FTA and 2(3) actions on first turn

[Joggies]

Hi Xpander.

Actually it can be proven quite simply that FTA is real and very strong. Here is a simple thought experiment.

If P1 for example does absolutely nothing (just passes), then P2 is in an identical position to as what P1 would have been except that the opposition now has 10 witpoints in the bank. If as P1 I can effectively choose to be P2 but with twice as many points, why would I ever choose to be P2?

The fact that most people don't pass their first turn as P1 just indicates there is an advantage in being player one IN ADDITION TO the bonus five witpoints.

As you can see, testing is not necessary on this. But if you like data, I think that fact that at higher level queue stacking is prevalent and normal players are only getting P1 about 20% of the time indicates that the best players have determined the answer to this decisively.

All that is left is taking great satisfaction from being player 2 and beating the queue stackers who have risen to a level beyond their abilities! ;-) The five wit advantage they snaffle still doesn't make up for common mistakes you see

[awpertunity]

(09-10-2012 04:17 AM)Xpander Wrote:  Still, I would be interested to hear results of internal testing, perhaps two equally matched players playing a 100 games on the same map or something like that. Any volunteers?  lol
I'd also be interested to hear about 2v2 since that is not at all discussed and it's a different animal compared to 1v1. 

Just keep an eye of the results of the World Cup,

http://www.onemanleft.com/forums/attachment.php?aid=44

There will be a pair of 48 matches played between people of various skill on the same map, with each player being P1 once.

For all the games that finish 1-1, we can simply see in how many of them P1 won both games as opposed to P2 winning both games. The latter has yet to happen..

[garcia1000]

I love fta! It means an advantage for the smart people who queue stack. So we win more against noobs who dont take the time to read forums. Those people can play as 2p every game, haha!

The fta is actually 6 or 7 wit btw,depending on the map

[wonderpug]

garcia, you're kind of overdoing the passive aggressive posts. You're not alone in thinking FTA is a problem, but your recent posts aren't helping anything.

[Xpander]

(09-10-2012 07:50 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  Just keep an eye of the results of the World Cup,

http://www.onemanleft.com/forums/attachment.php?aid=44

There will be a pair of 48 matches played between people of various skill on the same map, with each player being P1 once.

For all the games that finish 1-1, we can simply see in how many of them P1 won both games as opposed to P2 winning both games. The latter has yet to happen..

Thanks, I will keep an eye on it. I think it's too early to comment on anything, but if P1 wins 100% of the time, that would for sure raise some eyebrows. Here's hoping people are evenly matched so we can get some good data...we can't discount player skill after all!

Kudos to whoever started it, sounds like fun.

[Xpander]

(09-10-2012 07:25 AM)Joggies Wrote:  If P1 for example does absolutely nothing (just passes), then P2 is in an identical position to as what P1 would have been except that the opposition now has 10 witpoints in the bank. If as P1 I can effectively choose to be P2 but with twice as many points, why would I ever choose to be P2?

The fact that most people don't pass their first turn as P1 just indicates there is an advantage in being player one IN ADDITION TO the bonus five witpoints.

Howdy Joggies!

I saw a few people saying this in various threads as proof of FTA...I'm not sure what this proves if anything. Let's just say for the sake of argument that someone did do this. P1 passes as you say and now P2 also passes. The game has now essentially been reset and both players start with 10 wits instead of 5. There you go, a counter strategy.

The first player (out of necessity) essentially is given initiative or control of the tempo or whatever you want to call it depending on what other games you play. Initiative is something that changes throughout the game depending on what the various players do. How the game flows is highly dependent on the map in this game. The fog of war adds even more ambiguity to this, because in a replay you can't see the fog (unless you use that one website), so it's very easy to generalize things. The players a lot of times base their decisions on incomplete information and past experience.

It's not entirely clear if going first is a quantifiable advantage, for the reasons above and others, that can be represented by a number of wits to balance the game. In fact, the only proven case of an obvious advantage has just been addressed. People have a tendency to perceive patterns and "obvious" facts where none exists. You only have to go to a casino to observe that one in practice. So I'm not sure what you mean by simple to prove as neither of us has proven anything. We're just sharing opinions here and all I'm saying is that it's not as cut and dry as some people make it sound...and while we're sharing opinions, let me share some more of mine below.

(09-10-2012 07:25 AM)Joggies Wrote:  As you can see, testing is not necessary on this. But if you like data, I think that fact that at higher level queue stacking is prevalent and normal players are only getting P1 about 20% of the time indicates that the best players have determined the answer to this decisively.

