Flying Swiss 1v1 Tournament [FS 06/2022]

[Solfyre]

Over the years 1v1 parameters have morphed in an attempt to make a fair game with opportunities to overcome a mistake or two. In theory it is great to make a very competitive game. But, one could say you are creating a scenario where long games, stalemates and otherwise grueling marathons are commonplace. Also, the longer the game, the more opportunities there are for that dumb mistake that ends the game(like a carrier grabbing all the ships at a border star and taking them backwards accidentally instead of dropping all).

Now here, we are talking about fast swiss games. I think just from a theory aspect, we should be prioritizing parameters that speed up outcomes. So, more starting cash, ships, stars. Yes. Random warp gates, yes. We don’t want the games to drag on or have an unclear winner at the 2 week mark.

On a personal note, i really like the warp gates as it opens up new decisions not common in other formats. Deciding on whether to break a gate or not early on can be a game altering decision. I think most of us put a lot of thought as to where we position warp gates to be useful but also “safe”. These games challenge that part. I find myself thinking regularly, " I dont love where that gate it at, but it would cost 400 credits to replicate it, so… I better stick with it." And then all the ramifications of that.

Similar to what Hulk was mentioning about breaking gates… I think this scenario does encourage us to play aggressive. Being on defense is a fine strategy in other formats, but here it would probably mean having to break a few gates while letting your opponent use theirs. So be aggressive! Lets those ships fly! Remember, losing a star is fine, so long as you claim a better one.

[HULK]

Ditto what @Solfyre said … and to echo my previous comments “I like the random warp gates to speed the game up and add an additional element of fun/strategy”

[Karmadrome]

Sounds like @HULK is advocating more randomness, time to get exp back into play

[HULK]

Actually, I think I can also take a lot of credit for encouraging Jay to modifying the code so we could zero out Exp to reduce randomness …

[Karmadrome]

lol, yeah I know that’s why I said it

[Trucriot]

Great essay @BelSon. Summarizing the three potential reasons for an imbalance due to WGs, there’s

1. strategy/pathing skill
2. game theory
3. luck

And as you said, especially with the rare WGs the part attributable to luck should be quite small. The other two have always been acknowledged main skill factors in 1v1s.

@spymort

I think that only 1 LLL that I’ve played has had common gates (introduction, now it’s rare (?))

Yes, the common warp gates were a “crazy” setting deviation determined by a poll. Players appear to have enjoyed it:

They voted in rare random warp gates as a permanent change in the subsequent round (73%).

There is some more nuance about what I wrote here about these constant somewhat random setting deviations, but I still think the idea stands:

@Trucriot

It just means that the games will also be more about how well you can adapt your strategies

The intention behind the introduction was to keep things challenging, especially for players who are close to having perfected their 1v1 strategies.

@spymort

as even on the home star warp gates only start to be worth it after unlocking terraforming 6

Based on what I know about @Solfyre’s play style, he’d disagree

@Kwhwwymwn

We can play without warp gates and with high scanning range, but the game would be more prone to stalemate

True! A lack of information can also lead to a higher quality play because any achieved or estimated information becomes more valuable and surprise plays can be pulled off more often.

@HULK

You can say “but send 33 ships to all three places” … but there may be more than 3 points of contact at the border … so I can always construct a scenario where the number of ships can “luckily” result in a big boost at the star of the game.

I feel like this is largely true for all games. You always have to make hopefully good estimations as to where your opponents sends ships or where you need more. Agree that potential warp gates showing up can amplify the effect as you described.

@HULK

And yes, over time, the more skilled player will win more games - just looks at the W-L records of @Solfyre and @Trucriot

@Solfyre

Over the years 1v1 parameters have morphed in an attempt to make a fair game with opportunities to overcome a mistake or two. In theory it is great to make a very competitive game. But, one could say you are creating a scenario where long games, stalemates and otherwise grueling marathons are commonplace.

