FR EN DE ES IT PT
Browse forums 
Ankama Trackers

Fix the first turn thing.

By -Foosninja- May 06, 2015, 04:24:28

One of the MAJOR/SIGNIFICANT differences between the board game and the On-Line game is the initial setup. As long as you guys are fixing things and this is still in Beta, maybe now it the time to implement Sequential Setup and Board Side Choice. Going first is a big advantage...even more so if the player going second loses these two things.

0 0
Reply
Reactions 14
Score : 6338

Seconded - These rules are in the base game for a reason. Their omission gives high Int teams an advantage.

1 0
Reply
Score : 339

Just here to give it more visibility! Great idea. Going second is a huge disadvantage online.

0 0
Reply
Score : 941

It would be nice to be able to select your preferred map too as in the actual game.

0 0
Reply

Unfortunately, we have no short-term plan on changing the deployment of figurines.

The online version is an exercise to make a complex game smooth, quick and enjoyable to play. We're making efforts in this direction, although it's not perfect yet. One of those decision that was taken was to make the deployment simultaneous on both side, in order to save time and make the beginning of the game smoother.

Putting a two-time deployment like you're asking would probably mean creating a phase where the other player is completely passive and can't do anything (except maybe check the other player's figurines... but in that case, when does the first player have an opportunity to do the same?). The second player will have to wait for the deployment, put his own figurines in play... then wait some more for the first player to do his turn.

While we might be tweaking a couple of things in the first few phases of the game, we're not sure this one is a priority.

Reply
Score : 6338
Dewit|2015-05-11 14:42:22
Unfortunately, we have no short-term plan on changing the deployment of figurines.

The online version is an exercise to make a complex game smooth, quick and enjoyable to play. We're making efforts in this direction, although it's not perfect yet. One of those decision that was taken was to make the deployment simultaneous on both side, in order to save time and make the beginning of the game smoother.

Putting a two-time deployment like you're asking would probably mean creating a phase where the other player is completely passive and can't do anything (except maybe check the other player's figurines... but in that case, when does the first player have an opportunity to do the same?). The second player will have to wait for the deployment, put his own figurines in play... then wait some more for the first player to do his turn.

While we might be tweaking a couple of things in the first few phases of the game, we're not sure this one is a priority.
Currently both Players deploy at the same time. Then both players have a short timer to assess the layout. (both players are passive during this)

So instead how about this:
-----
-Both players deploy like normal, (so no one feels like they can't play.)

-Second player can place again based on the first players choices but with very short timer. (most basic placement is probably fine, but a last minute swap can be crucial especially with the new push-easy maps.)

-Short assessment timer.
------

Honestly I do not think the the "fast-and-furious" mentality needs to forgo rules that would prevent the 1st player to 1st turn kill your low HP figure (which has happened and had I known where their kitty was placed like i am supposed to I would not have placed him within 1st turn striking distance.)

Are we really marketing to a crowd that can't bear even the slightest pause while the second player gets to exercise their ONLY advantages to going second? Really?

The argument of "we don't want to make players wait" for 15-20 sec doesn't sell for me. I mean that is literally all the other player does during their opponents turn, is wait. If time was the main focus the animations and flashy stuff wouldn't exist. That stuff takes up half the turn. Instead of you know, the actual rules of the game. Priorities?

The core rules are sound.
1st players advantage is they get go first and collect and set up for their 2nd turn strike/play.
2nd players advantage is they get to place defensively based on 1st players placement.
(since neither player currently gets to pick the starting board and starting edge, there is no disadvantage to not observing this rule)

Unless you guys actually think the rule is wrong and plan on removing it from the base game I can't think of any justification for it's omission online.
0 0
Reply
Score : 582

Yeah, I always figured it was like this online to streamline the process.

What might be possible though that really wouldn't increase the time of deployment would be for the lower initiative person to be able to see where the higher initiative person is placing his figures during the deployment phase while the higher initiative person, just like it is currently, can't see the lower person placing their figures.

