is greater for 100 point matches.
Pete's post about whoever goes first has to set up their figures first is a good start - but I've almost always played that way and so these numbers reflect that change.
I've spoken my peace on this - if anyone else thinks we should look into tweaks to try and remedy this, please post! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Aug 8, 2008 19:53:10 GMT -5
I've also made a thread about this exact same thing. I just want to make sure it's posted here as well. I personally think this fixes the first player not having such a big advantage.
This is a method of play that we've used around here often. I've not discussed it much before, but thought I might share it as a way of balancing out the game a bit. As we know the player that gets to go first seems to have a higher chance of winning than the player that goes second.
I came up with "RESERVES" a long time ago when I found it annoying to lose my "RALLY" figures off the bat. I hated it when they got shot off the line and I didn't even get a chance to move them and obviously won't get a chance to Rally anything with them even if they were white. Frustrating indeed.
Rules of RESERVES.
You pick your team as you always do. We shall use my 200 point team from Tix Con as an example.
X5 Spiderman 07 X1 KAM x1 Venom X5 Jedi Knights X2 Kit Fisto X1 Armor Spiderman
Now when we play the game with "reserves" we pick and choose who we wish to start the game with. For instance I could choose these figure to start the game with and place them on the line: X5 Spiderman 07 x5 Jedi Knights X2 Kit Fisto X1 Armor Spiderman
Then I would take these figures and place them into my Reserves: Venom Ki Adi Mundi
Reserves are figures that are a part of your main team, but are placed to the side of the table instead of on the line. Think of it as if it was another defeated area, but more like a waiting area instead. This makes it so you don't lose one of your key figures off the bat without ever even getting a chance to move him.
Now there's several different ways you can bring in your reserves. You could make it a mandatory "1 round" rule where you must bring them into play after 1 round had completed itself. Or you could make it to where the person could bring them in whenever they wish to bring them in. This adds lots of strategy to the game. However you wish to do it is your choice.
One key rule is that if all your opponents figures have been defeated and he still has some in reserves, they are lost and the game is over. So sitting them in your reserves for too long can be costly indeed!
Bringing in figures should have a penalty in a way in my opinion. So here's how you do it and what the small penalty is.
Figures can only be brought in at the end of your turn. Place them at your starting line. They may not shot or move until the beginning of your next turn. This makes it so that the following doesn't happen.
I'm marching my figures down the board and am firmly planted on my opponents side of the board. On my opponents turn he brings in both of this S4 Vaders from his reserves at the beginning of his turn and annihilates my figures. Not real fair is it?
Now with the above mentioned you can see where Reserves must pay a small penalty for being there in the first place.
So you might ask "What benefit is there if I have to put them on the starting line at some point"?
Well let's look at what my team could do with Reserves in effect.
So I have chosen to leave Venom and KAM in my Reserves. Well, I know that Venom need one of my opponents figures to be defeated to be able to Vanquish. This gives me a chance to defeat some of my opponents figures BEFORE I bring in Venom. Also with KAM it's a disadvantage if he gets shot off the line at the start of the game even if he is white. So this makes it where I can march my Jedi Knights down the table a bit BEFORE KAM gets shot off the line. And if he does then, so what, at least I'm in striking range now with all my Knights.
See the benefits?
What's your thoughts? Any questions?
|
|