+- One Man Left Studios Community Forums (http://www.onemanleft.com/forums)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Outwitters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Update!! (/showthread.php?tid=1574)
RE: Update!! - zoraster - 01-30-2013 03:33 AM
Maybe I'm misreading this, but the new league system seems a bit off. Let's say that I'm at the top of my division and I'm at about 50% win rate. The matchmaking system is working, right? But here's the problem: maintaining that seems mostly about churning out games. In theory, those who play 35 games at a time will have higher ranks.
Compare two players that have about equal success: an aggressive player and a defensive player. The aggressive player's games might last a significantly shorter period of time, so he can churn through 2 games in the space of what a defensive player goes through 1 (on average, obviously).
If players are earning more simply for playing games, then this situation does create incentive just to play as many as possible -- even to a degree at the expense of playing well.
RE: Update!! - Ja Karta - 01-30-2013 03:36 AM
(01-30-2013 03:29 AM)Harti Wrote: So you're saying placing a 3 HP "Soldier" (in terms of defense) hypothetically anywhere on the field at the cost of 1 (without having to move to the destination) is expensive?
A half-cost soldier that can't attack and moves like a heavy (with you paying for each move)?
I'd call that expensive, yes.
Add that the enemy can kill your "soldier" (with a heavy's move) at *any* point it's ever been and remove it from any place it will ever be (to continue the analogy) -- yes, doubly expensive.
I'm happy to see how this plays out. I don't pretend to have calculated all the tactical and strategic combinations available, but I'll definitely bet you that this version of brambler will turn out to be distinctly underpowered. You're ST though. Please share replays to the contrary.
[Note: I'm not suggesting that 3HP thorns with no wit return are the way to go. I have thoughts on solutions, but I didn't play the beta and diagnosing problems ought to come before suggesting solutions. ;]
RE: Update!! - EkoFox - 01-30-2013 03:51 AM
(01-30-2013 03:36 AM)Ja Karta Wrote:Don't you pay for each move of any unit? Why did you feel the need to make that point?(01-30-2013 03:29 AM)Harti Wrote: So you're saying placing a 3 HP "Soldier" (in terms of defense) hypothetically anywhere on the field at the cost of 1 (without having to move to the destination) is expensive?
A half-cost soldier that can't attack and moves like a heavy (with you paying for each move)?
I'd call that expensive, yes.
It sounds like you're not managing your wits and are upset about losing your bramble patches a lot because you aren't protecting your parents.
(01-30-2013 03:33 AM)zoraster Wrote: Maybe I'm misreading this, but the new league system seems a bit off. Let's say that I'm at the top of my division and I'm at about 50% win rate. The matchmaking system is working, right? But here's the problem: maintaining that seems mostly about churning out games. In theory, those who play 35 games at a time will have higher ranks.If a player can beat his opponents twice as quickly as a different player, then maybe Player A is just better? It seems justified that a player who can win often by playing aggressively should have more points than one who wins by playing defensively. In my opinion, playing defensively is much easier than being aggressive.
Compare two players that have about equal success: an aggressive player and a defensive player. The aggressive player's games might last a significantly shorter period of time, so he can churn through 2 games in the space of what a defensive player goes through 1 (on average, obviously).
If players are earning more simply for playing games, then this situation does create incentive just to play as many as possible -- even to a degree at the expense of playing well.
RE: Update!! - Harti - 01-30-2013 03:57 AM
(01-30-2013 03:36 AM)Ja Karta Wrote:You aren't paying for the move - it's the spawn you're paying. You're keeping the old "Soldier". That's a plus for me or am I missing something?(01-30-2013 03:29 AM)Harti Wrote: So you're saying placing a 3 HP "Soldier" (in terms of defense) hypothetically anywhere on the field at the cost of 1 (without having to move to the destination) is expensive?
A half-cost soldier that can't attack and moves like a heavy (with you paying for each move)?
You're enhancing your spawn radius all the time, and unless you're taking a risk, there'll rarely be a parent-kill abuse situation.
Quote:Add that the enemy can kill your "soldier" (with a heavy's move) at *any* point it's ever been and remove it from any place it will ever be (to continue the analogy) -- yes, doubly expensive.Thank God they are vincible!
Quote:[...] brambler will turn out to be distinctly underpowered. [...] Please share replays to the contrary.Will do.
Well, hopefully you are right as to say it'll be underpowered if you do not know what you're doing.
I haven't had a solid game against Adorables yet either, so it may well be that Mobi's still the way to go. But against the Scallywags there are options to win the game with a Bramble - of course it depends on what the opponent is doing then again.
RE: Update!! - EkoFox - 01-30-2013 04:07 AM
(01-30-2013 03:57 AM)Harti Wrote:Unfortunately they aren't invincibleQuote:Add that the enemy can kill your "soldier" (with a heavy's move) at *any* point it's ever been and remove it from any place it will ever be (to continue the analogy) -- yes, doubly expensive.Thank God they are vincible!
It'd be interesting to see a game after invincible bramble patches took over the field 
RE: Update!! - alexjiang1 - 01-30-2013 04:12 AM
Harti, I think Ja Karta is referring to rush defence. As a vegginaut with a bramble, youd have to send thorns over there which cost a lot of wit and is easily parent child abusable. You cant take your time and set up so that no parents die if you are getting rushed.
Also directed at EkoFox: Its hard to protect those parents when you are being rushed and you have to "mass bramble branch spawn".
(01-30-2013 03:12 AM)EkoFox Wrote: A rush counter would be mass Bramble branch spawning.
