|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 19, 2008 19:19:30 GMT -5
I kept saying that, but hey, I went second the majority of the time and I won or placed in all of the events I took part in, so perhaps it's a bit of sour grapes.
I did knock quite a few guys back from the start, and a lot of mine were knocked off from the start, but in the end I think that AIM factor really was the most important.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 19, 2008 20:51:07 GMT -5
Posted by superflytnt on Today at 8:19pm I kept saying that, but hey, I went second the majority of the time and I won or placed in all of the events I took part in, so perhaps it's a bit of sour grapes.
I did knock quite a few guys back from the start, and a lot of mine were knocked off from the start, but in the end I think that AIM factor really was the most important. |
I know that the two game that you and I played you went first the first game and I went the second game. Both games were great! So yes, they should have been moved up a little more. No, I don't think it made anyone lose a double elimination tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Jul 21, 2008 7:31:03 GMT -5
I'm going to have a house rule now of the person who goes first only gets to shoot once in the first round. Even if figures are 2 tix away from the start line, it's too easy to pick off 2 figures right away because of how they are positioned most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 21, 2008 19:42:21 GMT -5
It's a slippery slope. I still say that most of the gameplay physics are fine and there are a host of defenses to stop the enemy from taking out your good guys.
A rule change isn't needed, it's a strategy change. We've played the game this way for YEARS and just now we're getting salty because CERTAIN people lost their Droid...er...figures early that they were relying on WAY WAY too heavily on anyhow? Methinks that people will simply just be sure to include a 'fodder' golfball on their team paired with a strong striker and mow down a row of your guys instead. Then what? Disallow suicide strikes?
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Jul 21, 2008 20:39:04 GMT -5
Posted by superflytnt on Today at 8:42pm It's a slippery slope. I still say that most of the gameplay physics are fine and there are a host of defenses to stop the enemy from taking out your good guys.
A rule change isn't needed, it's a strategy change. We've played the game this way for YEARS and just now we're getting salty because CERTAIN people lost their Droid...er...figures early that they were relying on WAY WAY too heavily on anyhow? Methinks that people will simply just be sure to include a 'fodder' golfball on their team paired with a strong striker and mow down a row of your guys instead. Then what? Disallow suicide strikes? |
Agreed. Not sure why a giant rule change is in order. Little black droids to be specific.
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Jul 21, 2008 21:03:25 GMT -5
Posted by superflytnt on Today at 8:42pm It's a slippery slope. I still say that most of the gameplay physics are fine and there are a host of defenses to stop the enemy from taking out your good guys.
A rule change isn't needed, it's a strategy change. We've played the game this way for YEARS and just now we're getting salty because CERTAIN people lost their Droid...er...figures early that they were relying on WAY WAY too heavily on anyhow? Methinks that people will simply just be sure to include a 'fodder' golfball on their team paired with a strong striker and mow down a row of your guys instead. Then what? Disallow suicide strikes? |
Agreed. Not sure why a giant rule change is in order. Little black droids to be specific. You guys took out my R2-Q5 with your first shots, so under this proposed rule change nothing would have changed there anyway. And he always comes up red anyways I lost those matches because I was beaten by good players. You guys made great shots and took out a vital part of my team on turn one. Shame on me for not figuring out a counter to that possibility. I've been mentioning the "first turn advantage" for a long time, not just since TixCon. Whoever goes first has a huge advantage. I've always felt this way and have experimented with different methods to try and even things out. Under conventional rules - and I play myself a lot so the talent level is even - whoever goes first wins nearly 2/3 of the time - that's huge. At TixCon, I went 9-4... 7-0 when going first and 2-4 when going second. GE's only loss at TixCon was when he went second. Still not convinced? In the matches I have recorded involving Superfly, Pete is 10-8 when he goes first and 3-11 when he goes second. And those are NOT at TixCon (where figures were right up against the back line). If you go first, you are always two attacks ahead or even (not counting specials or effects). If you have strikers, you can claim more of the board by swarming, making it harder for your opponent to get your vital figures and easier for you to get multiple kills. The person going second is at a big disadvantage. Just food for thought. If no one else feels a change is needed, then that's fine, I just think the game should be a little more even than the player going first having twice as good a chance to win than when going second.
|
|
|
Post by ionicdesign on Jul 24, 2008 10:11:51 GMT -5
Interesting, that seems to be quite the advantage, what doyou propose as the remedy Chris?
