Actual FTA Data

[Solrek]

I agree with others that the data does not seem to reflect the current gameplay, especially in the higher leagues. But I would not mind FTA (as much) if awarded points compensated for it and if I got to go first 50% of the time. The past two weeks I've played 10 matches as a ranked 13 Master and started second in all of them. I lose about 75% of the time when starting second at this skill level. That's frustrating. I doubt I will be starting anymore matches until the balance issue is adjusted.

[myninja527]

I also seem to lose @75% of games I go second, and win 75% from first. This tells me that A.) I am ranked properly and B.) FTA is a big issue. My handle is myninja527. I have played several of you guys before. Very fun game, but the ability to load up on first turn games is very frustrating.

[G_Spell]

I got FTA'd big time earlier today. Very frustrating.... I had no chance....

[AJaW96]

The solution is simple isn't it? One extra wit for the second player? It can give a second turn player a better spawn than the opponent which would help negate an early rush. On the larger maps you could spawn two soldiers and secure the wits spaces.

[Emuchu]

Just in case anyone didn't already know, the beta testers are currently experimenting with FTA fixes on top of fiddling with the new Veggienauts. I think the current amount is to have P2 start with 7 Wits instead of 5, but we'll see what comes out with the actual update.

As far as the FTA percentage discrepancy, while I do also feel like the FTA percentage should be higher than it is, I also have to admit that, to a certain extent, I'm expecting to lose on certain maps when playing second, so I'm not always playing to my fullest, and that affects my view of FTA. I'd rather Alex go with the data over anyone's gut instincts, and make conservative changes.

[Harti]

It's 8 wits in the Beta. However, I'd rather like to see it at 7 since OML fears that 8 is a tad too much. Things got a lot better with P2 having more starting wits.

[Ravernoth]

(10-16-2012 07:40 PM)Harti Wrote:  It's 8 wits in the Beta. However, I'd rather like to see it at 7 since OML fears that 8 is a tad too much. Things got a lot better with P2 having more starting wits.

Has it felt like P2 has an advantage? 8 wits is mathematically fair, and doesn't P1 still have the advantages of knowledge and initiative?

[Harti]

On single spawn maps it's quite difficult to spend the wit bonus as P2. So you'll pretty much have some kind of advantage in building stronger units all over the place.

[Emuchu]

8 Wits, eh? I can't wait to try it; I hate always leaning on the same excuse when I lose, haha.

[Ravernoth]

(10-16-2012 09:10 PM)Harti Wrote:  On single spawn maps it's quite difficult to spend the wit bonus as P2. So you'll pretty much have some kind of advantage in building stronger units all over the place.

I see what you mean. The thing is, P2 doesn't really have extra wits, it's just that P1 spends his wits earlier.

I think it's more a feeling of contrast since we're so accustomed to starting with 5 wits, and not something that would transfer to more wins for P2.

With 8 wits, the 3 wit advantage swings back and forth between the players fairly, so neither player holds a consistent advantage in unit strength:

Small map - P2 with 8 wits

Code:

Turn           1   2   3   4   5

P1 Total Wits  5   5  11  11  17
P2 Total Wits  0   8   8  14  14

P1 Advantage  +5  -3  +3  -3  +3

If P2's wits are reduced to 7, we will be retaining a greater amount of FTA than necessary, since P1 will then have advantage in knowledge, initiative, AND wits:

Small map - P2 with 7 wits

Code:

Turn           1   2   3   4   5

P1 Total Wits  5   5  11  11  17
P2 Total Wits  0   7   7  13  13

P1 Advantage  +5  -2  +4  -2  +4

We will be retaining an imbalance for P1, and OML may not tweak things again for a good while.

That would be unfortunate when we're so close to getting things balanced!