Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: First turn advantage and current meta.

  1. #1

    First turn advantage and current meta.

    So I am excited about a tourney this month.
    I am obsessive compulsive and maybe a little manic, at this point because work has been so slow I have had plenty of time to work up multiple teams and play against myself on Vassal. After about a week of this I really wanted to broach the subject of first turn advantage. Most of us know this is a thing. Player who goes first usually gets there big hit out first. With that they can and often get first blood. But in this game that is so immense.
    I have been playing against the National Championship team, the Canadian National Champion team because these are proven teams to beat.
    After a week, I can say that even when I play the same team against the same team, or one against the other. Over and Over again, unless a critical role is missed the winner is most likely the person that goes first.
    The advantage with my minimal testing is something like 75%.
    At first I thought well maybe it is because my team is weak. So I to shifted to an agro deck, one almost if not the exact as one of the teams above, example I just changed out Gobby for Constantine in one build.
    But the thing is all my teams have won consistently when they go first.
    SO I ask the community, the Meta heavy people on this site.
    Diceanon has already broached the subject but really, how much do you think first turn advantage has in this game?

  2. #2
    Dice Masters meta right now is a big giant game of Rochambeau, and going first is.... well a Huge advantage.

    To that end, there needs to be a way to slow and stall the opponent's third turn advantage, and the likely hood that your opponent can field 2 characters that combo for lethal damage (high hopes) in that one turn where their opponent can't do anything about it. I know there are many different rules options bandied about about how to tweak this situation, and honestly, Walsh had it right when he said that the only way to be the best at DM is to learn how to win going second.

    As for tweaks to the game, we can only really wait to see if Wiz Kids has decided on a way to help the situation or if there's a meta that the rest of us aren't seeing that allows you to stop that third turn bomb.

  3. #3
    I agree, There are those ways to do it I think. Like refusing to use PXG, and find another way to ramp, Swarm and red tornado are coming to mind. But to be honest your first statement is by far the most accurate thing I have heard yet.

  4. #4
    I've said this before in several places, and I'm sure I'll say it again elsewhere.

    There is a simple solution to this problem.

    It doesn't require any change to the core rules of the game.

    And it doesn't require the banning of any cards.

    Simply put, the problem lies primarily in the 'best of 3' or 'single match' tournament structure.

    So that is what needs to change.

    Tournaments could, instead, have an even number games per round, with players being award 1pt for a win and 0pts for a loss.

  5. #5
    What's the tie-breaker? Least amount of life lost? I'm not sure how I feel about a two-game series determining a winner, but it could work.

  6. #6
    Pre-cut Swiss rounds wouldn't need a tiebreak for each round.

    Post-cut Single Elimination rounds would, of course need something.

    I'm not keen on life loss being the tie, because it would favour fast aggro over control.

  7. #7
    Right, so what would you suggest for a tie-breaker? Is there something that fits? Every tie-breaker I can think of benefits the aggro deck rather than the control deck.

  8. #8
    That's actually not a bad idea. Have you tried running an event that way? Does that scoring system have a name?

  9. #9
    What if the number where different 3 for win, 2 for stalemate and 0 for loss. That I would like would take care of ties.

  10. #10
    Just use the hockey points system. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, 1 each for a draw

  11. #11

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by alphans View Post
    Just use the hockey points system. 2 for a win, 0 for a loss, 1 each for a draw
    That is actually exactly the same as my points system of "1 point for each game won", if each round is 2 games.

    There is still need for some kind of ultimate tie breaker, because over a series of rounds you could end up with two or more players having equal points.

    Now, having given it a little more thought, I think this would work quite well:

    1st tie breaker: Sum of points scored by players' opponents in prior rounds.
    2nd tie breaker: Sum of points scored by players' opponents' opponents in prior rounds.
    3rd tie breaker: Sum of life loss during all prior rounds.
    Final tie breaker: virtual coin toss.

    Whilst the final tie breaker is entirely random, and the 3rd still favours aggro teams to some extent, the 1st and 2nd tie breakers should break the vast majority of ties.

  13. #13
    I like 1 and 2 lot. The question is who can we get to implement this into a couple of tournies, and then have some people bring this process to wizkids *Cough*, *RJRetro*, *Cough*, *Scorpion0x17*, *Cough*, *Dave*, *Cough* *Cough*

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    That is actually exactly the same as my points system of "1 point for each game won", if each round is 2 games.

    There is still need for some kind of ultimate tie breaker, because over a series of rounds you could end up with two or more players having equal points.

    Now, having given it a little more thought, I think this would work quite well:

    1st tie breaker: Sum of points scored by players' opponents in prior rounds.
    2nd tie breaker: Sum of points scored by players' opponents' opponents in prior rounds.
    3rd tie breaker: Sum of life loss during all prior rounds.
    Final tie breaker: virtual coin toss.

