Assuming all players' skills are equal, each player is given an equal chance at winning. Therefore a person 20 player FFA has a 5% chance of winning.

Assume this particular FFA is multi-day, 3 day autoboot with vacations honored. It will likely take 2-4 months to finish. If ranked, it will pay off in roughly 100,000 to 200,000 points.


A 5% chance of getting 100,000 points in two months, mind you.




Compare these numbers to this:

Assume you finish 10 1v1 games per day, winning 60% of them. Assume you gain between 5,000 and 7,500 points on average from each win. 6 wins * 5,000 points * 30 days * 2 = 1.8 million points in the same time period, with much higher certainty.

If playing coin games, the average points gained is much higher. Assume an average of 10,000 per game: 10,000 * 6 * 30 *2 = 3.6 million points earned in two months, again with a much higher probability than a 5% chance of winning a free-for-all in the same time frame.




Also add circumstantial factors common to free-for alls, including rigged templates, hosts randomly turning it into a 'practice game' (no points given???) and extra vacation time from people who can't actually play Warlight, and it is obvious that FFAs are more time-inefficient than 1v1.

I rest my case.

Edited 7/31/2015 19:16:25

I've played and won against worser odds in Total War.

So, you're banking all your argument on the point payout to the winner? Ever heard of playing FFAs for fun?


Also add circumstantial factors common to free-for alls, including rigged templates, hosts randomly turning it into a 'practice game' (no points given???) and extra vacation time from people who can't actually play Warlight, and it is obvious that FFAs are more time-inefficient than 1v1.

It's called looking at the settings before joining. It should be a given, especially for Multi-Day FFAs, which you are currently focusing on.

playing for points is the real uselessness.

try playing to have fun.

You say that to the one who has the highest level on this thread.

If you tried to just have fun you might actually be able to broaden your horizons and enjoy a greater variety of game modes.

Just something to think about.

Ever heard of playing FFAs for fun?

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/225356

https://books.google.com/books?id=y__7faCAu3IC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=short+term+reward+psychology&source=bl&ots=NMSgHtTSvI&sig=dFtTrIREauQqFwyM7B8wCchoruc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCGoVChMIsP3m8JCGxwIVg40NCh0HkwxK#v=onepage&q=short%20term%20reward%20psychology&f=false


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification


Science has proven that humans seek short-term rewards over delayed gratification. Therefore, 1v1 is more 'fun' than FFAs since 1v1s are shorter and more personal to the player, with a higher likelihood of winning.

1) as stated before - points are almost useless crap so your arguments are somewhat weak
2) to give a better and more just overview, in your reasoning you should include the amount of time that is consumed. Playing 10 1v1 games a day needs roughly ~10x more time than one 20-player FFA once 2-3 days.

You cant acept a diversity of game settings?!
Some people playing ffa, some people playing diplo, some players playing 1v1Ladder, some people "playing" lottery, some people playing everyting!
And just because YOU THINK that 1v1 are the best --> doesnt mean that they are the best ...

At least I beat him in his own, special game.

After Level 56, you have no use for points - other than to earn bragging rights as the highest level.

You don't even need to have ten games at any given time to gain a greater amount of points. Joining the 1v1 ladder would probably yield the same results with less games.

Playing that many 1v1s will get old (especially if you are playing the same template). The likelihood of even getting challenging games is probably lowered as well. You can win 80%-100% of your games and still get the same payout if the levels are the same. WarLight does not account for skill, so playing a level 55 newcomer is the equivalent of playing a level 55 skilled player. That's not as challenging, and probably is not as rewarding. Even getting 10 games going on at a time with heavy pre-requisites would probably take a week. And games that are difficult will go on for multiple turns, and may drag on for weeks. Many skilled players take three days to commit one turn. So, the probability that you would be finishing challenging games, and winning the required amount to keep yourself on track to gaining 1.8 million points in two months would be very low. If you want to play low skilled players just to gain points, that is your choice. However, it doesn't seem as rewarding in my opinion.

On the other hand, in FFAs, there are many factors involved that could give less skilled players the same fighting chance as players who are experienced in the game. Advantages can be easily obtained and lost. You can even think of them as miniature 1v1s. You fight against a player, and every win you get brings you closer to winning the entire game.