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Jul 25, 2008 12:28:44 GMT -5
Interesting, that seems to be quite the advantage, what doyou propose as the remedy Chris? My data is only in matches involving me, so the advantage may not be as great for someone else (I tend to be a good shot and usually nail two figures off the startline when going first), but I suspect that if everyone kept stats that they'd notice whoever went first would have an advantage. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I have some suggestions. It might make sense for people to try them out to see if they like them and/or make a difference: 1) Player going first gets one attack (barring specials or effects) on the first turn. 2) Player going first gets to move only and gets no attacks. 3) Player going first gets to attack only and doesn't get to move. Those are my ideas at this point. I am currently testing #1 (need a lot of games first to see if it works).
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Jul 25, 2008 14:11:57 GMT -5
Well, here's the problem I see, even if I was in favor of changing to one of them. There will always be a first player. That being said, you can never remove the advantage of the person who shoots first getting to shoot first, right? That being said, what you could do is to allow the first round to not have any attacks at all, which allows players to get in better defensive positions. The downside is that it gives a HUGE amount of advantage to the strikers since it puts them within 1 turn of attacking.
So, at this point I don't think that there's a good solution, unless you say "First Player may only attack 10-point troopers" in which case it erodes the advantage a good bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2008 22:53:47 GMT -5
Well, here's the problem I see, even if I was in favor of changing to one of them. There will always be a first player. That being said, you can never remove the advantage of the person who shoots first getting to shoot first, right? That being said, what you could do is to allow the first round to not have any attacks at all, which allows players to get in better defensive positions. The downside is that it gives a HUGE amount of advantage to the strikers since it puts them within 1 turn of attacking. So, at this point I don't think that there's a good solution, unless you say "First Player may only attack 10-point troopers" in which case it erodes the advantage a good bit. I don't see a good solution either, leave it as is. The simplicity is a huge part of the charm of Attacktix. With a first turn advantage, even a rookie little kid has a chance to beat an experienced player, and I like that. This happened when I got thrashed by a rookie at the tourny I hosted at W&C, and it was pretty cool. I was proud of the kid for showing me how bad I suck! ;D I don't necessarily love being in an uphill struggle right from the beginning of the match, but in the end it's bound to happen to us all. Let it be.
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Jul 29, 2008 9:35:54 GMT -5
Well, here's the problem I see, even if I was in favor of changing to one of them. There will always be a first player. That being said, you can never remove the advantage of the person who shoots first getting to shoot first, right? That being said, what you could do is to allow the first round to not have any attacks at all, which allows players to get in better defensive positions. The downside is that it gives a HUGE amount of advantage to the strikers since it puts them within 1 turn of attacking. So, at this point I don't think that there's a good solution, unless you say "First Player may only attack 10-point troopers" in which case it erodes the advantage a good bit. I guess this is my point: we all seem to agree that moving first is a big advantage because your strikers get closer - but then to also give that person going first another huge advantage by letting them shoot at figures that are standing in a straight line unprotected? You can pick the figures that are the "most strategically best" (bad English I know) to get rid of... you still have to hit them of course, but it's a lot easier when they are just all lined up in a row. If the person going first shoots only once on the first turn, then after your turn, whether you go first or second, you are always "ahead" on attacks (ignoring effects/specials).
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on Aug 4, 2008 17:17:04 GMT -5
I've an interesting idea on how to some what fix the problem with the shooter gets too much of an advantage rule. I should have this worked out with pictures by tomorrow. Until then. I'll probably post this in my custom thread. Look there.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Aug 5, 2008 9:52:00 GMT -5
I grow weary of this BS discussion. Try this on for size. How about play 20 matches with identical teams using similar strategies. Then tell me what the advantage is, making sure that the tix are 2 tix forward of the start line. I'm guessing that if both play mirror turns of one another the real SKILL OF THE ATTACK will make the difference.
