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

[Vuvuzaela]

Along with the Veggienauts, the November update came with some rule tweaks. Here's a list:

When you kill a character from the opposing team, you gain a wit.

The player who starts on round 2 will begin the match with 3 extra wits, bringing their starting wit count to 8. In all other rounds, this player will receive 5 wits plus bonus wits. This does not apply to 4 player matches.

All right, that seems simple enough. However, these changes do make a significant, though subtle, change.

Wits Gained for Killing Opposing Characters

This is actually a pretty significant rule. This very much changes the balance of the game, affecting different troops differently. I will not look at every troop, but just the ones most affected. I will also look at the difference between attacking and defending with these rules and the old ones.

Runner

The Runner is probably the single character most impacted by this rule. Runners are great for finding what your opponent is up to, forcing defensive movement/spawns, and for occupying important spaces. However, what Runners are not good at is attacking and defending. They are also not a good use of wits in the long run. The first problem comes simply from their natural role. Runners are not really meant to attack but to take advantage of empty space and deal small but strategic blows. The latter issue comes from a combination of their weakness and one of the dynamics of the game: the spawn space. If you were to spawn nothing but Runners (and then move them off your space), you would end up with a large surplus of wits. Those wits are wits being wasted. As such, a competitor spawning an equal number of soldiers would have a significant advantage as they would be better at getting their wits into the game. That's why soldiers are rarely spawned in those battles of the highly ranked that we get every week.
When you add this wit for every kill rule, you find that soldiers are even less useful. That's because literally every attacking character (medics, mobi's, scrambles, and brambles can't attack) can kill a Runner. Even boosted Runners are in danger of attack from every attacking character except other runners and from an indirect attack from a bombshell. The cost of a runner is 2 wits; 1 wit for spawning, 1 wit for moving. However, when ever they get killed, the opposition gains a wit. This makes a 2:1 ratio of wits spent per wits given to opponents. This is awful. On top of that, Runners are often placed where they will easily be targeted and reached. Now, back to that 2:1 ratio. If my opponent spawns a runner and then move it towards my side of the field, he (or she) will have spent 2 wits. Now, what often happens next is what is called a runner war. This is where I spawn a runner and use it to kill my opponent's. Before the rule update, runner wars would define matches and were determined by who boosted their runner or otherwise stopped the opponent from spawning them. With the rule change, there is much less reason to care if the opponent spawns a runner. This is because the second I kill that runner, I get a wit. That means that, as long as I kill the runner, I will be able to spawn a soldier for the same price as 1 runner without killing the opponent's character (1 runner costs 1 wit, a soldier costs 1 wit +1 gained wit). This is a much better return on my investment because I know that my soldier is much harder to kill.

Soldier

The soldier suddenly gets a real boost with these rules. As I pointed out, it's much easier to spawn a soldier with the update (because the cost gets subsidized by the killing of an opponent). While the old rules tempered the soldier vs. runner debate by keeping runners inexpensive and making them ideal for vision, soldiers now do not have the cost issue weighing them down. Add the reduced cost with twice the attack power and three times the health and one might really start asking why runners would ever be spawned again. The conversion ratio from wits spent to wits given is much better- 3:1. In addition to that, it's substantially harder to kill a soldier. To kill a soldier in one hit, you need a heavy or a sniper. Both of those characters are expensive and have low movement (though snipers do have range). Meanwhile, a boosted soldier cannot be killed in one hit at all, further boosting it's worth. With soldiers worth so much more (and so much easier to get) the game changes significantly.Suddenly, sticking your soldier into an exposed position is not too bad as long as it is in the name of advancing your cause. That used to be the worth of runners-troops that are cheap and expendable. It appears that soldiers should take the place of runners, making them, effectively, obsolete.

