Alex: Proof that FTA is huge and needs addressing now, and how to fix it

[vivafringe]

If Ravernath's arguments against T2 special aren't convincing, consider that with 8 wit you can't even heal your special turn 1. This makes it an automatic non-starter for Feedback and Scallywags, since a scout can kill them on every map (I think).

T1 Mobi is sort of interesting. I have seen Super Titans occasionally spawn a mobi on their second turn as P1. But I don't think it's a good opening, since the fact that Mobis do no damage makes you fairly vulnerable to a boring Clever-league soldier rush.

[CombatEX]

(09-24-2012 04:41 AM)Ravernoth Wrote:  

(09-24-2012 03:35 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  Alex and Adam have been quiet about this, but I've got to believe that, with all our wailing, they must be aware of it. I hope they plan to do something about this...

Here's a post from Alex last month which shows that reducing FTA is a low priority:

(08-02-2012 03:42 AM)onealexleft Wrote:  

(07-31-2012 01:20 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Alex,

So the community can more intelligently talk about the first turn advantage, can we get some data? Specifically:

1. Are you able to look at the % of time player 1 wins the game across all League games?

In beta yes, right now in production no. But our analysis tools need to be re-worked as the scale of data is huge and none of our current tools work. I'm really hoping to get back to this, but with more pressing issues of crashes, non-expiring games, and league matches not counting, it's at the bottom of the list right now.

However, the patch to address these issues has already been released which means that FTA could now be a high priority even though it wasn't at the time.

As for your fix, I believe someone mentioned it before and I agree with it now as I did then. Give P2 extra wits.

[vide0gamer]

I don't know if this option has been brought up yet, but what about giving P1 on the first turn no wits; instead, they may move/act with all their units for free that turn?

[CombatEX]

Essentially this would mean that P1 can't make a unit on the first turn and depending on the map, start with one or two wits fewer than they do now (number of units they can move and heal with). It doesn't seem clear to me how this would affect game balance compared to a simple solution like adding 3 wits for P2, a much more transparent change and one that is more intuitive for new players.

[GreatGonzales]

I've brought this up a few times before, but I'll do it again:

I think the easiest thing to do, from OML's perspective, would be to adjust the ranking movement for wins and losses depending on whether they are P1 or P2. So, a win as P2 would garner a larger upwards movement in rank than a win as P1. Likewise, a loss as P1 would garner a larger downward movement in rank than a loss as P2.

Thoughts? This is more of a band-aid than a permanent solution, but we know OML is short on resources...

[Ravernoth]

(09-24-2012 07:55 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  I've brought this up a few times before, but I'll do it again:

I think the easiest thing to do, from OML's perspective, would be to adjust the ranking movement for wins and losses depending on whether they are P1 or P2. So, a win as P2 would garner a larger upwards movement in rank than a win as P1. Likewise, a loss as P1 would garner a larger downward movement in rank than a loss as P2.

Thoughts? This is more of a band-aid than a permanent solution, but we know OML is short on resources...

But why use a band aid when balancing the wits is even easier and a proper solution?

This isn't about league rankings.

Wouldn't we all love to play a game of Outwitters without 1 player at a huge disadvantage?

[GreatGonzales]

(09-24-2012 07:59 AM)Ravernoth Wrote:  But why use a band aid when balancing the wits is even easier and a proper solution?

Wouldn't we all love to play a game of Outwitters without 1 player at a huge disadvantage?

Because I think extensive playtesting is required before we can decide whether it is actually the best solution. Also, though, I think this proposal of mine should be implemented regardless - because P1 and P2 will never be EXACTLY equal, I don't think. Thus, their gain/loss in rank should reflect that.

[Ravernoth]

(09-24-2012 08:03 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:  Because I think extensive playtesting is required before we can decide whether it is actually the best solution. Also, though, I think this proposal of mine should be implemented regardless - because P1 and P2 will never be EXACTLY equal, I don't think. Thus, their gain/loss in rank should reflect that.

I see your point about having change in rank reflect any remaining imbalance.

Regarding the P1 : P2 imbalance, 8 wits for P2 may not be the sweet spot. 7, or 9 may be better. But 8 will definitely bring the odds much closer for P1 : P2 than 2.7 to 1

There is no need for extensive playtesting to verify that it will be a big improvement, especially when OML is short on resources.

We can make a simple change, look at the improvement, and then move a wit or 2 either way if needed to get us closest to 50:50.

[awpertunity]

As Eijolend says, your 2.7 : 1 ratio is actually being conservative. This is skewing the outcome closer to 1 : 1 by including the full wins. (as an extreme example: if a super titan plays against a fluffy player, he will be able to win as P2 just as easily as P1)

So as Eijolend says, we should really be looking at the draw matches:

So far there have been 19 draws in the tournament (each player winning one game). Of these 19 draws, 17 matches are both P1 wins, and only two matches are P2 wins, or an 8.5 : 1 ratio.

This is huge. If there was no FTA (or even a SMALL FTA, this indicates not only that there is an FTA but it is quite large...), this is the number that should be close to 1 : 1.

[stevewastaken]

(09-24-2012 08:59 AM)awpertunity Wrote:  So far there have been 19 draws in the tournament (each player winning one game). Of these 19 draws, 17 matches are both P1 wins, and only two matches are P2 wins, or an 8.5 : 1 ratio.

Quoted for emphasis.