+- One Man Left Studios Community Forums (http://www.onemanleft.com/forums)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Outwitters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: 2v2 FTA Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=632)
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - [PETA] Doodat - 01-16-2014 02:52 AM
Right, I think the mostly agreed to solution was:
5/7/5/6
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - The Big Jalacktus - 01-16-2014 04:42 AM
Maybe instead of adding wits to p2/4 we adjust where the given units are.
For example, on CCM if P1 starts the game with the heavy, he can move the heavy and spawn a soldier and move them into a very good position to take the wit spot. Along with the wit spot the p1/3 team can coordinate a very strong nearly indefensible attack. This idea just came to me while reading this thread so I haven't put an extreme amount of thought as to the fallbacks or exactly where to put them but its just an idea. Thoughts?
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - .Memories. - 01-16-2014 04:43 AM
(01-16-2014 04:42 AM)The Big Jalacktus Wrote: Maybe instead of adding wits to p2/4 we adjust where the given units are.
For example, on CCM if P1 starts the game with the heavy, he can move the heavy and spawn a soldier and move them into a very good position to take the wit spot. Along with the wit spot the p1/3 team can coordinate a very strong nearly indefensible attack. This idea just came to me while reading this thread so I haven't put an extreme amount of thought as to the fallbacks or exactly where to put them but its just an idea. Thoughts?
My thought is that this would be hard to balance appropriately.
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - The Big Jalacktus - 01-16-2014 04:46 AM
Why so?
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - .Memories. - 01-16-2014 04:53 AM
Because you'd have to equate the wit advantage to a position advantage somehow. How would you measure this?
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - The Big Jalacktus - 01-16-2014 05:11 AM
I'm not entirely sure. Like I said, this idea just came to me, and I was kinda hoping smarter minds would look into it. What I mean is that on some of these maps the advantage it, exactly what you said, a position advantage. The first team can take out a soldier and take away/capture a wit hex which I don't think adding wits to p2/4 can help with. On the other maps, the point has been made that the length of the game dilutes the FT wit advantage.
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - PhilAvery - 01-16-2014 05:40 AM
The problem with that is everyone has different play styles, so a 'better' starting position for one person might be seen as a worse position for someone else's tactics, so they would end up being at a double disadvantage.
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - TheGreatErenan - 01-16-2014 05:48 AM
If you're saying to move the pre-deployed units equally for both teams to alleviate problems relating to specific rushes, I can see that potentially being a good idea, but it's not a FTA fix. That's a map specific balance fix. But if you mean P2/4 have a non-identical set of pre-deployed units from P1/3's set, then I think this is a bad idea. This would mean you can't know what the other team's starting units are unless you memorized the starting position. As it is, you can look at your own starting units and say, "okay, I know where his units started because they started symmetrically from my units." And then the real problem is that you'd have to meticulously figure out how the units should be changed on every map and then playtest every map to death, tweak, playtest, tweak, playtest, etc.
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - The Big Jalacktus - 01-16-2014 05:50 AM
Are you saying that the first team to move would have a double disadvantage? How?
RE: 2v2 FTA Discussion - PhilAvery - 01-16-2014 05:54 AM
The second team would if they preferred the starting position of the first teams units.