Alex: Proof that FTA is huge and needs addressing now, and how to fix it

[GreatGonzales]

(09-26-2012 03:30 AM)Harti Wrote:  @your other post: haha, sorry. I only meant to tease you because if one HA guy starts arguing, everybody chimes in to tell us how wonderful this or that worked in HA.

Fair point

I think you're right...I'll go ahead and start a different thread for 2v2 FTA.

[Ravernoth]

(09-26-2012 02:17 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  What I said was that player two can actually use the extra wits on maps with two spawns more easily than the extra wits can be used on maps with one spawn, so the +3 wits for player 2 idea may provide more help to player 2 on some maps rather than others. I dont know how big of a deal this is, maybe it doesnt matter at all, maybe it does, but its an issue to think about and look at in playtesting.

P2 has more options for using wits on a 2 spawn map, but simultaneously, those maps have 2 bonus wits, and therefore P1 will retain a wit advantage by capturing those first.

The advantage is balanced turn to turn going from +3 to -3 on small maps, but it goes from +4 to -3 on large maps:

Proposed setup

Small map (1 bonus wit space)

Code:

Turn           1   2   3   4   5

P1 Total Wits  5   5  11  11  17
P2 Total Wits  0   8   8  14  14

P1 Advantage  +5  -3  +3  -3  +3

Large map (2 bonus wit spaces)

Code:

Turn           1   2   3   4   5

P1 Total Wits  5   5  12  12  19
P2 Total Wits  0   8   8  15  15

P1 Advantage  +5  -3  +4  -3  +4

[GreatGonzales]

Would it be better to give 8 wits to P2 on small maps, 9 wits to P2 on large maps? It would switch to +5/-4/+3/-4/+3 rather than +5/-3/+4/-3/+4. I suggest this because I think you could make an argument that P1 retains the advantage of getting positioning on P2, so it makes sense to give the edge to P2 rather than P1, if someone has to get an edge.

[Ravernoth]

(09-26-2012 04:06 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  Would it be better to give 8 wits to P2 on small maps, 9 wits to P2 on large maps? It would switch to +5/-4/+3/-4/+3 rather than +5/-3/+4/-3/+4. I suggest this because I think you could make an argument that P1 retains the advantage of getting positioning on P2, so it makes sense to give the edge to P2 rather than P1, if someone has to get an edge.

I agree with that, but in terms of transparency and accessibility, I don't think OML will want to confuse the player as to why they are receiving 3 extra wits one game and 4 the next.

[ArtNJ]

If it turns out that +3 is too dramatic because on certain maps it allows P2 to control the map, P2 could get +1/+1/+1 for the first three turns (or you could extend it another turn if testing shows necessary).

In general, I like changes that make it fair while impacting gameplay as little as possible, and the +3 makes me a tiny bit nervous in this regard. That is why I like ideas like the +1/+1/+1.

I get that folks dont like hobling p1 with only 3 wits, but there are other solutions that are likely to cause fewer gameplay problems than +3 wits to P2. With thorough testing this would drop out, so I dont have any real objection to testing +3 for P2, I'm just concerned about it.