FTA and 2(3) actions on first turn

**Harti** · 07-17-2012, 08:56 AM

Banking first turn's wits is something that I tested secretly but wasn't able to serve as a winning strategy. With Adorables on Long Nine, at maximum, but could be disrupted by 1 Runner taking out the Sniper during their third turn.

Only works in theory if you use the Feedback and people are rushing you (AS PLAYER 2?!?) with their predeployed Heavy or something.
In every other case this idea only throws you far behind in terms of unit count and flexibility. The only thing I could imagine is keeping the wit for the midgame. But unless the next team(s) bring some standalone Special, spawning a turn 2 Special is most of the time useless.

ArtNJ · (This post was last modified: 07-17-2012 10:01 AM by ArtNJ.)

(07-17-2012 08:08 AM)nivra0 Wrote:
(07-17-2012 06:39 AM)ArtNJ Wrote: Its clearly an advantage of some magnitude, the real question is whether its too much of one or not. It takes wits to advance into attack position, so it could well be that the defender has pretty close to a fair chance on most maps.

What constitutes too much of one? Why waste your 5 wit advantage by attacking? Why not just bank the 5 wits, and use them at first confrontation or to buy a special, as I said? I think the FTA isn't very pronounced yet, as most are rushing or attacking, thereby wasting their wits. Once more ppl start banking them, it will become more pronounced.

(07-17-2012 06:39 AM)ArtNJ Wrote: There is a real question as to whether this is true on Foundry, where there are at least two Rush builds that are very tricky to deal with. It may be there are defenses which provide equality, but this needs more testing.

What are these rush builds?

Until we are certain there is a refutation, they should not necessarily be shared with the general population. Most defenses that prevent outright loss result in loss of 4 base health, which seems too much to incur in the first couple of turns. We have one potential defense that seems to prevent this, but it needs more testing.

nivra0 · 07-17-2012, 04:55 PM

Hmm, I can guarantee bringing the base down to 3 health, but not 1 health. I found several high-pressure rushes that puts P2 in highly compromised positions, but no guarantee wins.

Mizywill · (This post was last modified: 07-18-2012 01:18 AM by Mizywill.)

Of the strategy games I would compare Outwitters more with Go than Chess and the second turn player does get a handicap in Go because the first turn has the advantage.

I still don't know for sure if this is true of Outwitters but it would seem that the first player has the opportunity to force the hand of the second player which is an advantage.

The problem is that this handicap in Go goes into effect when your totaling the points at the end of the game and it would be hard to implement such a handicap here and I think limiting starting wits is overkill and switches the advantage to the other side now.

I think the best solution is just to have a que that alternates starting turns for league games.

Also, what about allowing the starting player 5 wits but limiting what he can use on the first turn. This would be more fair than starting with different wits.

ArtNJ · 07-18-2012, 02:58 AM

(07-17-2012 04:55 PM)nivra0 Wrote: Hmm, I can guarantee bringing the base down to 3 health, but not 1 health. I found several high-pressure rushes that puts P2 in highly compromised positions, but no guarantee wins.

I've had enough testing for now. Please dont post the rush builds we looked at, but do post your opinions.

Nice work on some new variants -- not sure they are as dangerous, but it just makes everything even more of a hot mess.

Syvan · 07-18-2012, 04:36 AM

(07-18-2012 02:58 AM)ArtNJ Wrote: I've had enough testing for now. Please dont post the rush builds we looked at, but do post your opinions.

What is your logic for not having an open discussion of a challenging rush?
Sure people will be able to temporarily abuse it, but more eyes means more ways to find defenses and will likely advance overall strategy.

I understand you guys were beta testers, but there is no longer need for such cloak and dagger study of what are now public game mechanics.

Mizywill · (This post was last modified: 07-18-2012 04:43 AM by Mizywill.)

(07-18-2012 04:36 AM)Syvan Wrote:
(07-18-2012 02:58 AM)ArtNJ Wrote: I've had enough testing for now. Please dont post the rush builds we looked at, but do post your opinions.

What is your logic for not having an open discussion of a challenging rush?
Sure people will be able to temporarily abuse it, but more eyes means more ways to find defenses and will likely advance overall strategy.

I understand you guys were beta testers, but there is no longer need for such cloak and dagger study of what are now public game mechanics.

I personally agree with not posting them too and I was by no means a beta tester, it just kinda kills the fun. I'll learn the rush builds when I come across them. I may even inadvertently be doing some as I favor the runner.

However I believe in the freedom to post what you want as long as admin doesn't kill it but probably such posts should be I a different thread. Maybe one called Rush Builds, so people know what they're reading. I think just mentioning they exist is sufficient here.

Just my opinion is all.

ArtNJ · 07-18-2012, 05:29 AM

(07-18-2012 04:42 AM)Mizywill Wrote:
(07-18-2012 04:36 AM)Syvan Wrote:
(07-18-2012 02:58 AM)ArtNJ Wrote: I've had enough testing for now. Please dont post the rush builds we looked at, but do post your opinions.

What is your logic for not having an open discussion of a challenging rush?
Sure people will be able to temporarily abuse it, but more eyes means more ways to find defenses and will likely advance overall strategy.

I understand you guys were beta testers, but there is no longer need for such cloak and dagger study of what are now public game mechanics.

I personally agree with not posting them too and I was by no means a beta tester, it just kinda kills the fun. I'll learn the rush builds when I come across them. I may even inadvertently be doing some as I favor the runner.

However I believe in the freedom to post what you want as long as admin doesn't kill it but probably such posts should be I a different thread. Maybe one called Rush Builds, so people know what they're reading. I think just mentioning they exist is sufficient here.

Just my opinion is all.

So far, that I have seen, only on Foundry are the so dangerous that a slip up means your dead. There are a lot of variants, but there may be good defenses to all. Its just really hard to figure them out over the board. It may be good to post the defenses, but only if we are sure there are in fact sound defenses.

tlejeck · 07-18-2012, 05:40 AM

I agree entirely. I've actually been keeping track of my wins and losses lately, and realized that there's a definite trend between attacking first and winning.

However, I'm not sure that's the right way to do things...Partly because I actually enjoy the challenge of a good strategy. There have been several instances where I've used a similar strategy to what you described for glitch, and been taken down quite deftly. One of the more interesting ones was where they'd use up my wits by sending lots of things to defeat over on the end with the enemy +wit, while slowly inching a sniper along the other end. By the time I figured out what was attacking my base, I'd already lost.

Besides, it's not like there's a significant chance difference between going first and going second. They have about the same chance, therefore, there's no real way to take advantage of it.

nivra0 · 07-18-2012, 05:50 AM

(07-18-2012 05:29 AM)ArtNJ Wrote: So far, that I have seen, only on Foundry are the so dangerous that a slip up means your dead. There are a lot of variants, but there may be good defenses to all. Its just really hard to figure them out over the board. It may be good to post the defenses, but only if we are sure there are in fact sound defenses.

I think there are two sound defenses, but you really have to play and count perfectly.