Is there such a thing as a balanced game?

[Dag'Nabbit]

A point handicap would be extremely hard to quantify and I don't think it is necessary at all. If you lose a lot, practice more. I have found that, as a general rule, I will get my butt whooped for a while before I learn how to whup @$$ myself.

Nature of life, experience breeds ability.

 

[CZuschlag]

Chess does indeed have a handicap system, these are games played "at odds". In games at odds, one player plays with with fewer pieces at start and/or gets extra moves to start the game. Below, one such example is (commonly) the Queen Knight.

Some of these games are not boring, but downright brilliant. Consider two masterpieces by American Paul Morphy: Morphy v. Thompson, New York 1859:

1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3. Bc4 Bc5, 4. b4 Bxb4, 5.c3 Ba5, 6. 0-0 Bb6, 7. d4 d6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 11. Qb3 Nf6 12. Ba3+ c5 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. f4 Rf8 15. Bc4 Rd8 16. Rae1 Bd7 17. Bc1 Rf8 18. fxe5 Qxe5 19. Bf4 Qh5 20. Rd1 Kd8 21. e5 Ne8 22. Qa4 Qg4 23. e6 Nf6 24. Rxd7+ Resigns

Paul Morphy isn't boring!

Another mini-gem at odds is Morphy-Maurian, New Orleans, 1857.

Handicap systems aren't heresy; remember the point is that everyone should have fun, and, if you just lose all the time, that tends to remove the "fun" from any game. Handicap is just an attempt to fix the issue.

 

[l33tpenguin]

Chess does indeed have a handicap system, these are games played "at odds". In games at odds, one player plays with with fewer pieces at start and/or gets extra moves to start the game. Below, one such example is (commonly) the Queen Knight.

Some of these games are not boring, but downright brilliant. Consider two masterpieces by American Paul Morphy: Morphy v. Thompson, New York 1859:

1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3. Bc4 Bc5, 4. b4 Bxb4, 5.c3 Ba5, 6. 0-0 Bb6, 7. d4 d6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 11. Qb3 Nf6 12. Ba3+ c5 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. f4 Rf8 15. Bc4 Rd8 16. Rae1 Bd7 17. Bc1 Rf8 18. fxe5 Qxe5 19. Bf4 Qh5 20. Rd1 Kd8 21. e5 Ne8 22. Qa4 Qg4 23. e6 Nf6 24. Rxd7+ Resigns

Paul Morphy isn't boring!

Another mini-gem at odds is Morphy-Maurian, New Orleans, 1857.

Handicap systems aren't heresy; remember the point is that everyone should have fun, and, if you just lose all the time, that tends to remove the "fun" from any game. Handicap is just an attempt to fix the issue.

Its also a way to challenge the better player. If you sweep someone continually, you don't gain anything from it. If you are playing with one hand tied behind your back, you are forced to learn and adapt, becoming better

 

[lastbesthope]

1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3. Bc4 Bc5, 4. b4 Bxb4, 5.c3 Ba5, 6. 0-0 Bb6, 7. d4 d6 8. dxe5 Nxe5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 10.Bxf7+ Ke7 11. Qb3 Nf6 12. Ba3+ c5 13. Rad1 Qc7 14. f4 Rf8 15. Bc4 Rd8 16. Rae1 Bd7 17. Bc1 Rf8 18. fxe5 Qxe5 19. Bf4 Qh5 20. Rd1 Kd8 21. e5 Ne8 22. Qa4 Qg4 23. e6 Nf6 24. Rxd7+ Resigns

Points remote at screen and presses 888

:lol:

LBH

 

[Cailet]

Only way you learn is to make mistakes. Every single battle I play I can see a huge number of mustakes and I have to learn from them.

If you aren't playing a balanced scenario you'll never learn your eaknesses.

 

[CZuschlag]

If I play a battle where I have an advantage against a superior player that ends close-fought, I learn what my weaknesses are. If I play a battle with a weaker player with fewer forces that ends close-thought, I learn my strengths. Both are parts of the path to self-improvement.

 

[Hellebore]

For a completely fair battle, each ship would need a different points value depending on what it was fighting.

This is the case with EVERY game- if you have alot of AT, but your enemy fields only infantry, then comparatively your AT is worth nothing.

Thus there are only two ways to determine a fair game:

Create a dozen different values for every ship depending on who they are playing and what composition they have;

OR

Every fleet is identical to every other fleet. Now only who goes 1st/2nd and probability are factors.

Hellebore

 

[duryeaa]

The existing "combat level" system tries to take this into account, adding a second "handicap" system on top of that sort of defeats the purpose. ACTA is especially unsuitable because it focuses on tournaments and campaigns between disparate forces, any handicap system will quiclkly get out of control.

Now, should we incentivize better players to challenge themselves by taking a voluntary handicap? Sure. The Quad-S space game had an honor system (more of a philosophy) that simply pointed out that challenging games rewarded everybody, and that players who sought challenge and sportsmanship should be rewarded with reknown and, occasionally, an "honor" name for especially notable game play (James "The Ragesh 3 Terror" Thornton) It was a totally fluff principle but a lot of players could stand to encounter it.

The other possibility for casual or one-off scenarios is a competitive bid. Establish the contents/conditions of one force and then create an opposing, overbuilt force that will clearly win the game. Then take turns bidding off pieces of the overbuilt force. Whoever removes the last piece from the overbuilt force has to play it (ie, it gets whittled down until someone thinks they can't win with it.) This is a great way to play games with unusual victory conditions or atypical forces as "points" don't really determine either side.

 

[Dag'Nabbit]

The other possibility for casual or one-off scenarios is a competitive bid. Establish the contents/conditions of one force and then create an opposing, overbuilt force that will clearly win the game. Then take turns bidding off pieces of the overbuilt force. Whoever removes the last piece from the overbuilt force has to play it (ie, it gets whittled down until someone thinks they can't win with it.) This is a great way to play games with unusual victory conditions or atypical forces as "points" don't really determine either side.

Images of Clan Mechwarriors (Btech reference) flashing through my head. :lol: