FTA and 2(3) actions on first turn

[Cookie]

There is a definite advantage to moving first in Outwitters. The simplest solution would be to only allow the first player 2 or 3 wits on his first turn.

I read parts of the other threads on FTA, and I just don't understand why this fix has not been implemented yet. I saw some comments on map balance, but it is very unlikely that this would be an actual problem.

Why does this solution work?

Because, the balance in used actions (wits) after each turn is going to be +3 -2 +3 -2 (or +2 -3 +2 -3) etc. Currently, the balance is +5 0 +5 0. And to make it slightly worse, the second player is forced to respond to the first players' moves (see example below). So, 2 wits for first player on first turn most likely works better than 3. But that is hard to say. It will not make or break the game.

There is no map balancing issue here. It is just very simple maths. If there is a SPA, it can only be smaller than the current FPA.

Example of a strong opening that is hard to counter: On The glitch, move cuddly bear to wit space, create a soldier and move two soldiers forward to block the wit space from the opposing bear (i.e., make it possible to kill it if he enters it). Not necessarily impossible to counter, but very hard.

[aaronINdayton]

(07-09-2012 11:07 PM)Cookie Wrote:  Example of a strong opening that is hard to counter: On The glitch, move cuddly bear to wit space, create a soldier and move two soldiers forward to block the wit space from the opposing bear (i.e., make it possible to kill it if he enters it). Not necessarily impossible to counter, but very hard.

I'm responding without being able to do a pass and play, so sorry if I'm way off here, but how about:

-make a scout, move it so that it can see the north-center part of the board, but out of range of where you think they might have put a solider/heavy. (my first 2 wits as going second without seeing a reason to to do otherwise)

Now you can do a couple things so that you don't lose your heavy and still tag the wit space.

[Dawizerd]

I always make a scout first thing on glitch to see what the first player has done. If he had done what you suggested, simply heal your heavy before he takes the wit space. Is he a little more developed? Yeah, but you have a 5hp heavy he's not going to tangle with for a while. I mean, in just about any turn-based game, the person going first is going to have some type of advantage. In chess, it's called the initiative, the ability to act, instead of reacting. That's why you switch sides in tournaments. But, with knowledge of opening theory and skillful play, a player playing black can often take the initiative away from white, that's most of the fun for me of playing black, looking for the gap in the opponents opening or piece placement to grab the flow in my favor.

TL: DR - I think a small degree of FTA comes with the territory, and it's part of the fun.

[Cookie]

Well, the key difference from chess is that players have 5 wits per turn (+bonuses) and not a single move like in chess. Right now, considering how short the game is, the second player will always be on the defensive with players of similar strength. Of course, this difference is less pronounced with bigger maps.

But, there is a simple way to balance the game, and that is to give the first player fewer wits (2 or 3) on the first turn. And it is so simple that I don't see any reason not to implement it right away. As there appears to be both an initiative (more actions) and first-to-act (aggressors advantage), I think 2 is the best choice.

There will still be opening theory and different openings as first and second player, but no player will have to be on the defensive from the very beginning. The only bad thing that could happen is that the game becomes more or less stalemated because the players are too equally balanced. But I don't think this is likely, given the nature of the game.

[Harti]

Offering only 2 wit to the beginning player will completely tie them to get the bonus spaces. I don't see how this balances things. One will only have to watch the replay and will know all their units' positions from just looking if they took both bonus spaces on big maps. And on small maps you can be assured they won't have anything larger than a Runner around.



I think that trying 3 wit for P1 is far more acceptable. Even 4 wouldn't give them as much of a chance to charge (except probably on Foundry).

However, anything like that will probably cause some confusion among newcomers. It would have to be put into the tutorial too. I agree with all of your points and I feel sorry for the guys to get a bad starting position due to FTA but in my opinion we're slowly getting to the point where you're overkilling it (2 wit).

[brayton]

If you reduce the amount of wits for first player, that limmits what the player can do.what if i am a player that does not just takefull advantage with positions, but rather set up my units, i would get a penalty for playing first if i do not follow that specific strategy, and anything that limits strategy in a simple game like this is bad.
Say everyone then follows the strategy, we all do the same, or be at a major disadvantage.
Also second player can attack first, which could be an advantage

[Cookie]

(07-10-2012 08:49 AM)Harti Wrote:  Offering only 2 wit to the beginning player will completely tie them to get the bonus spaces. I don't see how this balances things. One will only have to watch the replay and will know all their units' positions from just looking if they took both bonus spaces on big maps. And on small maps you can be assured they won't have anything larger than a Runner around.

I am not sure this is necessarily a problem. In fact, because of the first player advantage which is there already, there is no reason he necessarily has to take the bonus spaces with 2(3) wits on the first move. Maybe it is still the best move, but it is not at all obvious.

For example, if he just made a Runner and moved it, or made a Soldier, it would leave him much better off than the current second player. In that case, his position would be like the current second player, but with an extra unit.

Anyway, I think either 2 or 3 wits for the first player would work just fine. If you think about it again, 2 wits on the first turn will naturally be quite limiting (any turn with 2 wits would be), but that doesn't say it is not balanced.

I think some of the confusions comes from the fact that there are some players who think that the first player should have an advantage from the initiative. The purpose of a change like this would be exactly to make the game more balanced.

Giving the first player limited wits on the first turn still provides more flexibility for the player than it would to give an extra unit (Runner or Soldier) to the second player, another solution which would be acceptable to balance the game but is not as elegant.

[wonderpug]

What about making it so player 2 starts matches with one of his wit bonus spaces possessed? You'd boost the second player rather than hindering the first, and it would both give the second player more wit at the start and make him more able to respond to early player 1 first turn aggression, since player 2 doesn't have to worry about moving a guy onto that wit space on his first move.

[Kamikaze28]

(07-10-2012 09:48 PM)wonderpug Wrote:  What about making it so player 2 starts matches with one of his wit bonus spaces possessed? You'd boost the second player rather than hindering the first, and it would both give the second player more wit at the start and make him more able to respond to early player 1 first turn aggression, since player 2 doesn't have to worry about moving a guy onto that wit space on his first move.

Depending on the map, that isn't true. P1 could be preparing a unit to jump on the Wit Space in turn 3.

I've been reading this thread with interest and am of the opinion, that the way to adjust for FTA is the proposed Wit reduction for P1. However, we are clucking about unlaid eggs here (german proverb, don't worry if you don't know it). Before any measures are taken to address FTA, let the metrics that Alex has put in place produce some data to make an informed decision about whether or not FTA is a general problem or a map specific problem or not a problem at all.

[Harti]

The most fair thing to do would be that, once the matchmaking has been done, a duplicate game gets created that switches both players' starting positions.