I know that people seek instant or short-term gratification; but to me, a Multi-Day 1v1 is about as enticing as a Multi-Day FFA. You would still get the same satisfaction of playing multiple 1v1s in the same time a turn may go by in a FFA.

All in all, you should probably judge 1v1s and FFAs not based on their point payout, but which of the two you would prefer to play.


On a small side note, I'd like to point out that your math needs to be readjusted for the variables you have set. You've listed 5,000 - 7,500 as the point payout, and only accounted for the minimum value (5,000).

This is why I play nothing but round-robin tournament lotteries.

Ha!

This seems to overlook opinions.

Assuming all players' skills are equal, each player is given an equal chance at winning. Therefore a person 20 player FFA has a 5% chance of winning.

(..)

Compare these numbers to this:

Assume you finish 10 1v1 games per day, winning 60% of them.

Not a very fair comparison; one side of the argument assumes equal skill, the other side "magically" allows you a 60% win rate (instead of 50%). Not that it changes the numbers too much if corrected, it just seems a weird way to construct an argument.

---

Science has proven that humans seek short-term rewards over delayed gratification.

Really, you're sure there's not a "in general" missing from that statement somewhere?

If you were right, you'd just disproven the existence of the Olympic Games; why spend years of your life nigh-exclusively on training for a very small chance at the (extremely delayed) gratification of taking part in the Olympic Games when you could just as well go for the much-shorter-term rewards of (easily) winning your city's local championship? Seeing as how (the modern incarnation of) the Olympic Games have existed for over a century, I'm going to assume there must be a flaw in your reasoning.

I would like to stress, I wrote all this assuming you meant you played 10 real time 1v1s a day. However upon re-reading the first comment I have realised you only said "finish 10 per day", which arises a different point of discussion.*

1)

Assuming all players' skills are equal

So equal skill for FFA when calculating points...

Assume you finish 10 1v1 games per day, winning 60% of them

Wait, so when calculating points for 1v1s we assume we are on average better than the opponent? Sort of flawed logic if you want to compare the two game types. We can assume if you are using large FFAs for points you will be better than the average MD FFA player.

2)

10 1v1 games per day

Why are you comparing the time frame of 1 multiday game compared to 600 real time games? It would be much better if you were comparing either the time it takes you to finish a 1v1 MD with the MD FFA or the RT 1v1s with RT FFAs - the 24 FFAs I used to play usually took around 4 hours (including waiting for it to start if it did) in which time I would be able to play about 8 1v1s (assuming half an hour per 1v1 game)

3)

Assume you gain between 5,000 and 7,500 points on average from each win

This month I have got points from 2 different rt 1v1s - 828 and 1228, which averages at 1,028. Yes they were quite low level and I'm not sure quite how the points system would change for more "skilled" players, but I think 5,000 is a gross overestimate from what I have seen. Also you should take into account the 50% point loss from realtime games.

4)

it is obvious that FFAs are more time-inefficient than 1v1.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you there, but it is your concluding statement and you've used it to decide that since they are more time-inefficient they must be "useless". What is "useful" about playing 1v1s, or playing warlight at all?

5)

Science has proven that humans seek short-term rewards over delayed gratification. Therefore, 1v1 is more 'fun'

Very true, I read the first link which was interesting - not going to read a book or a wiki article though. However humans also seek interactions with other humans, which also results in rewards from our body, and in FFAs you speak more with others and form social groups (alliances) whereas in 1v1s you are just fighting against someone to see who will get the dopamine reward, so much less friendly banter unless you two already know each other or are both chatty, but I'm not sure how likely that would be in rt 1v1s.

*6)

Some of the other points are still valid - but if you are saying you are finishing 10 MD 1v1s every day then a whole new problem arises. How many games are you playing at once?! Sure some games will end up being played in a couple sittings if you are both online at the same time, but I'm pretty sure to have 10 end every day you would need something like 80 going at a time (someone please prove me wrong) or just be online the whole time, so all games end a short while after the other player comes online to take a move.