Could also then just extend the placement timer for the slower initiative person by like 5-10 seconds, like GN mentioned (such as during the 10 seconds that both players already have after setting up to view the field before play).

That should mostly give the slower person the set up advantage like the physical game without slowing down the game that much

0 0
Reply
Score : 4487
Dewit|2015-05-11 14:42:22


Putting a two-time deployment like you're asking would probably mean creating a phase where the other player is completely passive and can't do anything (except maybe check the other player's figurines... but in that case, when does the first player have an opportunity to do the same?).
So right now there is a phase where you can look at stuff, I usually click through that as fast as I can...but it's there now. This can be gotten rid of, and in it's place:

You could display both teams, and then on player picks the Map and/or Side. When the 2nd player is picking the map side, the first player can be looking at the 2nd players team briefly to see what he's up against.

Then the 1st player does his placement, and the 2nd player can look closer at the 1st players figures in case he needs to refresh himself on their powers.

And while the 2nd player does his placement, the 1st player again has a second chance to look at the 2nd players figures.

Both teams would have an opportunity to look at the other players stuff while sides, and figure placement is done by the other player. (both players would be getting a similar chance to look at each other's stuff before the match starts.
0 0
Reply
Score : 6338

Sure this topic is ancient, but whatever, guess I'll repost here.

I feel things have changed a lot and that this issue can't be glossed over any more.

And here is why.

With the advent of teams like Crow-Flood that will always go first it is ABSOLUTELY and I mean ABSOLUTELY! imperative that I get to see where they place their figures if for no other reason than because of Crow's laugh.

As if going 1st wasn't enough of an advantage all my figures are debilitated on their first turn as well against Crow.

Ankama CAN NOT design figures like Crow and deny online players a CORE GAME RULE just because it will theoretically slow the game down for 10 seconds at the very beginning.

I HAVE to know where they place the Crow and other figures to mitigate the blowback from Crows Laugh etc. I can't count the number of games I could have won had I only had this information at the start of the game.

Please don't give me some excuse about steaming-lining the game. This is a CORE RULE. I'm tired of not being allowed to have the information that I should be allowed to have.

There a dozens of ways that Ankama could implement this rule without changing any of the current timing structure. Real time placement of the 1st players figures for one.

0 0
Reply
Score : 419
GinjaaNinjaa|2015-08-24 16:09:05

There a dozens of ways that Ankama could implement this rule without changing any of the current timing structure. Real time placement of the 1st players figures for one.
This would be a very weird solution, where the first player should wait as long as possible with his setup to give the least information away. The game should not be about the mechanical skill of setting up your figurines in a fast manner.
So this solution doesn`t really work.
This reminds me of the mulliganing in hearthstone where in the high level torunaments every players waits until the last second to mulligan his cards to not give information away.
I do not want this to become a thing in krosmaster.

If there is a solution out there, which does not cost me 20-30 sec each game and there is no advantage gained by waiting as long as possible I am all for it. I can not think of such a solution.
0 0
Reply
Score : 1597

Just telling my personal opinion.
Krosmaster Arena is a tactical skirmish game, builded around precise rules.

In the boardgame, start for second let you see how your opponent open.
This could help you to predict some moves and put your pieces in a different position from the one you adopt usually.
Let's make an example: usually you will put your sniper in the left line; in a game your opponent put Mike Locke to the right, in a position that will leve it uncovered if it farms.
Maybe you will put your sniper from left to right, threating your opponent.

In the online version you can't do this "counter moves" because you can't see how your opponent open.

It's true, anyway, that in the first turn (most of the times) you concentrate on farming the highest number possible of kamas... But it's not always that way.

Some teams (like Kitty Rage) can kill a piece left uncovered even in the very first turn of the game, depending on the field you're playing on.
In this case if you are second, don't play Kitty and can't see the opening of your opponent, you could lose 1/2 GGs in the very first turn of the game... and this isn't nice for anyone.

