Massive Assault
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/

How to balance PL's advantage of going first
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1304		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Vaxx [ Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  How to balance PL's advantage of going first
This was posted in the general forum.

The original idea was to delay the second round of disclosures one round, but still to allow both sides to disclose. I propose to prohibit PL from disclosing on turn one, but allow FNU to disclose as normal. This should help give an advantage to compensate for going first.

We have all been in a game where your territories were not close enough to protect each other, but your opponent (PL) has very connected. So in a single turn they were able to invade you and set up a defense before you could really do anything. At that point the country was pretty much lost, which meant lost indemnity early in the game. So, if we only allow FNU to disclose on the first turn, this would take some of the advantage of going first away, knowing that the tables could now be turned.

What do you think?
Author:  red.eyes [ Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
What do the developers think about?

---

:evil:
Author:  Sky Keeper [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:01 am ]
Post subject: 
IMO: The delay should apply to PL only. FNU will get it's first disclose on it's first turn.
Author:  Quitch [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 5:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I think that's what he's saying, but he got his typing confused :)
Author:  Enforcer [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:17 am ]
Post subject: 
i prefere the idea where the fnu get to deploy 1 turns income with the initla deployment on turn 1. eg small gets $10 and 9 turns of income left.
Author:  Vaxx [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: How to balance PL's advantage of going first
Vaxx wrote:
I propose to prohibit PL from disclosing on turn one, but allow FNU to disclose as normal. This should help give an advantage to compensate for going first.


Isn't that what I said here?
Author:  Mrakobes [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 8:35 am ]
Post subject: 
i dont like this idea it gives FNU more advantage that PL gets from it's first move
Author:  Enforcer [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:59 am ]
Post subject: 
another idea could be to select 2 sa's for dislosing then after seeing where the 2 sas that the enemy is dislosing are, u then both disclose units, then gfame proceeds as usual.
Author:  Vaxx [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
I disagree Mrakobes. Too often PL can attack and disclose in and around a country that just happens to be one of FNU's starting countries, before FNU has a real chance to do anything about it. Really isn't fair to move first and disclose first. I have played other games were going first meant you didn't get to place as many peices on the board until everyone else had placed twice. It works very well to counter balance.

You have to consider that before FNU places PL has already moved and reinforced. Perhaps what should be done is this:


Round 0. Both disclose initial countries
Round 1. Only FNU discloses
Round 2. Only PL discloses
Round 3. From this point on all disclosures are as normal, one per turn

I understand that you don't want to have only 2 countries to work with in round 1 and 2, but frequently this happens to FNU based on first turn movements. Don't forget that in round 2, although you will only have two countries to play with, you would still be disclosing before FNU has a chance to move their newly disclosed country. What this does is prevent FNU from being primarily defensive and PL primarily offensive.
Author:  Guest [ Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How to balance PL's advantage of going first
Vaxx wrote:
We have all been in a game where your territories were not close enough to protect each other, but your opponent (PL) has very connected. So in a single turn they were able to invade you and set up a defense before you could really do anything. At that point the country was pretty much lost, which meant lost indemnity early in the game.


That scenario is one of the worst possible. I have seen that scenario reversed as well where FNU has all territories linked and PL is spread to the four Winds, scattered without a possibility of linking up within the first 6 or 7 turns. IMO it's similar to poker or blackjack, sometimes your dealt a beautiful hand, and other times the cards are against you. I think of the FNU setup as a chance play or gamble. You can setup defending all borders, or you can gamble and take a chance by leaving a border open... Sometimes you'll get burnt by the PL disclosure, sometimes you'll turn the initiative to your favor.

Lately (the last 6 in a row), I've been called and burnt, but a more thoughtful player (like Tiger) can quickly react and regain the initiative.
Author:  Quitch [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:26 am ]
Post subject: 
Against lesser players maybe, but when two pros meet on a small map (and I really thing Small maps are the only place this problem exists to any real extent), it's rare for the PL to lose.

Wouldn't be hard to test this idea actually, seeing as how it can already be done.
Author:  WhiteHawk [ Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Quitch wrote:
Wouldn't be hard to test this idea actually, seeing as how it can already be done.


Which idea? I'm assuming not the prohibited disclosure for PL and not the added disclorsure revenue for FNU, but that still leaves 2 ideas:

1) PL voluntarily doesn't disclose during turn 1
2) FNU voluntarily leaves a border open


Perhaps another idea could be to code the setup so that FNU has at least 2 territories linked and PL has no territories linked (for small maps only). That way PL could use turn 1 to unite its seperated territories and if it happened to cross into FNU SA, there would be a good chance that FNU would have another SA on the border to pull additional resources if needed.
Author:  Quitch [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Eh? The only idea I saw is PL not disclosing another territory on their first turn. You can already test this idea, and see how it works out with willing volunters.
Author:  red.eyes [ Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:25 am ]
Post subject: 
The delay of disclosure was my idea. I posted this three weeks ago in the (wrong) man forum:

http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1200


At first I want to test my suggestion which I described in the man forum already. So FNU-players: Don't disclose on first turn please, thanks!

Any volunters?

I have made some test challenges (Test - PL and FNU won't disclose on first turn).
It is available for Generals and Marshals only!

---

:evil:
Author:  Quitch [ Thu Jun 24, 2004 4:56 am ]
Post subject: 
If PL *and* FNU can't disclose, then you're back where you started, surely?
Author:  red.eyes [ Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, of course not! With the first turn of FNU you can invade a possible PL area which can't be blocked with units in the first PL disclosure.

---

:evil:
Author:  red.eyes [ Sun Jun 27, 2004 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 
Mhm, I have discarded the challenge because nobody seems to be interested in testing ... .

---

:evil:
Author:  Quitch [ Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
I hardly think you can say "no one" when there were limits placed on who could apply,
Author:  Brashen [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'll repeat what I said in a post long ago, it would be great to have gameplay options in the game which could be used to tweak the game to specific gamers tastes.

Asking the developers to make changes to the core gameplay of a game which is incredible to say the least is crazy. The developers have created gameplay which rocks, I think we can all agree on that. Offering options for players to tailor the game to their particular tastes is something that should be done. I don't believe anyone would disagree with that.

So is the idea of changing the game in the manner described in this thread a good one? Definitely not. Is the idea of offering gamers the option to change the instance of the game they are about to play in the manner described in this thread a good one? Definitely.
Author:  Quitch [ Sat Jul 24, 2004 11:08 am ]
Post subject: 
I would disagree. In smaller communities it is not a good idea to fragment the base support by including options. Only the larger games can get away with that.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/