Not only do you have so many games on at 1 time, but you also have so much more time expended if you play 600 1v1s compared to 1 FFA. I've only played 1,400 1v1s and 72 large FFAs (large means at least 20 players), and I'm certain I've spent a lot more of my time on those 1v1s than on the FFAs



It does give food for thought though, however I would never decide what I plan on playing by the points system, the article you linked says you should have goals - none of my goals have anything to do with getting points anymore, rather when I start a game my goal is to win and that's what I imagine I would reward myself with. If I skip through the little points page every time I finish a game does it matter what type of game gives me more points per hour played?

tl;dr -> I disagree the with view FFAs are useless

I mostly play Real Time FFA's. I find those enjoyable and I get a fair amount of points.

Can't be bothered to write that much again. However this concerns what Phoenix has said

Things you said which I do not understand:

- "Even getting 10 games going on at a time with heavy pre-requisites would probably take a week"

- "You can win 80%-100% of your games and still get the same payout if the levels are the same."

- "Even getting 10 games going on at a time with heavy pre-requisites would probably take a week."

Things which I disagree with:

- "You can even think of them [FFAs] as miniature 1v1s."

Would be interesting to know how many FFAs you have played on your main - but an FFA is nothing like miniature 1v1s, since you have to split your income to fight multiple different players who have no idea (sometimes) who else (if anyone) is attacking you and how hard they are hitting you. Also in a 1v1 you have to kill off the other player to win, in FFAs often it is ok to start fighting, decide to stop and then work together until the end (which is a bad strategy in a 1v1, but would be interesting to see if someone tried it).

- "On a small side note, I'd like to point out that your math needs to be readjusted for the variables you have set. You've listed 5,000 - 7,500 as the point payout, and only accounted for the minimum value (5,000)."

Since he is taking the side of 1v1s being better value for money he is taking the lower end of his estimate, because the numbers are still wildly in his favour after taking the lowest part of what he is assuming to be the possible values, so if he used the predicted values they would be even better for him. Also it's called maths but whatever.

- "You don't even need to have ten games at any given time to gain a greater amount of points. Joining the 1v1 ladder would probably yield the same results with less games."

I'm pretty sure he was talking about finishing 10 games a day, not playing 10 at a time. It would be very difficult to keep up points-wise on the ladder with someone finishing 10 Md games a day.

- "Playing that many 1v1s will get old"

600 1v1s is a lot less than what many people have played, and they aren't bored at all of it. However I do agree that playing 600 in the space of 2 months could get very tiring.

- "The likelihood of even getting challenging games is probably lowered as well."

If you are playing MD 1v1s I'm sure you could find 50 or so good quality players who would be willing to play a large number of 1v1s with you over the space of 2 months, so depending on how you go about finding the games - asking people or just open games in the MD list - they will be challenging or not. I'm pretty sure they will be more challenging than a MD FFA though, finding 20 good people who want to play one of those could prove tiresome and tricky.

- "Many skilled players take three days to commit one turn."

I thought we weren't getting challenging games?

- "games that are difficult will go on for multiple turns"

...

Everything Hedja and Bayern said pretty much sums it up. I'd like to add one detail, though...

Assume you gain between 5,000 and 7,500 points on average from each win.

The hell? I get 5k from a 1v1 with another level 57, which is kinda rare to come by, specially in open real-time games. May I add, 5k is how much I get in a multiday game. Means if you're doing RT only, that's just 2.5k. Against the lower leveled players you'll be seeing in open RT matches, likely not going past 1.5k or 2k.

Re-doing your calculations...

Assume you finish 10 1v1 games per day, winning 50% of them. Assume you gain between 1,500 to 3,000 points on average from each win.

1500 * 10 * 60 = 900.000.

It's a HUGE difference. Half of what you were getting.

Still a lot more than a FFA? Sure... But then again you're assuming you can only do one game at a time. If someone logs in WarLight to do his turn on a single 3 day boot FFA, the guy can be pretty much called inactive now...

And, as also stated above, you're ignoring the opinion/enjoyment factors. I don't like 1v1ing much, so why would I force myself into playing 10 per day when I could instead remember this is a game and play whatever the hell I want? :p

The hell? I get 5k from a 1v1 with another level 57, which is kinda rare to come by, specially in open real-time games. May I add, 5k is how much I get in a multiday game. Means if you're doing RT only, that's just 2.5k. Against the lower leveled players you'll be seeing in open RT matches, likely not going past 1.5k or 2k.

Play in the realtime ladder. 5,000 per win is an average there. I do agree however, that 5,000 is optimistic in auto games, 1v1s outside the ladders etc.