FTA / slow matchmaking / queue stacking

[Samura|]

Three key issues I've seen making the rounds in the forum again and again:

1) FTA (first turn advantage) - significant FTA exists, particularly on certain maps; leading to debate on whether points be allocated differently for P1 games as opposed to P2 games

2) queue stacking (i.e. players lining up a lot of P1 games)

3) slow matchmaking ('waiting for players' for a long time)


The evidence on FTA suggests P1 is at least 1.5 times to 2 times more likely to win than P2. This has raised discussion of whether points should be allocated differently, depending on whether you're playing as P1 or P2.

(2) and (3) are to a large extent related to (1) above. It's the FTA (especially at higher league levels) that incentives queue stacking. Starting as P1 simply gives you much greater odds of winning the match... and this automatically means that there will be people who queue matches to climb the league standings (or to offset having started as P2 too many times)!

How does this affect matchmaking? I've recently started 2 games, but after 24 hours have yet to be matched against an opponent (I'm only high Gifted therefore it really shouldn't take this long). I then started a 3rd game and was matched automatically as P2. Why wasn't this P1 player matched against my 2 other games when he started a new league match? The answer (I believe) is that it is possible to start a match but not take your turn (Da Wizerd has a good post about this from a while back), i.e. the matchmaking system does not look for a match yet. So this new opponent of mine could have queued a lot of P1 games when he had the chance, and only recently took his turn. When players do this, they simply add to the list of P1 games looking for P2 players, creating a significant mismatch between P1 players and P2 players.

Therefore for players looking to be matched more quickly, you could simply start a new game periodically, as it means you're more likely to be paired up as P2 against a longer list of P1 players (obviously means you're playing more as P2). You can quit your 'waiting for players' games to free up space in the queue.

The Fix: Given the issues are all inter-related, they can all be fixed quite easily --> by fixing FTA. This is already underway in the beta as most of you already know, by letting P2 start with 8 wits rather than 5. My belief is that this works very well to address FTA, so fingers crossed this will make it out of the beta into the next version of the game.

This will mean there's no need to allocate points differently, queue stacking should become much less of an issue, and matchmaking should improve. I'm still of the view that matchmaking can be improved further (per my prior post), but perhaps that's a discussion that can be re-ignited after the current beta phase is completed.

[blckace]

8 wits on small maps seems like too much and i wonder if p2 will start with 8 on small maps how much do they get on big maps?
7 or 6 on small and 8 or 7 on big imo

[TheQwertiest]

(10-23-2012 08:53 PM)blckace Wrote:  8 wits on small maps seems like too much and i wonder if p2 will start with 8 on small maps how much do they get on big maps?
7 or 6 on small and 8 or 7 on big imo

i think 8 wits on small maps is fine.

[garcia1000]

That's a valid opinion but it doesn't really take into consideration the mathematics of wits though.

[blckace]

(10-23-2012 09:15 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  That's a valid opinion but it doesn't really take into consideration the mathematics of wits though.

Yup disregarding the math, i'm just guessing what would happen on small maps with 8 wits, p2 would be invincible

[Samura|]

(10-23-2012 09:23 PM)blckace Wrote:  Yup disregarding the math, i'm just guessing what would happen on small maps with 8 wits, p2 would be invincible

That shouldn't be the case... P2 starts with 3 wits more than P1 but remember that, as P1, you always have the option of passing on your first turn. So in a small map, you could make just one move (to secure the bonus spot), and effectively start the next turn with 10 wit with the bonus spot already taken. That's a 3 wit advantage over P2's 8 wit starting point.

The fact that most players will choose to use their 5 wit in the first turn suggests that there's a positioning or unit advantage to be gained.

[blckace]

Practically no p1 passes their turn, what do they gain? A positioning advantage that can't be measured, is the positioning advantage equal to 3 wits? I'm just basing what i say on speculation and expereince, if they are giving three wits i would love to be p2 all the time, there would probably be p1 disadvantage.

[TheQwertiest]

(10-23-2012 09:47 PM)blckace Wrote:  Practically no p1 passes their turn, what do they gain? A positioning advantage that can't be measured, is the positioning advantage equal to 3 wits? I'm just basing what i say on speculation and expereince, if they are giving three wits i would love to be p2 all the time, there would probably be p1 disadvantage.

you can be p2 as p1 if you just take your wit space and pass your turn. even more wits than just being p2

[Ravernoth]

(10-23-2012 09:23 PM)blckace Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 09:15 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  That's a valid opinion but it doesn't really take into consideration the mathematics of wits though.

Yup disregarding the math, i'm just guessing what would happen on small maps with 8 wits, p2 would be invincible

Some of this is a repost.

As Qwertiest pointed out, if 3 extra wits would make P2 invincible, then if you pass your turn as P1 now and start with 5 extra wits, you could already be über-invincible

3 wits for P2 only removes the wit advantage that P1 currently has. It does not give P2 extra wits, it's just that P1 spends his wits earlier.

By all accounts it has balanced things up in the beta, and as Garcia said, the math bears this out.

I think it's more a feeling of contrast since we're so accustomed to starting with 5 wits.

Keep in mind with the current FTA, P1 has a huge advantage alternating between 0 and +6 wits.

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

In fact, P1 would still hold a small wit advantage on large maps even with 3 wits for P2.

[blckace]

(10-23-2012 09:54 PM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  you can be p2 as p1 if you just take your wit space and pass your turn. even more wits than just being p2

Let's say p1 passes turn, on his second turn he'd have 10 wits
P2 with 8 wits probably spends 5 wits get position advantage and wit advantage on his second turn he'd have 9 wits
Game over for p1, please don't make hypothetical claims, p1 would be an idiot if he passes his first turn

---

@ravernoth you've got the math on your side, i looked up your post yesterday and i posted something because i was concerned about this then deleted it but it has come up again now and it may seem right but i just have a feeling that p2 would be invincible