(01-30-2013 03:51 AM)EkoFox Wrote: It sounds like you're not managing your wits and are upset about losing your bramble patches a lot because you aren't protecting your parents.
RE: Update!! - Ja Karta - 01-30-2013 04:17 AM
(01-30-2013 03:51 AM)EkoFox Wrote: Don't you pay for each move of any unit? Why did you feel the need to make that point?The reason I mentioned paying for each move was in response to the idea that you could have a barrier "pretty much anywhere on the field" for the cost of 1. The cost for that 1 barrier is equivalent to moving a heavy to that point.
It sounds like you're not managing your wits and are upset about losing your bramble patches a lot because you aren't protecting your parents.
The analysis is more complex. Since there are both ups and downs to your soldier leaving a trail when accessing a given point. Indeed, part of the bramble game is making that trail. However, it's not 1 point to put a barrier "pretty much anywhere".
For my own part, as a mid-level player only (and very new to this game; though with a formal background in game theory and analysis, for what it's worth [which is only kinda something
]) I don't have a lot of problem with losing parents. I do have a problem with the high time and wit cost of setting up. And, based on only a few games now(!), I find that barriers are more counterable now that they give a wit for being destroyed and can be destroyed in one hit.Like I said, ultimate utility is tbd. I'm just placing my bets for the time being.
[Note: one positive of this change is that it definitely will cause people to change up their unit choices. That's great from a design perspective.
And if that can be exploited well by veggies I think will be key to the utility of this change.][[Edit: And as Alex nicely reiterated parent protection is very difficult if you are quickly putting up brambles for a rush. Though I didn't think that point was being challenged any longer.]]
RE: Update!! - zoraster - 01-30-2013 04:39 AM
(01-30-2013 03:51 AM)EkoFox Wrote:(01-30-2013 03:36 AM)Ja Karta Wrote:Don't you pay for each move of any unit? Why did you feel the need to make that point?(01-30-2013 03:29 AM)Harti Wrote: So you're saying placing a 3 HP "Soldier" (in terms of defense) hypothetically anywhere on the field at the cost of 1 (without having to move to the destination) is expensive?
A half-cost soldier that can't attack and moves like a heavy (with you paying for each move)?
I'd call that expensive, yes.
It sounds like you're not managing your wits and are upset about losing your bramble patches a lot because you aren't protecting your parents.
(01-30-2013 03:33 AM)zoraster Wrote: Maybe I'm misreading this, but the new league system seems a bit off. Let's say that I'm at the top of my division and I'm at about 50% win rate. The matchmaking system is working, right? But here's the problem: maintaining that seems mostly about churning out games. In theory, those who play 35 games at a time will have higher ranks.If a player can beat his opponents twice as quickly as a different player, then maybe Player A is just better? It seems justified that a player who can win often by playing aggressively should have more points than one who wins by playing defensively. In my opinion, playing defensively is much easier than being aggressive.
Compare two players that have about equal success: an aggressive player and a defensive player. The aggressive player's games might last a significantly shorter period of time, so he can churn through 2 games in the space of what a defensive player goes through 1 (on average, obviously).
If players are earning more simply for playing games, then this situation does create incentive just to play as many as possible -- even to a degree at the expense of playing well.
I don't think taking turn count into scores, whether directly or indirectly, makes sense. There is value in being careful and thoughtful. The effort should be to make people want to win their games.
But more to the point, such a structure actually defeats the purpose of the change: to get players at equal skill levels playing each other. I don't know the formula used right now, of course, but let's say by playing an average game my expected point gain is 10, rather than the 0 it was before. So I go along and I keep climbing the ranks. At some point I start losing more and more matches. But my expected value is still net positive. Until it turns negative, much later than my skill level would indicate, I keep climbing ranks DESPITE LOSING more often. Just because I can churn out games faster than the people around me.
Think about the perverse incentives this provides as well. Say you're really trying to game the system. You've got 35 games going. One ends and you start a new one. You get a map that plays quickly or average, you play it. But we all know there are certain maps that tend to last far, far more turns. Perhaps you see it's against a defensive team too. You COULD go ahead and grind it out with an expected value of 10 (using the guess above) that you think might take a two weeks to finish. OR you could resign (known value of, say, -5) and start a new game, hoping to get a quick map against a less defensive team.
I don't think MOST will try this sort of thing. But it is a structural weakness of the system.
Last, while I think we want to encourage people to be active, we don't really want to encourage people to play way more games than they're comfortable doing, possibly leading to a lot of burnout. If someone with 1 game is disadvantaged versus someone playing 10, I don't mind. But if someone playing 10 games at a time is disadvantaged against someone playing 35, I think we have a more serious problem.
RE: Update!! - EkoFox - 01-30-2013 05:23 AM
(01-30-2013 04:12 AM)alexjiang1 Wrote: Harti, I think Ja Karta is referring to rush defence. As a vegginaut with a bramble, youd have to send thorns over there which cost a lot of wit and is easily parent child abusable. You cant take your time and set up so that no parents die if you are getting rushed.I was kind of half joking when I said mass bramble patch spawn, I just meant that the ability of Bramble to make solid barriers very quickly is very effective against rushes. I have a game going on, my Bramble against a Mobi Reaper rush, when it finishes I'll post it and show you how it went.
Also directed at EkoFox: Its hard to protect those parents when you are being rushed and you have to "mass bramble branch spawn".
RE: Update!! - Gavin Wins - 01-30-2013 05:27 AM
I think I'd like the bramble "buff" better if it returned a wit only if the killing blow was landed by a scout or soldier.