FTA and 2(3) actions on first turn

[Wenrod]

I would say let's do the developers do their math after a while to see if FTA really is so significant. I don't think it's 90% on any map for a perfect player. I like about the game that it is easy to pick up. Any asymmetries would make it more complicated.

[Cookie]

(07-11-2012 05:25 AM)Wenrod Wrote:  I would say let's do the developers do their math after a while to see if FTA really is so significant. I don't think it's 90% on any map for a perfect player. I like about the game that it is easy to pick up. Any asymmetries would make it more complicated.

I find it a bit amusing that so many players talk about changing the starting player wits as "adding complexity". Compared to the rest of the gameplay, I think it seems really simple

[hubdrubbub]

I've been playing a few games and I haven't seen much of an FTA so far. From what I've seen, having the first turn gives the first player the initiative, just like in chess. I don't think the extra number of moves available has anything to do with it, different games run at different paces.

[Perrin]

Maybe I haven't run into the top level of competition but I haven't noticed a significant difference in starting first or second. The only argument that really made me wary was what Cookie said about if there really was no difference between going first or second wouldn't all first players just pass their turn to start with 10 WIT and go second. That is interesting and I might have to try it out with friends. But if you consider that then there is always an advantage to going first because even if statistically they both win an even amount of time then everyone should start postponing their first turn. You would get the same chance of winning and start with twice the WIT.

[oneadamleft]

We're watching the numbers for first turn wins, and for special unit advantages. We've yet to see a first turn rush that's uncounterable (do please send us replays if you encounter one).

We've seen guaranteed base hits, but that's not the same as a win. Especially when you lose units and bonus space defenders doing it.

But yeah, we're watching for and discussing FTA a lot.

[Chris19h]

It seems to me that if you know how to counter the rush (the people that try to abuse FTA) you actually turn around and win easily.

Because they have to spend so many wits on attacking if you can survive and quickly counter they will have almost no resources to repeal your attack. When they rush like that they usually are all in, survive and you win! I like it just the way it is!

I think it was referenced in this topic, but remember to always evaluate "who is the beat down".

[Cookie]

(07-12-2012 11:00 PM)Perrin Wrote:  Maybe I haven't run into the top level of competition but I haven't noticed a significant difference in starting first or second. The only argument that really made me wary was what Cookie said about if there really was no difference between going first or second wouldn't all first players just pass their turn to start with 10 WIT and go second. That is interesting and I might have to try it out with friends. But if you consider that then there is always an advantage to going first because even if statistically they both win an even amount of time then everyone should start postponing their first turn. You would get the same chance of winning and start with twice the WIT.

Yes, because Outwitters is not a perfect information game, there is most likely no way to guarantee a win for the first player.

Basically the special case when there is no advantage to go first is a game with units with defense much stronger than offense, so that attacking is not possible. This kind of game will basically end in a stalemate (i.e. players agreeing to a draw because they are bored).

In fact, trying this out is quite interesting as well, and it basically amounts to trying "not to lose". Naturally, if you succeed in this goal you normally win, because in this case the opponent will usually try (and fail) an attack. But, if both players try not to lose and just build up huge defenses, the game basically ends in a stalemate.

So far, from the little I have seen, the first player will normally try to win, and the second player will usually try "not to lose" for the first few turns, basically building up a strong defense. If the first attack is not successful, the second player has a good chance to turn the tide.

These roles of attacker and defender could potentially make the game feel more interesting, even if it is less balanced that way. Like in chess, somehow balancing the game might result in more draws, thus making the game more boring. As chess is right now, P1 has some pressure on him to win compared to P2, as results are tallied over a tournament.

If you think of shorter games (say, 6 turns for P1 and 5 turns for P2) it is likely that the FTA is bigger, because the relative percentage difference in the number of wits the players have available is bigger. In this case, P1 has used 30 wits and P2 only 25 (+bonuses of course).

However, my key point still stands. It is easy to make the game more balanced with the fix proposed, it is simple, and looking at the game so far, it would most likely not produce a problem with stalemates or draws.

[nivra0]

Quick thought experiment for those who think FTA isn't a significant advantage.

As P1 on Turn 1: End Turn. Do Nothing. Bank 5 wits.

Turn 2: P2 takes his turn as if he were going first.

P1 on Turn 3: You now have 10 wits. Your positioning is identical to someone who goes second, normally. You can buy a special with 7 wits and have 3 left to spare to grab wit spots, defend, etc.
-------------------

PS> Better would be go grab wit squares and do nothing, banking 3-4 wits, then you still start with 10 wits on turn 3, but with better positioning and less to do. The above is just a cleaner thought experiment.

[ArtNJ]

Its clearly an advantage of some magnitude, the real question is whether its too much of one or not. It takes wits to advance into attack position, so it could well be that the defender has pretty close to a fair chance on most maps.

There is a real question as to whether this is true on Foundry, where there are at least two Rush builds that are very tricky to deal with. It may be there are defenses which provide equality, but this needs more testing.

[nivra0]

(07-17-2012 06:39 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Its clearly an advantage of some magnitude, the real question is whether its too much of one or not. It takes wits to advance into attack position, so it could well be that the defender has pretty close to a fair chance on most maps.

What constitutes too much of one? Why waste your 5 wit advantage by attacking? Why not just bank the 5 wits, and use them at first confrontation or to buy a special, as I said? I think the FTA isn't very pronounced yet, as most are rushing or attacking, thereby wasting their wits. Once more ppl start banking them, it will become more pronounced.

---

(07-17-2012 06:39 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  There is a real question as to whether this is true on Foundry, where there are at least two Rush builds that are very tricky to deal with. It may be there are defenses which provide equality, but this needs more testing.

What are these rush builds?