(02-17-2013 06:27 AM)Alvendor Wrote: (02-17-2013 04:55 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote: No FTA Fix for 2v2
Admitedly, this is not agreed upon even within the 2v2 community - namely, that FTA is a significant enough problem for 2v2 to warrant a fix. I asked this question in my survey: 56% of respondents (controlling for "Mainly 2v2" players and players who play 1v1 and 2v2 equally) feel that significant FTA exists in 2v2 and should be fixed; 31% believe that FTA exists but it's not significant enough to fix, and 12.5% believe that there is no FTA for 2v2. (I should point out, though, that mathematically there IS 2v2 FTA; so this 12.5% is just factually wrong). This has been discussed in several threads already, including here (Samura's thread) and here. However, I was thinking about starting a new thread myself, because I feel that 2v2 FTA is emerging with increased significance for high level play. There are a number of well-known early bombshell strategies that make it difficult to be P2/P4, especially on Blitz Beach and Machination. While a solution has not been agreed upon, I think we can get close - I propose wit allocation of 5/6/6/7, for example (giving P1/P3 11 starting wits; P2/P4 13 starting wits). Something like this would be an improvement, I think, over the current state of affairs.
Samura's thread above explains it clearly why 2+ wits for P2 and 1+ wit for P4 creates the most balanced play with each team getting a lead with 3 wits depending on who's turn it is (after the initial 4 turns).
I guess you can argue that the asymmetry is bad but this is a competitive game, let's make it as balanced as possible!
Re-reading samurai's thread, I see you are right. Absolutely, +2 for p2 and +1 for p4. Lets implement this change!
