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

[garcia1000]

I think 8 wits for 2P is fine.

(09-24-2012 08:03 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  Because I think extensive playtesting is required before we can decide whether it is actually the best solution.

Not sure if I mentioned the Nirvana Fallacy before. That's when we reject an improvement because it isn't perfect.

[Samura|]

(09-24-2012 04:41 AM)Ravernoth Wrote:  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.

Odds are high that the findings of OML could differ substantially from our own experience. As someone who's been working his way (very slowly) up the league from Fluffy league, I can say that the FTA has not been noticeable. Many people working their way up the league in my position could attain winning streaks of 20 or even 30+ games (even with 75-80% of games as P2), therefore a clear sign that for the vast part of the league, FTA may not have a material effect. I think FTA may only become material once you get to a good Masters league level, and at Super Titan. So my guess is that OML's league-wide average of P1 vs P2 wins would not be as heavily skewed as our World Cup tournament suggests if, as should be the case, there's a long tail of matches played with skill levels of Gifted or lower. So I think if OML performs this analysis, it needs to be done for games at the highest level only to get a true reflection of the advantages of FTA.

At the moment, I quite enjoy the challenge of playing as P2, but in the higher leagues it would seem unfair to award points evenly when P2 appears to be at a clear disadvantage that's much more difficult to overcome as games become more competitive. This unfairness is what incentives match queuing for people trying to work their way up the league. So that's one area that seems to need addressing.

I'm inclined to tinker less, but agree that there's a P1 advantage. Would suggest perhaps 7 wit rather than the mathematically 'fair' number of 8, to err on the side of caution with regards to how much this could change gameplay, given there's also the significant flexibility advantage to P2 of having more wit at its disposal in a single early turn, vs P1 starting with 5 of which at least 1-2 are almost 'pre-determined' (eg to gain wit spaces).

[Ravernoth]

(09-24-2012 08:59 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  As Eijolend says, your 2.7 : 1 ratio is actually being conservative. This is skewing the outcome closer to 1 : 1 by including the full wins. (as an extreme example: if a super titan plays against a fluffy player, he will be able to win as P2 just as easily as P1)

So as Eijolend says, we should really be looking at the draw matches:

So far there have been 19 draws in the tournament (each player winning one game). Of these 19 draws, 17 matches are both P1 wins, and only two matches are P2 wins, or an 8.5 : 1 ratio.

This is huge. If there was no FTA (or even a SMALL FTA, this indicates not only that there is an FTA but it is quite large...), this is the number that should be close to 1 : 1.

Looking for results of pairs of matches i.e. 2 P2 Wins vs 2 P1 Wins will multiply the FTA by squaring it.

It's true that the number will be 1 : 1 if there was no FTA, but that's because it would be 1 squared.

If FTA was 2 : 1, the ratio of 2 P2 wins : 2 P1 wins would be 4 : 1

In this case, FTA was 2.7 : 1 , the ratio of draws would be 7.3 : 1 which is close to what you found 8.5 : 1

I take your point about mismatched skill levels lowering the appearance of FTA, so we could remove the results from some of the lower ranked players and see how it affects the numbers, but overall the tournament is pretty competitive.

And anyway, FTA is big

Edit: We could also take the draw matches and work backwards, in which case 8.5 : 1 draws would mean an FTA of 2.9 : 1

[Kamikaze28]

Here's an idea: if you want to test how 7/8/9 Wits for P2 feels like, you can play organized games against evenly ranked players in the following fashion:

• P1 and P2 each pass 1 turn. Now, both will 'start' with 10 Wits.
• Game continues as normal (only that Turn 3 is regarded as Turn 1). However, P1 may not drop below 5 Wits while P2 may not drop below 3/2/1 Wits (depending on what you want to test). Doing this will effectively simulate P1 starting with the standard 5 Wits and P2 starting with the proposed 7/8/9 Wits.

The success of this testing is of course based on the honor system (or tedious Wit counting in replays) and careful turn-planning so as to not accidentally drop below the previously mentioned thresholds. But other than that, there is nothing stopping you from toying with this.

[Ravernoth]

(09-24-2012 05:08 PM)Samura| Wrote:  I'm inclined to tinker less, but agree that there's a P1 advantage. Would suggest perhaps 7 wit rather than the mathematically 'fair' number of 8, to err on the side of caution with regards to how much this could change gameplay, given there's also the significant flexibility advantage to P2 of having more wit at its disposal in a single early turn, vs P1 starting with 5 of which at least 1-2 are almost 'pre-determined' (eg to gain wit spaces).

My guess is that even with 8 wits for P2, P1 will retain an advantage, albeit much slimmer - because although the wits are mathematically fair (on the 1 wit maps. P1 still has a small wit advantage on the 2 wit maps), P1 has the initiative of moving first and forcing the action knowing P2's units and placement.

And P1 has the option of retaining the same flexibility on his 2nd turn by grabbing the wit spaces and saving the remainder.

