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

[Ravernoth]

The World Cup tournament that Awpertunity is running is an ideal test for FTA.

Players play 2 games, one as P1 and one as P2 against each other on the same map, usually simultaneously.

So far we've had 81 competitive symmetric games across all the maps (match results). Not all pairs of games are complete but it shouldn't affect the result much.

81 games played
P1 = 59 wins
P2 = 22 wins
59:22 = 2.7:1

P1 is two and a half times more likely to win than P2

I think you'll agree for a 2 player game is a huge problem - it's probably like starting each match of tennis with 1 player a set up.

IMO something this fundamental has to take priority over other items like new teams or maps.

So let's say we all agree on the extent of the FTA - what's the fix?

The Change: P2 starts with 8 wits for the first turn.

This is better than P1 starting with 3 wits, as P1 retains the same options he had with 5 wits, but P2 gets additional wits to even things. It's also better than fundamentally changing the game setup by giving P2 additional units.

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

Compare this to the current 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   5   5  11  11

P1 Advantage  +5   0  +6   0  +6

Large map

Code:

Turn           1   2   3   4   5

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

P1 Advantage  +5   0  +7   0  +7

It's clearly a very big improvement.

I've heard an argument against this - P2 shouldn't be able to get a special on the first turn etc.

But this is effectively already implemented - if P1 skips his turn he starts as P2, but with 10 wits.

Yet no P1 skips his turn, so by implication the current setup offers P1 an even greater advantage than being P2 with 10 wits.

The sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, and it's very likely either 7 or 8 wits for P2.

It's a simple fix, and my guess is it would bring the odds closer to 55/45 i.e. 1.2:1 which would be a huge improvement to the game.

Side benefits: Reducing FTA by that much would also go a long way to addressing other issues such as P1 stacking, turtling, and possible autowin strategies in one swoop.

If you want to be cautious and test it, give us the user option in the settings, and if Awpertunity agrees, we can use that setting for World Cup II and see the results.

There may be problems I haven't thought of. It's still being roughly correct i.e. 1.2 to 1 rather than keeping things precisely wrong at a 2.7 to 1 FTA.

Please do this for your game and community. Would appreciate everyone's thoughts!

[garcia1000]

Sure that system works too. This discussion about what to do is like if someone is starving to death and you give him a menu, tbh

[Eijolend]

I think it is very clear that there IS a FTA. Even more telling than the numbers you presented is the amounts of Draws where both players won as P1 compared to as P2.
What's unsure is how big it is (since only counting wits is not enough as discussed in various threads around the forum).
I like your suggestion, but it all has been discussed already and the possibility of a super unit on the first move is a big controversy.
I agree that something should be done, but I'm unsure if it's that easy.

That being said, I'm all for trying out different variants and see what works best. Adjusting the amount of wits should be the easiest thing to test.

[vivafringe]

Either solution would work. Here is another solution that would work: give P2 an extra soldier.

The annoying thing would be that you would have to tune each map differently (placement matters a lot). But, compared to the other solutions, it has the advantage of 1p not being obviously better through simple arithmetic (if P1 skips his turn, blah blah).

[GreatGonzales]

Alex and Adam have been quiet about this, but I've got to believe that, with all our wailing, they must be aware of it. I hope they plan to do something about this...

I will chime in to say that I like the idea of giving P2 3 extra wits, better than giving P1 only 3 wits. I think some testing might be required to make sure this is not broken, though - this means that P2 can get a special on turn 1. Could be OP.

[worldfamous]

Not sure the 8 wit system works. I like it on a 2 spawn map, but not the single spawn maps.

[Ravernoth]

(09-24-2012 02:07 AM)Eijolend Wrote:  I like your suggestion, but it all has been discussed already and the possibility of a super unit on the first move is a big controversy.
I agree that something should be done, but I'm unsure if it's that easy.

That being said, I'm all for trying out different variants and see what works best. Adjusting the amount of wits should be the easiest thing to test.