Attacking and Defending

The rule updates creates an imbalance with attacking and defending. Suddenly, there is an incentive to attack. Ideally, this would create shorter, more interesting fights. Players should no longer be interested in digging in and waiting for a hole to appear, but rather, should make one themselves. However, this creates an imbalance. Suddenly, defending is not a very viable strategy. Before the update, there were games that rested on counterattacking. When one team attacked, they would spend all their wits going forward. They would not be able to spawn strong character at their base and move them forwards. So, when the defending player weathered the attack and eliminated the oncoming characters, they would move forward and attack themselves while their opponent would regroup. I once played a match where I found myself being absolutely torn apart on the Sweetie Plains. I made some adjustments to my strategy and was able to stop the attack with 1 health left on my base. Then, I found space to attack and I eventually won the game (this was a while ago so I don't have a link. I remember it because I felt like such a tactical genius when I still pulled off them win). However, now, it is much easier to support an attack. When one player attacks and successfully kill the defending opponent's characters, they get extra wits. Those wits (should) get spent supplying new troops. Let's say I have 2 soldiers that are killed by another 2 soldiers and a heavy. Before, I would be able to kill those characters, have my adversary spend a turn regrouping, and then begin an attack my self. Now, that's not the case. If my opponent attacks and kills my 2 soldiers (let's say that takes 6 wits) they will still have enough wits to replace one of their soldiers, or move forces into a position to attack me the next turn. Instead of a lull where the person moving forward changes, the attack will continue. This brings me to my final point.

Turn Order

There is now an intrinsic advantage to going first. If one player can initiate an attack and also knows how to support it, they can easily win the game. The first player should be able to be the first one to do this. To counteract this advantage, the second player gets extra wits. I don't believe this is much of an advantage. This is because of several things.

Let's say I have two soldiers coming at me with only 2 soldiers to defend. One of my soldiers is expected to be killed by the attacking enemy. Each of us gets 5 wits plus 1 extra wit. We each have only one spawn space. Before the rule change, I would have expected my opponent to spend a total of 4 wits to kill my lone soldier. They then would have spent 2 wits just making a new soldier.
On my turn, I would have spent 2 wits to make a new soldier, 1 wit to move him, and 2 wits to attack and kill the incoming enemy. In this case, I have 1 wit left over.
My opponent then attacks with the remaining soldier (1 wit) moves him back (1 wit), moves the other soldier forward into a defensive position, and then spawns a new soldier.
I would then counterattack using the same method as my opponent's first turn, but I now have a little more extra wits, so I move the soldier I spawned earlier as well. In this way, the match continues until we have a winner. With the rule change, the same scenario would be different.

Let's say I am defending against the same two soldiers on the first turn with two soldiers. 1 of my soldiers gets killed. What my opponent then does is different. He then uses his extra wit to spawn a new soldier and move him forward. I spend my next turn with 9 wits instead of 6 (3 extra).
Here, I spawn a sniper and use him to kill one of my attackers. The other soldier wounds the remaining soldier. I will have used a total of 5 wits, I now have 4 remaining, plus a wit I gained. I could choose to move one or both of my troops, but I will still have wits remaining. I cannot spawn a new character. Let's say I do move my troops back. Now, they are out of range of attack.
However, I will have had to leave something exposed. The wounded soldier of my opponent goes and takes my bonus wit space. He then spawns a new soldier and pairs him with the other one. He has a wit surplus of 2.
My turn. I spawn a new soldier and attack the bonus space with the two soldiers. I do not reclaim the spot. The opposition is out of range at the moment, though if I could move and attack with the troops again, I could target the opposition's 2 soldiers. I have spent 6 wits, I have 1 wit left over with no bonus.
My attacker then comes in, takes the bonus space and kills 1 of my soldiers. He spawns a soldier and moves him forward.
In this manner, my defense is broken and I lose.

The problem here is that wits are restricted by the number of troops on the battlefield and by spawn spaces. On a map with a single spawn space, it is very difficult to efficiently use more than 6 or 7 wits, especially at the start of the match. 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.

Clearly, I don't like the rule changes. I have made my case. What do you think? Do you like the new rules? Do you think my reasoning is flawed? Let me know.

[Mr.Banger]

Agreed. Dislike the new rules regarding +1 wit. Before me and alexjiang1 would do a lot of planning and thinking but now it's insanely too difficult and is creating less enjoyment for me. But I will still play the game

[Vuvuzaela]

I should probably say who I am since I've not been a big commentator or anything.