Good points, it is a balancing act between maximizing competitiveness and minimizing games that run out of control from a time commitment perspective. After personal experiences (not just with you ) I try to limit excessive time commitments for single games with the settings in most of my tournaments. Weeks is already a long time for a round of an online game to be measured in, months are excessive and years (like when I played Tribalwars as a kid) is crazy.

@Karmadrome

Sounds like @HULK is advocating more randomness, time to get exp back into play

If there was a way to fix it to have the same random outcome for both players each cycle, that would actually be an interesting variation Still, experimentation would introduce significant luck potential. Exp0 for the win!

[BelSon]

Speaking of randomness and experimentation, I would be curious to play a match with exp starting at level 0, and still researchable. Or was it coded such that starting at 0 made it by default non-researchable?

[spymort]

@Trucriot

I feel like this is largely true for all games. You always have to make hopefully good estimations as to where your opponents sends ships or where you need more. Agree that potential warp gates showing up can amplify the effect as you described.

I think I touched this in my post, but again, you can’t base your strategy around random warp gates, as you only find out where they are after you’ve made your moves. You can’t plan for warp gates, but you know the other features of the map - the chokepoints, gaps, flanks, etc. This is my main argument against them. I would like to try a game or two where they show up on the map on unconquered stars in your scanning range like stars resources. However, there isn’t a way to do this at the moment and even if there was, the main feature that decides front lines is more often star placement and less often resource. However, I do believe that seeing warp gates on unconquered stars inside scanning range would be an improvement over not being able to see them until capturing a star.

[HULK]

FYI @Belson (and others) that I just created some test games with Exp=0 to start but “Normal” cost to research … so you can do what I think you are suggesting. But while it correctly shows Exp=0 (and you can select it to research), it says “0 of 0” in the Research page.

If you do NOT select Exp to research, those numbers don’t change on the next turn.

However, if you DO select Exp to research, you get Exp1 on the first tick … as it takes “0” points. So for example, lets say you have 5 Science and there are 6 tick turns. If you are researching Exp and “Next” is ALSO Exp, then you have 30 points toward Exp2. If you are researching Exp and “Next” is something else, you have 5 points toward Exp2 and 25 points toward something else.

So in summary, this is hardly any different than starting with Exp1 and having it Researchable.

[BelSon]

Thanks for testing that. It seems it won’t have the effect I’m are looking for.

[Kwhwwymwn]

I won my game against @Jewish_Star_Empire
I quickly got a large ship production advantage and used it to attack on all fronts

[Solfyre]

@Trucriot

Based on what I know about @Solfyre’s play style, he’d disagree

You know it @Trucriot . I’m most likely warping it at terra 1 or 2. My games don’t usually get to terra 6!

[Nat20]

Conceded my game to @Kaine. Had a brain fart at the start of the game where I didnt realize a star was gated and Kaine pounced on it. It left me so confused that I even forgot to buy economy on the first cycle. Kaine kept up the pressure and his infrastructure management was superb. At the moment there isnt a huge difference in stats but I dont think Ill be winning this one. GG thanks for the game @Kaine!

[Kaine]

Thanks @Nat20 - I think without the econ thing you would have had a good chance here, shame about that mistake! GG

[tenerezu]

I conceded to @Dr_Gaming yesterday, 8/22

[BattleBorn]

Well, I guess since it’s been two weeks, my guy isn’t going to show. This is really deflating, the only way I can win is when my opponent doesn’t show. Not a great record on my part.

[Trucriot]

Being so intimidating that players directly concede is an achievement too

Joking aside, of course it’s very unfortunate they did not show. Thought I made it pretty clear in the OP that people sign up for four matches on a set timeline if they decide to sign up, but we had a lot of no-shows from Round 1 to 4. This is terrible for a Swiss system, tearing apart the fabric of the tournament.

[Trucriot]

@sarcophagus @olus2000 As the deadline nears, try to make your final moves! The game cut-off is Tick 186 or Sunday (whichever comes first), at which point I’ll assess the stats and determine the result.

[Kwhwwymwn]

Are you going to update the world ranking or are you waiting for this match to end?

[Trucriot]

World Ranking cut-offs are end of month at the moment. The match above will not be considered in the next publication.