[awpertunity]

(09-24-2012 06:40 PM)Ravernoth Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 08:59 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  As Eijolend says, your 2.7 : 1 ratio is actually being conservative. This is skewing the outcome closer to 1 : 1 by including the full wins. (as an extreme example: if a super titan plays against a fluffy player, he will be able to win as P2 just as easily as P1)

So as Eijolend says, we should really be looking at the draw matches:

So far there have been 19 draws in the tournament (each player winning one game). Of these 19 draws, 17 matches are both P1 wins, and only two matches are P2 wins, or an 8.5 : 1 ratio.

This is huge. If there was no FTA (or even a SMALL FTA, this indicates not only that there is an FTA but it is quite large...), this is the number that should be close to 1 : 1.

Looking for results of pairs of matches i.e. 2 P2 Wins vs 2 P1 Wins will multiply the FTA by squaring it.

It's true that the number will be 1 : 1 if there was no FTA, but that's because it would be 1 squared.

If FTA was 2 : 1, the ratio of 2 P2 wins : 2 P1 wins would be 4 : 1

In this case, FTA was 2.7 : 1 , the ratio of draws would be 7.3 : 1 which is close to what you found 8.5 : 1

I take your point about mismatched skill levels lowering the appearance of FTA, so we could remove the results from some of the lower ranked players and see how it affects the numbers, but overall the tournament is pretty competitive.

And anyway, FTA is big

Edit: We could also take the draw matches and work backwards, in which case 8.5 : 1 draws would mean an FTA of 2.9 : 1

lol what? I don't understand this squaring business.

8.5 : 1 came from a total of 38 games.

34 P1 wins : 4 P2 wins = 8.5 : 1

Regardless, the important thing is we both agree FTA exists and is large

[Cookie]

I still think giving the first player fewer wits is a better solution. The main reason is that it breaks less convention in the game, by not allowing a single player a turn with lots of wits right at the start.

But having said that, the solution of giving the 2nd player extra wits would probably work pretty well also.

Those who complain about the first turn becoming scripted this way are basically complaining that the bonus squares are too powerful.

A more flexible option that is probably too complex would be to adjust the wits on the first 2 or 3 turns, and it could be done by bidding before the game.

[Ravernoth]

(09-25-2012 11:05 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  Regardless, the important thing is we both agree FTA exists and is large

Yes

(09-25-2012 03:58 PM)Cookie Wrote:  I still think giving the first player fewer wits is a better solution. The main reason is that it breaks less convention in the game, by not allowing a single player a turn with lots of wits right at the start.

But having said that, the solution of giving the 2nd player extra wits would probably work pretty well also.

P1 currently has the option of being P2 with 10 wits whenever he wants. Or being P2 with a bonus space and 9 wits.

If P1 started with 3 wits he would still have the option of being P2 with 8 wits. Or being P2 with a bonus space and 7 wits.

So giving P2 8 wits is actually giving less flexibility than giving P1 3 wits, if I'm getting my point across

[Alvendor]

A while back I tested out always skipping first turn as P1 to see how the games played out. That would be just like giving P2 5 wits. I found a few things:

* Any player can take the initiative unlike now when P2 is forced to play defense in the beginning.

* The fun factor goes up a notch for the player with extra wits, first few turns are like "Wow I have so many wits I can't spend them!".

* The openings become slightly more varied, but not much more.

* Giving 5 wits to P2 is definitely too much. I think 3 is good.

[Necrocat219]

I think the suggestions of giving player 2 more wits 1-4, preferably 3, are fantastic but reducing player 1's wits is a very bad idea, not from a competitive point of view but from a business point of view.

Think about it: you're loving the game and you've got used to the game and have got a solid strategy. Then suddenly you have found after a patch they've reduced your wits as P1. Whilst some people like change, many also get frustrated when change takes place and OML may lose customers because of that.
Just in case you don't know what I'm talking about: After the last patch there was a mini boom of negative ratings: This was mainly because people who had bought the Uber back expected to get 'all inclusive', but when they didn't get the game limit increase they were frustrated because they felt cheated on, even though financially that was the only way that OML could finance players who wanted more game space. Plus, the free players getting only 5 matches may have increased sales for a short amount of time, but it may have also turned some players away and again, leave negative ratings as some people believe they have a right to play for free, with no understanding of income through adverts and such.
However they don't want to upset competitive forum users as anyone can access the forums and we are 'the face' of the community. The reason they have been quiet 'may' and I mean 'MAY', because I have absolutely no way of knowing this, is because they don't want to upset us if they can't balance the game; it's almost as if there are two separate communities they are trying to please: The thousands of anonymous players who can leave a negative or positive ratings and choose to spend money on the game, and the hundreds of players posting on these forum which everyone has access to, who are the face of the community that people playing on the app may see.

Finally to finish this off, OML have a reputation they are trying to build up; they could very easily mess up their whole career from one mistake in this game and until they've build up their reputation, expect them to tread slow and carefully with updates. I do want OML to succeed in building one because I love their games so far and for 2 people they've done an amazing job

Thanks for your time ^^;