I am vuvuzaela. In league matches, I am a mere Clever. However, I did have 110+ wins. I had been promoted from Fluffy and was trying to push for Gifted. I am number 6 in my league and was really hoping to finally get promoted. I was fifth but I started losing a bunch of matches after the new update. Originally, I chalked this up to my inexperience with the Veggienauts, but then I realized that the players I am playing against should also be inexperienced with them. So, I took a look and thought about the game a bit. I do like analysis in general and I was a big fan of NathanDetr0it's analysis page. However, it occurred to me that the rule changes would really alter what he wrote about. I had been thinking about how Outwitters and mathematic Limits (in terms of wits) worked anyway, so I just applied it here. I hope this piece is cohesive enough and I apologize if I broke any conventions or rules.

[garcia1000]

I need to play more before I can give my opinion on the new rules.

[Eijolend]

I didn't play nearly enough to give a well thought through opinion yet, but let me point out the advantage of going first isn't something that happened just "now".
The First Turn Advantage (FTA) was very significant before and this update intends to reduce this advantage. Did it succeed?

[worldfamous]

I won't argue with your math, but what you're leaving out is the ability to spawn a wider range of units, including specials, earlier in the game. It may not be a perfect analogy, but I compare it to what's called "implied odds" in poker. If you're drawing and have a 4/1 chance of hitting the card but the pot is only 3/1 to the bet, it is often still worth it to make the call as it is assumed that the betting will increase as the hand continues, giving adequate pot odds. Sure the math may say that the wit advantage will close rapidly. But the ability to put out a special, or another unit you wouldn't have been able to spawn without those additional wits, can be used to dramatically change the face of the game if used properly. I'm in a game now where I'm in a battle with bramble thorns that I know I wouldn't be dealing with if he didn't have those 8 starting wits. Does anyone agree with this? I know it doesn't really address the +1 kill change but I hope it adds to the "implied" value of the extra wits.

[Vuvuzaela]

(11-22-2012 05:47 PM)Eijolend Wrote:  The First Turn Advantage (FTA) was very significant before and this update intends to reduce this advantage.

I really don't think it was that significant. Perhaps in short games it was, but not in longer matches, I don't think so. This was because the attacking player did not have enough wits to carry out an attack AND provide reinforcements. Meanwhile, the defenders don't have to worry about how far they have to move their troops. I know I had several matches that were extremely back and forth.

[worldfamous]

(11-22-2012 06:08 PM)Vuvuzaela Wrote:  

(11-22-2012 05:47 PM)Eijolend Wrote:  The First Turn Advantage (FTA) was very significant before and this update intends to reduce this advantage.

I really don't think it was that significant. Perhaps in short games it was, but not in longer matches, I don't think so. This was because the attacking player did not have enough wits to carry out an attack AND provide reinforcements. Meanwhile, the defenders don't have to worry about how far they have to move their troops. I know I had several matches that were extremely back and forth.

The numbers range from 60-65% as reported by the developers. Those are pretty statistically significant numbers.

[garcia1000]

The FTA was not as important at low levels of play previously. It was very important at high levels of play.

Now the situation is slightly reversed. FTA has two components: wit and initiative. At low levels of play, people throw away wits like rotten bread, so that doesn't matter much. But the +1 wit on kill makes initiative more important. That usually determines low level games

So now the situation is reversed: FTA "feels" bigger in low level games, but feels smaller in high level games!

[worldfamous]

(11-22-2012 06:30 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  The FTA was not as important at low levels of play previously. It was very important at high levels of play.

Now the situation is slightly reversed. FTA has two components: wit and initiative. At low levels of play, people throw away wits like rotten bread, so that doesn't matter much. But the +1 wit on kill makes initiative more important. That usually determines low level games

So now the situation is reversed: FTA "feels" bigger in low level games, but feels smaller in high level games!

According to OML, it was highest in fluffy. 65% P1 win.