Let's just ignore the statement about queue stacking because I think it will take us off topic. As for testing, you couldn't be farther from the truth. This game, if anything, is a testament to insane amounts of testing (among other things) done in both the design and development phase. It's pretty much my reason to buy the game in the first place. When I first got my hands on the game, I was shocked it didn't have a single player mode and I didn't want to jump into League yet not knowing anything about it. I did some searching and found a podcast of what sounded like two Uber gamers (which later turned out to be Adam and Alex) talking about how they are now going for the new paradigm of touch based games as opposed to their previous strategy of making games around tilting and the iPhone's accelerometer, which I thought was hilarious because I'm a big nerd. Anyway, long story short, I was very impressed with what they had to say about turn based strategy gaming in general and how they balanced everything and what they thought was important...etc. I shelled out to buy the Uber Pack and got all my gamer buddies to do the same so we could play, only after that did I try League. Testing is key and it's pretty much the only way to get to the bottom of this problem.

One thing that will help is the great community that seems to have sprouted up around this game and I think they will make sure that issues with game balance are addressed quickly as they arise. Still, it's interesting to hear what other people think about this issue. For me it was just a curiosity. I didn't think it was a huge deal when I first started digging into it, haha!

[wonderpug]

(09-10-2012 01:33 PM)Xpander Wrote:  I saw a few people saying this in various threads as proof of FTA...I'm not sure what this proves if anything. Let's just say for the sake of argument that someone did do this. P1 passes as you say and now P2 also passes. The game has now essentially been reset and both players start with 10 wits instead of 5. There you go, a counter strategy.

I'm not following your logic here. You're saying the game can be equally balanced for a start with 5 wits each and a start with the second player getting 10 wits. How can it be both?

[garcia1000]

Wonderpug you think i am being passive aggressive but how do you know thats not what i really think, and also some people think there isnt an advatange to going first, like xpander, and the #1 player likes fta

[Xpander]

(09-10-2012 02:59 PM)wonderpug Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 01:33 PM)Xpander Wrote:  I saw a few people saying this in various threads as proof of FTA...I'm not sure what this proves if anything. Let's just say for the sake of argument that someone did do this. P1 passes as you say and now P2 also passes. The game has now essentially been reset and both players start with 10 wits instead of 5. There you go, a counter strategy.

I'm not following your logic here. You're saying the game can be equally balanced for a start with 5 wits each and a start with the second player getting 10 wits. How can it be both?

What I was saying there is that if both players pass, then the game is reset. All that happened was nobody did anything. There is no bonus 5 wits. Both players get an equal number of wits to work with. I was referring to something Joggies said in his post. I understand why people use that as an example, since p1 essentially gets to respond to p2 with 5 more wits if he saves up. My point was that by saying that, you're essentially ignoring all kinds of other things like board position, build capacity per turn and various other things specific to the game...essentially oversimplifying a complicated issue.

It's entirely possible that there is FTA. I'm not saying there isn't like Garcia seems to think. What I'm saying is that it's not proven. There's a big difference there. As I mentioned earlier, the only proven case has been addressed.

It's also entirely possible that people just like to be in control and don't like to react or be surprised, so going first feels better. They dont bother to develop a more defensive strategy for p2 and play aggressively as if still p1. That results in a loss and a perception of unfairness. This could also explain queue stacking. Let's not forget that this is a game and playing first may just be more fun for people. So just assuming that queue stacking somehow proves that high level players have decided FTA is proven is just shortsighted. Now there is no concrete evidence to prove this either, but it is a viable theory that can be tested and should be considered in the discussion.

I just think that suggestions on how to fix a problem are a little premature before it is even confirmed that there is a problem. That's why a case by case analysis is the most logical response. Sorry, I guess I should've been more clear in my intent. I'd like the discussion and this thread to refocus on specific situations that may be unfair. Things that are a lot easier to demonstrate, instead of a theoretical flaw in the game's design. That's a lot more constructive and something the designers will respond to, as shown by this last patch.

[garcia1000]

Lol. Xpander if you are 2p would you rather have 5 wit or 10 wit?
If you would rather have 10 wit, is it because you would have an advantage with 10 wit relative to 5 wit?
If you agree that having 10 wit is better than having 5 wit, then you agree that being 1p is better than being 2p. Dont think too hard.