The only thing I can propose is creating a "buffer" of time, for each player; with the opening phase played from the first player, and then from the second player.
Maybe you could see the team played by opponent when you read her name, wins, loss and percentages; in this case both already know the opponent's team, and could start to think.

Deciding opening is around 15 seconds, that's not too much time... So:
- First player use 15 sec. to put down her opening.
- Second player use 15 sec. to put down her opening.
- Both players will have 5 sec of "observation phase", looking at the respective openings.
- The game starts.
That will take 30/35 sec. more for each game. That's not a great amount of time, and this could be a easy solution to this thing.

Anyway Ankama is dividing the two games (online in one way, and tabletop in another), so it's possible that this thing will never be changed.

Most of all, I want back the in-game chat!
Talking with the opponent, in competitive or friendly match either, is fundamental to improve in the game. Discuss about moves, strategies and (why not) even luck is part of the game experience. This game without chat and contact with the other player is a cold, distant, feeling while a game should be more pleasant and cooperative... Or at least this is my opinion.

Have a nice game! Matt.

0 0
Reply
Score : 6338
Rikersslash|2015-08-24 17:17:10
If there is a solution out there, which does not cost me 20-30 sec each game and there is no advantage gained by waiting as long as possible I am all for it. I can not think of such a solution.
God forbid the 1st player has to wait 30 sec in order to observe the same rules that are mandatory at any tournament. I honestly do not understand this mentality. It is a core rule. 1st player has an advantage by going first, second player gets none. (Online). I could argue that anyone that goes first and wins did not earn their wins because they did not face a fully informed opponent.

But honestly it does not have to be 30 seconds. It could easily be 10 because considering 1st turn placement is something that only advanced users are going to be able to take advantage of and 10 sec is more than enough to make an adjustment to the 2nd players initial placement.

Sure, my spit-ball idea may not work, but it was just "an" idea. Not given much thought, merely an example. Maybe the 2nd players placement timer lasts longer than the first players, by maybe 10 sec? That way the 2nd player can still place their figures in their standard formations, but will then have 10 sec to make last minute adjustments based on the 1st players final placement that would appear. Usually figures will go in the logical spots, but if I need to make a quick swap I have the option.

But Ankama has shown to be very clever with their fixes and rule changes in the past, so I'm confident that they would be able to implement a fair solution that has the least impact on the timing structure.

I still put to Ankama that not observing this CORE RULE in lieu of.. what, driving off players? Is nonsense. Do we really think that players are so fickle that they will not accept waiting 10 sec?

Dewit, I implore you to bring this to the attention of the Devs and make this rule observed. You simply can't have figures like Crow be made and available to play and at the same time deny core rules that are there to balance things like this.
0 0
Reply
Score : 748

I don't understand why time taken is considered an issue here. Obviously it's not considered an issue in the board game, otherwise players would set their pieces at the same time. Doubling the length of the piece placement phase would add at most 30 seconds to a game, and in most cases probably less time. For a game that takes about 30 minutes to play, that is an increase in play time of less than 2% in the worst case scenario. It regularly takes longer to find a match.

As for waiting as a tactical choice so as to deny information to your opponent, I don't see how that would even become a thing. Whether you take 5 seconds or 30 to place your pieces, they will be in the same place when you reveal them. Similarly, your opponent will have the same amount of time to analyze their placement and place their own pieces regardless of whether you hit the forward button or wait for placement to time out.

That said, I don't really care either way on the placement thing. I'm mostly confused by the arguments against it as they all seem very weak to me.

0 0
Reply
Score : 419
OneBigHullabaloo|2015-08-24 23:08:11
I don't understand why time taken is considered an issue here. Obviously it's not considered an issue in the board game, otherwise players would set their pieces at the same time.
How should this work in a competitive game, where you can use any information of the opponents setup to change yours. That definitly does not work, unless you build a big wall in the middle of the map so you can not see the setup of your opponent.
0 0
Reply
Score : 748

If the starting spaces were numbered, it would be quite easy to assign a number to each Krosmaster without showing their placement.

0 0
Reply
Respond to this thread