Suggestions & ideas / Suggestions & idées
- Posts: 3700
- Joined: 23 January 2010, 22:02
The "do not randomize in case of rematch" is something that has been asked by many players on this forum:
This is why we implemented it.
And we cannot make it optional: what if a player decides to "rematch with random order" and the other one want to "rematch with alternative order"? This function is beautiful because it is simple and allow you to launch a new game fast, so we want to keep it simple.
The only possible solution I see is to alternate players in case of 2 players game, and disable it for 3+ players configuration.
- Posts: 449
- Joined: 29 April 2012, 23:43
I would swear this is a maths problem, and I'm having a little try, but some higher level maths dude maybe able to come up with a (proper) solution.
I have atleast analysed a 3 player rotation, and the order rotation is below:
There are 2 general things to consider, direction of play (does B follow A the same as the last game?) and player order (who goes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd)
In the list below, the direction changes each game, and the player order of who goes 1st is optimised as best as possible. After 2, 4 games it is balanced, and after 6 games (a full rotation) it is of course balanced in every single way.
The brackets [x|y] is just showing who got swapped from the previous game. [x|y] means x swaps with y.
There are 6 possible combiantions, 3x2x1 = 6.
In 4-player games you now also have to think about balancing neighbours.
There are 24 combinations in total. It's easy to come up with the combinations, but not so easy to determine the order.