Java-Gaming.org Hi !
Featured games (90)
games approved by the League of Dukes
Games in Showcase (732)
Games in Android Showcase (221)
games submitted by our members
Games in WIP (805)
games currently in development
News: Read the Java Gaming Resources, or peek at the official Java tutorials
 
    Home     Help   Search   Login   Register   
Pages: [1]
  ignore  |  Print  
  The best way to normalize chances in a two-player game?  (Read 4685 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Offline lifemakers
« Posted 2016-12-08 22:28:14 »

We face the following problem in our now-in-development game Battle of the Pucks. Its idea came from a Russian board game Chapayev. It's a 2-person (or a person vs. computer) game where the first player has a noticeable advantage. The classic rules call for the first player to continue making moves until he/she makes a mistake, then the turn goes to the second one. In some cases, this results in the first player winning a round (or even a few rounds in a row) without letting the other person to make a move at all. We keep arguing between ourselves on what should be the best approach to equalize the chances:

  • Keep the classic rules intact: the first player continues playing until a mistake is made
  • Limit the total amount of moves a person can make in a row
  • Always change turns after each move
  • Always change turns at the beginning of each new level
  • Make two rounds for each level, to give each player an opportunity to move first

What would be your thoughts on this?
Offline FabulousFellini
« Reply #1 - Posted 2016-12-08 22:30:28 »

I like these two ideas, because to me they seem the most fair:

1. Always change turns after each move
2. Always change turns at the beginning of each new level

I'm leaning more towards #2 so it won't really break momentum of a single player's turn.

-FabulousFellini
www.fabulousfellini.com
Offline bmanmcfly
« Reply #2 - Posted 2016-12-09 17:49:19 »

First, looks well done so far.

If you want to keep it true to the original game, but keep a balance...

Because of the distinct advantage the first player gets, maybe have like a coin toss, or a "who can get closer to the edge without going over" takes the first move... maybe just for the first round.

Then, have the players swap first play each round.

That's what I'd be thinking at least.
Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!
Legends of Yore - The Casual Retro Roguelike
Offline Abuse

JGO Ninja


Medals: 59


falling into the abyss of reality


« Reply #3 - Posted 2016-12-09 23:14:42 »

IMO the large 1st-player advantage given by the rules necessitates multiple games for each level, with serve alternating between players.
Victory would then require a 2 game lead (break their serve & hold yours).
Basically Tennis tie breaker.

1st serve wouldn't matter, so decide it with a hidden coin toss.

It'd elongate each level, but it seems to me all the other alternatives are radical departures from the classic game.
Offline QuicK2800

Senior Newbie


Medals: 1
Exp: 4 years



« Reply #4 - Posted 2016-12-12 20:09:06 »

I'm not sure of the direction you would like to take the game, but...

Another option would be to add dynamics to the game that give you more of an advantage the less pieces you have left on the board. (such as more moves for less pieces or some kind of power-up, etc.)
An alternative to this would be to make things more difficult for the player for each turn they take (in a row).

From the options that you have listed, however...

>Limiting the moves will reduce the "skill" factor of the game.
>Keeping the classic rules would hit home with some people, but most might find it obnoxious (depending on how easy it is to clear the board on your first turn)
>Each of the others would keep the game fairly balanced.

Cheers,

-QuicK
Offline lifemakers
« Reply #5 - Posted 2016-12-18 21:59:38 »

IMO the large 1st-player advantage given by the rules necessitates multiple games for each level, with serve alternating between players.
Victory would then require a 2 game lead (break their serve & hold yours).
Basically Tennis tie breaker.

1st serve wouldn't matter, so decide it with a hidden coin toss.

It'd elongate each level, but it seems to me all the other alternatives are radical departures from the classic game.

At the end, we decided to implement the following approach:

1. Each player continues to shot until a mistake is made.

2. After a level is finished:

- In a game against the computer, the human always moves first, giving him/her an advantage (as you *are* willing to win when you play alone, right?). The most difficult part is to adjust the smartness of the computer accordingly, to match your level and give you a feeling of an honestly earned victory. Personally, I like to finish with a score such as 11:9 or 12:8. Losing is not nice, and winning with a big difference like 16:4 feels not interesting enough.

- In a two-person game, we give two rounds for each level, so that each player would have an opportunity to move first. In this case, you might have a minuscule advantage it you are the second player to start a round (as you could see whether the initial moves of your opponent were good or bad and change your strategy accordingly). But it will disappear after both of you played the whole game a few times and already know how to better deal with each level.
Pages: [1]
  ignore  |  Print  
 
 
You cannot reply to this message, because it is very, very old.

 
Archive (397 views)
2017-04-27 17:45:51

buddyBro (583 views)
2017-04-05 03:38:00

CopyableCougar4 (1040 views)
2017-03-24 15:39:42

theagentd (1070 views)
2017-03-24 15:32:08

Rule (1046 views)
2017-03-19 12:43:22

Rule (1029 views)
2017-03-19 12:42:17

Rule (1023 views)
2017-03-19 12:36:21

theagentd (1159 views)
2017-03-16 05:07:07

theagentd (1103 views)
2017-03-15 22:37:06

theagentd (830 views)
2017-03-15 22:32:18
List of Learning Resources
by elect
2017-03-13 14:05:44

List of Learning Resources
by elect
2017-03-13 14:04:45

SF/X Libraries
by philfrei
2017-03-02 08:45:19

SF/X Libraries
by philfrei
2017-03-02 08:44:05

SF/X Libraries
by SkyAphid
2017-03-02 06:38:56

SF/X Libraries
by SkyAphid
2017-03-02 06:38:32

SF/X Libraries
by SkyAphid
2017-03-02 06:38:05

SF/X Libraries
by SkyAphid
2017-03-02 06:37:51
java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites, and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily gaming and game production oriented community. inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the company managing the website of java‑gaming.org
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Managed by Enhanced Four Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!