Huge first turn advantage on foundry. Basically unbeatable.

[SC-FTW]

Then we'd have P2 stacking instead of P1 stacking. About the same...

[vivafringe]

SC-FTW,

garcia1000 Wrote:The nirvana fallacy is where you reject an improvement, because it is not the best possible solution.

[GreatGonzales]

(09-20-2012 04:37 PM)worldfamous Wrote:  I think not starting all at once is your problem. I always start 5 or 6 games at a time in order to keep it equal. Usually the first 2 or 3 will be P2 and the rest P1. I never start more than 3 as P1 because I know how annoying it can be to others. Having said that, I too would like to suggest that they please put a random FTA system in place.

I'll try that...except what happens is I'll start as P2 twice in a row against the same player, and I don't like playing the same player in more than 2 games ideally. Maybe, though, I'm also beginning to experience the matchmaking trouble associated with being ranked high - 38th now.

I still am of the mind that they could simply adjust the points that are awarded/subtracted depending on whether you win as P1/P2, or lose as P1/P2. This seems to be the simplest solution, as far as I can tell. They should have enough data now to make a good calculation.

I would still want some sort of fix to prevent someone from going 1st or 2nd more than 70% of the time, though. Eventually.

[aaronINdayton]

(09-20-2012 10:39 PM)SC-FTW Wrote:  Then we'd have P2 stacking instead of P1 stacking. About the same...

How would P2 stacking work? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I really just don't understand .

[vivafringe]

An alternate solution to 3 wits for 1p would be to give 2p an extra soldier to start.

Also, I'm reposting this from a different thread:

(09-12-2012 12:39 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 03:08 PM)vivafringe Wrote:  ...but I really wish they'd fix queue spamming for 1p, something that has been complained about over and over. Letting users buy more gamespace is the same as letting them pay for extra ability to queue spam. So it's sort of an insult that they added the changes in this order.

If you feel strongly about it, it's important to email us about it (if you haven't already). We don't see everything on the forum.

This has been discussed some between Alex and myself, but I don't know where it is on his priority list. I don't know if the "joining as player 2" thing is fixable, but getting matched to the same person that started 20 games over and over should be.

It sounds like if you want them to change it, you should e-mail them. I already did.

[GreatGonzales]

Oh hai vivafringe.

[garcia1000]

So I was wondering... currently I create a bunch of 1P games, then let them sit there and start a new game which is usually 2P, and I pair them off. Should I instead just go all-in on 1P games, then get #1 ranking and use that to show the current FTA is lame? Or would that be harmful to the community etc.

[GreatGonzales]

(09-21-2012 09:56 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  So I was wondering... currently I create a bunch of 1P games, then let them sit there and start a new game which is usually 2P, and I pair them off. Should I instead just go all-in on 1P games, then get #1 ranking and use that to show the current FTA is lame? Or would that be harmful to the community etc.

Hah, is if it would be so easy!

[aaronINdayton]

(09-21-2012 11:55 PM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  

(09-21-2012 09:56 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  So I was wondering... currently I create a bunch of 1P games, then let them sit there and start a new game which is usually 2P, and I pair them off. Should I instead just go all-in on 1P games, then get #1 ranking and use that to show the current FTA is lame? Or would that be harmful to the community etc.

Hah, is if it would be so easy!

Sounds like a challenge to me. I'll have to decline, but I'm sure someone else will accept.

[garcia1000]

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. ... I guess? I don't really know lol. Let's see how it goes!