(09-24-2012 03:35 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  I will chime in to say that I like the idea of giving P2 3 extra wits, better than giving P1 only 3 wits. I think some testing might be required to make sure this is not broken, though - this means that P2 can get a special on turn 1. Could be OP.

Thanks for the comments. I'd like to repeat a point I made - this controversy of P2 getting a special unit on the 1st turn an illusion.

P1 already has this option every game.

If P1 skips his turn he starts as P2, but with 10 wits.

But no P1 even skips his turn, so by implication the current setup offers P1 an even greater advantage than being P2 with 10 wits and a 'first turn' special.

The huge imbalance of wits is there and clear to see. Just reduce it, that is a big and obvious improvement in balance to be made by moving to a middle ground e.g. P2 with 8 wits.

We're leaving a glaring hole there because we can't decide exactly how big it is.

(09-24-2012 02:46 AM)vivafringe Wrote:  Either solution would work. Here is another solution that would work: give P2 an extra soldier.

The annoying thing would be that you would have to tune each map differently (placement matters a lot). But, compared to the other solutions, it has the advantage of 1p not being obviously better through simple arithmetic (if P1 skips his turn, blah blah).

P1's advantage is already there through arithmetic as I showed in the current scenario. The simple solution is to reduce this advantage by increasing P2's wits.

After this quick change, we can check to see if the game is balanced enough. There's no doubt it will be much closer.

That's preferable to leaving the problem and looking to balance it by giving P2 a very different advantage.

[vivafringe]

I don't think we actually disagree on anything?

[Harti]

There are quite a few horrifying scenarios I can think of, like a first-turn boosted Soldier moving towards the center, but I like the 8 wit idea even more than my own ideas for FTA balancing. I brought it up on the internal forums, hopefully we'll be given a chance to test it during the next month or so.


Addendum: Even if P2 was able to send a 4 HP Soldier towards the center of the map (or maybe spawn a Special if you guys deem that more dangerous), it might appear unfair in the first place but then again, it is a valid (= strong enough) counter to the position advantage P1 has.

[Ravernoth]

(09-24-2012 04:05 AM)vivafringe Wrote:  I don't think we actually disagree on anything?

Sorry, I think we agree about giving P2 wits

The disagreement was about the other solution, giving P2 an additional soldier, because:

- we should reduce the wit asymmetry rather than introduce asymmetry to the starting units
- it would take a lot more time due to things like placement issues as you mentioned. And it looks like Alex isn't keen to spend time on this.

(09-24-2012 03:35 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  Alex and Adam have been quiet about this, but I've got to believe that, with all our wailing, they must be aware of it. I hope they plan to do something about this...

Here's a post from Alex last month which shows that reducing FTA is a low priority:

(08-02-2012 03:42 AM)onealexleft Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 01:20 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Alex,

So the community can more intelligently talk about the first turn advantage, can we get some data? Specifically:

1. Are you able to look at the % of time player 1 wins the game across all League games?

In beta yes, right now in production no. But our analysis tools need to be re-worked as the scale of data is huge and none of our current tools work. I'm really hoping to get back to this, but with more pressing issues of crashes, non-expiring games, and league matches not counting, it's at the bottom of the list right now.

I'm hoping that with this thread we can get Alex's attention and persuade him to make this change because:

- the tournament results offer a quick and decent test rather than trawling through thousands of games and compensating for skill factors etc.
- the Wit fix is easy to implement and an obvious balance improvement

---

(09-24-2012 04:37 AM)Harti Wrote:  There are quite a few horrifying scenarios I can think of, like a first-turn boosted Soldier moving towards the center, but I like the 8 wit idea even more than my own ideas for FTA balancing. I brought it up on the internal forums, hopefully we'll be given a chance to test it during the next month or so.

Addendum: Even if P2 was able to send a 4 HP Soldier towards the center of the map (or maybe spawn a Special if you guys deem that more dangerous), it might appear unfair in the first place but then again, it is a valid (= strong enough) counter to the position advantage P1 has.

That would be great, thanks Harti