I am going to allow a hair more debate on this, then I am putting this one to bed. In Chess, Checkers, Monopoly, Sorry...well FVCK...EVERY GAME ON EARTH I CAN THINK OF there is a first player and the first player generally gets some sort of advantage. GET OVER IT. Stop crying, Nancy. The fact is that you have a 50/50 chance every match of getting the first turn and if you don't get it, TOO BAD. Statistics and empty, impractical workarounds do not allay the fact that there will always be a first player, and there will always be an advantage. The better player with the superior team wins, hands down, period. That is how it is supposed to work, and 99% of the time, it does.
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on Aug 6, 2008 9:01:36 GMT -5
I grow weary of this BS discussion. Try this on for size. How about play 20 matches with identical teams using similar strategies. Then tell me what the advantage is, making sure that the tix are 2 tix forward of the start line. I'm guessing that if both play mirror turns of one another the real SKILL OF THE ATTACK will make the difference. I am going to allow a hair more debate on this, then I am putting this one to bed. In Chess, Checkers, Monopoly, Sorry...well FVCK...EVERY GAME ON EARTH I CAN THINK OF there is a first player and the first player generally gets some sort of advantage. GET OVER IT. Stop crying, Nancy. The fact is that you have a 50/50 chance every match of getting the first turn and if you don't get it, TOO BAD. Statistics and empty, impractical workarounds do not allay the fact that there will always be a first player, and there will always be an advantage. The better player with the superior team wins, hands down, period. That is how it is supposed to work, and 99% of the time, it does. In Chess, Parchessi, Sorry, Monopoly, etc. whoever goes first doesn't win 2/3 of the time. That is the issue. In those games, there are dozens of turns, and when you have that many turns, the advantage of going first is minimized. In Attacktix, there are usually between 5 to 10 turns - if that many. Going first in Attacktix is a bigger advantage due to fewer turns. No arguement that there will always be someone who goes first, and they will always have an advantage. And yes, going first doesn't mean you will win, you still gotta hit the figures with your shots. Please give me more credit than to say I'm crying or whining about TixCon - I just think with a simple tweak the game can be more fair. When we get together for matches next (after our kids are born), let's start doing your challenge below of 20 matches of similar teams/etc. and see if there is a difference in the wins/losses depending on who goes first.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on Aug 6, 2008 9:36:18 GMT -5
I wasn't dieecting it at YOU amigo and certainly not a "I Lost TixCon So The Rules Suck" gripe - this was more of a general "We've been playing this for 4 years now and it JUST NOW is becoming an issue?" gripe. You're not the only one saying this, but I will point out that since you put out your 'statistical datapoint' about it the cries have strengthened.
And regarding other games, how do you know that going first doesn't produce an excellent advantage with all things being equal? And futhermore, what controls have you used to provide evidence that your data is accurate - I mean there are SO many variables in the game that there has to be a DOE done to get valid data. By saying that 66% of the time the winner was the player who went first is misleading if taken on it's face since there is no supporting data showing what the teams were, strategies, how many whites each team had and the bearing of the whites on it, how many shots were taken per side, how many misses, how many multi-kill strikes, the mix of strikers and shooters, etc. Just making a blanket statement that he who goes first almost always wins is completely invalid except to say "Without taking into consideration any other factor, 66% of the time the winner went first". And that is no proof of anything.
I think that you could even take a look at your data and drill it down more as well. Take a look at these data: 1. What percentage of the time does a player with more successful attacks win? 2. What percentage of the time does a player with more multiple-kill strikes win? 3. What percentage of the time does a player have more whites come up and win? 4. What combination of factors produces an overwhelming percentage of wins? The statement that you make where the person who goes first wins 66% of the time is not valid in any way without looking at other factors. It's just not a fair analysis unless one is simply trying to state an anecdotal evidenciary point rather than a solid statistical conclusion.
What it comes down to is that if all things are equal (ie same teams, same strategy, same everything) the end result is totally dependant upon 2 factors: successful shots and special power activation. I would think that the person who has the most successful attacks (Ie. no whiffs/shots missed) has a better advantage statistically than the person who goes first.
|
|