    Whilst the final tie breaker is entirely random, and the 3rd still favours aggro teams to some extent, the 1st and 2nd tie breakers should break the vast majority of ties.
    If first turn advantage is the issue, this solves absolutely nothing. Assuming most rounds end 1-1-0 (because first turn advantage really is that big of a deal) this would mean that a large amount of randomness happens at the end of round 1 (no prior rounds to tie break on) which effects pairings for the rest of the tournament.

    The points isn't exactly the same either in your scenario vs the hockey scenario. Dice Masters is a game that can theoretically end in a tie - it's not likely but there is at least 1 basic action card that shoots both players meaning you'd need the other scoring method.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Scum View Post
    The points isn't exactly the same either in your scenario vs the hockey scenario. Dice Masters is a game that can theoretically end in a tie - it's not likely but there is at least 1 basic action card that shoots both players meaning you'd need the other scoring method.
    Ah, this is why I missunderstood:

    It is not possible, in Dice Masters, to have a drawn game.

    The rules explicitly state that, when it matters, simultaneous effects are resolved in the order chosen by the Active Player.

    So, if the Active Player plays an action, say, that damages, and would kill, both players, simultaneously, then (unless the Actice Player chooses to damage themselves first), the Inactive Player loses.

  16. #16
    Tie breaker is so easy...

    Do any of you watch sports?

    First:
    Head to Head. If both players tied at first in points have played earlier somehow (so nobody is undefeated), then you give it to the person with the most

    Next:
    Strength. Of. Schedule. If two people have (at 3 points a game, 4 rounds) 12 points at the end, and one played all people who ended as 0-4, 1-4, 1-4, 2-4; and the other person played people who went 3-1, 3-1, 2-2, 2-2; you obviously give the first place to the person with the harder strength of schedule. Easily, just add up the wins-losses of each persons' opponents, and the person whose opponents have the worst record wins. If both have opponents with the same record, then you go to the opponents' strength of schedule. It's really not hard to do at all, in fact, software already exists for it, you'd just enter everything into the WES afterwards, if that's what you want to do.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    Ah, this is why I missunderstood:

    It is not possible, in Dice Masters, to have a drawn game.

    The rules explicitly state that, when it matters, simultaneous effects are resolved in the order chosen by the Active Player.
    Would you rather when time is called and both players end on the same amount of life that the game is determined by a coin flip or both players get a point? Using your 1 or 0 point system you can theoretically draw into a first place finish, using 2-0-1 as points no amount of draws can catch you up with a player that is winning and you don't arbitrarily lose points to RNG outside of the game itself.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
    Strength. Of. Schedule.
    Which is exactly what I described in my 1st and 2nd tie breakers.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Scum View Post
    Would you rather when time is called and both players end on the same amount of life that the game is determined by a coin flip or both players get a point? Using your 1 or 0 point system you can theoretically draw into a first place finish, using 2-0-1 as points no amount of draws can catch you up with a player that is winning and you don't arbitrarily lose points to RNG outside of the game itself.
    With your system you can end up with two players on the same number of points too.

    No matter how you cut the points distribution for wins, losses, and draws, it is always possible for two players to have the same points tally.

    Strength of schedule, which Slapster spelled out, and I paraphrased, down to two levels, is usually enough.

    You can extend it further, of course, but it's still theoretically possible to end up with a tie at the end of that too.

    This means ultimately you have to have some final tie break of some kind.

    And the current WES does exactly what I described as my final tiebreak - it randomly chooses.

  20. #20

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
    Unfortunately, the WES doesn't have strength of schedule, even, built into it.
    Yes, it does.

    Or, at least, according to WizKids it does.

  22. #22

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    With your system you can end up with two players on the same number of points too.

    No matter how you cut the points distribution for wins, losses, and draws, it is always possible for two players to have the same points tally.

    Strength of schedule, which Slapster spelled out, and I paraphrased, down to two levels, is usually enough.

    You can extend it further, of course, but it's still theoretically possible to end up with a tie at the end of that too.

    This means ultimately you have to have some final tie break of some kind.

    And the current WES does exactly what I described as my final tiebreak - it randomly chooses.
    Except that the only difference between what I suggested and what you suggested is that a player that wins is in a better position than a player that drew. Of course at some points some players will have the same overall points and you need a tie breaker system - but by having a wider point spread and allowing ties to be ties you get a more accurate representation of strength of schedule while also making it impossible for a person who hasn't won any games other than arbitrary coin flips outside of Dice Masters to be considered equal to a person who's won every game. 2 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, 1 point for a draw is more accurate than flipping a coin to determine who wins in the event of a draw.

    The fact that a match at a national level event ended in a coin flip because WizKids didn't have an answer for what happens when a game ends in a tie is embarrassing.
    Last edited by Scum; 05-14-2015 at 03:33 PM. Reason: Adding second paragraph

  24. #24
    I would just use strength of schedule to break ties in rounds that go to time too.

    Frankly, the odds of a game going to time and the players being equal on life at the point are so remote that having an ultimate virtual coin flip tie breaker should not be a problem.

  25. #25
    subject of first turn advantage:

    Determine who goes first by wagering life/health...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •