FTA Bonus on Highlevel Games means nearly Autowin

[Alvendor]

I agree completely with everything said about the problem with FTA. But there are problems with the solutions suggested. To give the first player less wits severely limits the strategies available to P1 as he is forced to take the wit spaces. To give the wit spaces from the start to P2 certainly reduces the FTA but would far from eliminate it, remember that P2 still probably have to move units on them to defend them.

If instead extra wits are given to P2 it would not limit available strategies, rather it would increase them. It would also be easy to calibrate it to close to eliminate the FTA completely.

Here are some examples of the wit differences for each turn on different sized maps. Each row is one turn. First number is P1's wits, second number is P2's wits, third is the difference from P2's point of view.

P2 gets 4 bonus wits - map with 2 wit squares
5 0
5 9 +4
12 9 -3
12 16 +4
19 16 -3

P2 gets 4 bonus wits - map with 1 wit square
5 0
5 9 +4
11 9 -2
11 15 +4
17 15 -2

P2 gets 3 bonus wits - map with 1 wit square
5 0
5 8 +3
11 8 -3
11 14 +3
17 14 -3

Giving P2 4 bonus wits on large maps and 3 bonus wits on small maps looks pretty optimal to me?

[QuantumApocalypse]

(08-14-2012 06:54 PM)Alvendor Wrote:  I agree completely with everything said about the problem with FTA. But there are problems with the solutions suggested. To give the first player less wits severely limits the strategies available to P1 as he is forced to take the wit spaces. To give the wit spaces from the start to P2 certainly reduces the FTA but would far from eliminate it, remember that P2 still probably have to move units on them to defend them.

If instead extra wits are given to P2 it would not limit available strategies, rather it would increase them. It would also be easy to calibrate it to close to eliminate the FTA completely.

Here are some examples of the wit differences for each turn on different sized maps. Each row is one turn. First number is P1's wits, second number is P2's wits, third is the difference from P2's point of view.

P2 gets 4 bonus wits - map with 2 wit squares
5 0
5 9 +4
12 9 -3
12 16 +4
19 16 -3

P2 gets 4 bonus wits - map with 1 wit square
5 0
5 9 +4
11 9 -2
11 15 +4
17 15 -2

P2 gets 3 bonus wits - map with 1 wit square
5 0
5 8 +3
11 8 -3
11 14 +3
17 14 -3

Giving P2 4 bonus wits on large maps and 3 bonus wits on small maps looks pretty optimal to me?

I think a big thing is not letting the players get a special on turn one. That would imbalance the game quite a lot, and probably turn the FTA on it's head and disadvantage the first player.

[Alvendor]

(08-14-2012 07:22 PM)QuantumApocalypse Wrote:  I think a big thing is not letting the players get a special on turn one. That would imbalance the game quite a lot, and probably turn the FTA on it's head and disadvantage the first player.

It's kind of already possible. P1 can skip turn and it would be like he was P2 but with 5 bonus wits.

[Cookie]

(08-14-2012 06:54 PM)Alvendor Wrote:  I agree completely with everything said about the problem with FTA. But there are problems with the solutions suggested. To give the first player less wits severely limits the strategies available to P1 as he is forced to take the wit spaces. To give the wit spaces from the start to P2 certainly reduces the FTA but would far from eliminate it, remember that P2 still probably have to move units on them to defend them.

I am still curious about this assessment. This limitation only goes for the first turn, and P1 has a choice of doing something else if he wants to.

On the small boards, 2 wits on first turn means 1 wit on first turn, and 6 wits on second turn to do something other than taking bonus spaces.

On the big boards, 2 wits on first turn means 7 wits on second turn to do something other than taking bonus spaces.

There may still be a better solution out there, but limiting the wits for the first turn does not have any real problems in my opinion. Creating a single bigger turn for P2 is almost equivalent. Because it is kind of like P2 is the new player 1, getting a reduced first turn and then having wits for turn 2.

I think the problem here really lies in the bonus spaces, and how the players always want to guard them from the beginning. The battle seems fierce enough anyway, but there it is just a no-brainer whether to take them or not. On some maps, this makes the taking of wit spaces a bit scripted.

For new maps, this could be solved in many cool ways, like introducing a special unit for taking wit spaces, or by giving a player a wit space only when he leaves it But I guess that's another game...

[Alvendor]

Hm yeah "severely limits" might be a bit of an exaggeration But it would no longer be possible for P1 to take the wit spaces with any other than the original units. Maybe not a big issue but a limitation still. Foundry is the one that comes to mind where I usually want to take the wit space with a new unit.

If P2 is given the wit spaces it would look something like this
Map with 2 wit squares
5 0
5 7 +2
12 7 -5
12 14 +2
19 14 -5

Map with 1 wit square
5 0
5 6 +1
11 6 -5
11 12 +1
17 12 -5

With the exception of Foundry there is no additional gain than the extra wits on the first turn, as P2 would still have to put units on them to protect them.

[MagElf]

I read so much in the last days about the FTA. Is there an official statement from the developers? Is there a beta, in which different approaches being tested?

[QuantumApocalypse]

(08-14-2012 09:17 PM)MagElf Wrote:  I read so much in the last days about the FTA. Is there an official statement from the developers? Is there a beta, in which different approaches being tested?

There aren't any on atm, but there was a 'trial' during the beta, where there were extra wit spaces, and 3 wits per turn. It wasn't too popular The small amount of wits made everything very limiting.

[Harti]

(08-14-2012 09:50 PM)QuantumApocalypse Wrote:  It wasn't too popular

The beta hardcore strategists, however, deemed the system great as it spiced up the game a lot and opened up a little more possibilities.
However, I think OML overdid it, putting 3 wit spaces per side even on small maps, and in pretty Runner-exposed spots, too. Hence nobody appeared to like it and wished the old version (as it is now) back.

'Twas pretty embarassing/disappointing for me as I had originally suggested that gameplay change and suddenly everybody hated it so much because it was badly implemented.
With a little more consideration and less overdoing this could become quite the handy FTA balancing method which I also already proposed on the beta forums. No replies though, it seems that they have more important stuff to do at the moment. And we got a little too many of "the lesser skilled" betas who don't give a sh*t about FTA.


I currently hardly find the time for playing anyway, so I don't feel the urge to apply pressure onto fixing this ASAP. Just leaving a little side note regarding how the beta tests went. I think it was three days in total and got reverted to the old system. Without trying another iteration. Or asking what could be improved.

[CombatEX]

Harti, by less over-doing what do you mean exactly? Putting the wit spaces in more defensible positions? Only putting 3 wits per side on large maps but doing something like 2 wits per side on smaller ones? It would be interesting to test maps like this. I'm curious what kinds of different strategies would open up.

As for Alvendor's suggestion I'd like to see this tested.

[TeckChavez]

Not sure if it would help balance the FTA or not, but just throwing out another possibility after reading everyone's thoughts. What about simply removing the Fog of War for P2's first turn (Game Turn 2) and then everything back to normal after that.

~Teck