The New Rules (and why I'm not a Fan)

[Necrocat219]

Firstly I want to state that I'm on the fence with the +1 wit rule and even though I've been playing with it for a while I want to see actual % statistics and how fun players find it before coming to my own conclusion. However I can say with confidence that it is an extremely potent counter to runner rushing the medic at the beginning of the game. At my level I always did it knowing it would get me a +1 wit at minimum, but now that it breaks even giving your opponent a chance to kill your runner with theirs isn't worth it. ( Also means more flexible openings )

(11-22-2012 05:01 PM)Vuvuzaela Wrote:  Furthermore, as the game goes, the value of each wit in the over all game goes down. Allow me to explain this. At the start of the match, let's say I start with 6 wits and my opponent starts with 5. I have a significant advantage over him, as I have 6/5 as many wits as he does. If I divide 6 by 5, you get 1.2 However, the next time I have my turn (let's say we each get 6 wits a turn), I will have 12 wits to his 11. 12/11 is only 1.09. That is .11 worse than the previous turn. As this goes on, this decimal gets smaller and smaller and smaller. If it goes on to infinity, the decimal will just look like 0. If you apply this to the start of the game, you can see how being given extra wits doesn't help if you can't spend them immediately. If one player stars with 5 wits and the other 8, there is a decimal of 1.6. However, if those extra wits are not used immediately, their affect is spread out. Now, they are 8 wits out of 13 vs. 10 wits. The fraction for that is 1.3. That means those extra wits are just not as useful the longer you hold onto them. Since those extra wits mean less over time, they don't really help the defender. While a clever player may be able to win anyway, there is now a clear advantage in going first.

Even thought the maths is partially correct I believe the assumptions you are making are wrong so your argument against this FTA fix is wrong also. You're making an argument based on your units just existing; however I've never come across a game that neither player moves their units. The reason that this argument of proportionality is wrong is because wits are necessary for moving and necessary for attacking. Both of these consume so and so wits per turn so this cumulative wit side of the argument is void

Now to the second flaw; comparing to your opponent (this quote is my argument backing up 8 wits):

Quote:Now to explain why I love a 7 or 8 wit start for player 2: Materialistic first turn advantage. This is as I classify it, how many wits you have to spend on units and move in comparison to your opponent. This is a 1 vs 1 or a 2 vs 2 game, so for that you can directly see if you're winning or losing a game by comparing how well you are doing.

You compared the total wits you have generated over the whole game; however you should only compare the difference between the two players if they are of equal skill; comparing the difference is always better than comparing the proportions. turn based games, even real time strategy games compare two teams by the difference between them. Even when both players are vastly inflated, the one with the advantage will win (except in 13 vs 14 bombshells lol )