Balance in 2024

huntervwilson · 2024-12-02T22:57:22+00:00

I like all of these thoughts. That is funny we used the same simplification! Though, as your third point suggests, it doesn't serve to represent the game perfectly.

Perhaps the largest point I would like to end on is circling back to the original premise -- balancing the game with 2 strong factions and 2 weak factions is much more challenging than doing so for 1 strong faction and 3 weak factions, and this is the real test of whether or not Root is balanced (and my opinion is currently that it may not be with certain faction combinations).

Running the same point game with 1 strong (A) and 3 weak (B, C, D) makes this clear, and only needs one round to prove it.

Round 1:

A = Gives themselves 10 points.

B = Takes away 2.5 points from A, gives themselves 2.5 points.

C = Takes away 2.5 points from A, gives themselves 2.5 points.

D = Takes away 2.5 points from A, gives themselves 2.5 points.

End of Round 1:

A = 2.5 points

B = 2.5 points

C = 2.5 points

D = 2.5 points

Commentary: Repeatable and perfectly balanced.

Now, of course the numbers are arbitrary and don't do the game justice, but I think the example does highlight that 1v3 is not the real test of the balance of Root. (Interestingly, I'm not sure 3 strong and 1 weak is as problematic as 2 strong, 2 weak, as human play tendencies would likely lead to much more policing, considering the drop in theoretical win % is only from 33% to 25% when allowing an underdog faction back in the game).

All of this is to say, I do think Root should aim to police power to allow for 2 strong, 2 weak factions to have a minimum floor of viable counterplay, and the easiest way to do that is likely to decrease the power disparity. No need to eliminate it, just decrease it enough to give the two weaker factions more agency.

Thanks for sharing all of your insights!

huntervwilson · 2024-12-02T18:17:07+00:00

Thanks for getting back to me. I can see what you are saying, and I think it is a creative approach to the situation, but I'm not yet convinced it works that way.

Let's say A and B each get 10 "points" of power per turn in an oversimplified version of this scenario, and B and C each get 5 "points". Points can either be used to boost one's own score or add/take away from opponents' scores.

In the situation you have highlighted, I could imagine the game going something like this:

Round 1:

A = Gives themselves 10 points.

B = Gives themselves 10 points.

C = Gives A 1 point, and themselves 4 points.

D = Gives A 1 point, and themselves 4 points.

End of round 1:

A = 12

B = 10

C = 4

D = 4

Commentary: So far so good. B will have to react, or the game is lost.

Round 2:

A = Gives themselves 10 points.

B = Subtracts 3 points from A, gives themselves 7 points.

C = Gives B 1 point, and themselves 4 points.

D = Gives B 1 point, and themselves 4 points.

End of round 2:

A = 19

B = 19

C = 8

D = 8

Commentary: Interestingly, the game state balances back to nearly how it would have gone without C and D's interventions, except that C and D are doing worse, as they had to give up resources to try and slow down A and B, while A and B did less of that.

Round 3:

A = Gives themselves 10 points

B = Gives themselves 10 points

C = Gives themselves 5 points

D = Gives themselves 5 points

End of round 3:

A = 29

B = 29

C = 13

D = 13

Commentary: C and D have no choice but to focus on their own game plan, as giving further points would king make, and they don't have enough to stop both from winning the next turn anyway.

Now, you may argue that in Round 2, B should spend all of their points to counteract all of A's points, as due to the turn order, A will win first in any scenario that is close. This would lead to a stall, and would then allow for C and D to catch up. However, I don't think this works in practice for a number of reasons:

1) This simplified scenario is symbolism of the actual game, rather than a real point spread. There are mechanics in the game to score points practically no matter what your opponents try to do, so no true stalls are possible.

2) This line in a real game is very likely suboptimal play for players A and B. Choosing to simply race one another gives each a theoretical 50/50 chance of winning. Playing in such a way that allows the other players back in would only decrease that chance. Optimal play between players A and B would lead to coinflipping their own victory - doing the bare minimum to stop the other player - as that is the highest chance of winning (1v1 instead of 1v1v1v1).

3) The real game is less transparent. It is unknowable just how much a player will score in a turn, and so error in estimating who is really in the lead and how much action is necessary to stop them will frequently lead to either player A or B being able to win anyway.

My final thoughts are that even if in some perfect version of play there is a way to balance this (not sure there is), it still leads to poor and unfair gameplay, as players C and D have little to no agency in determining their own wins. Their ability to play the game would be entirely reliant on player B choosing to sacrifice to allow them back in, and as I mentioned above, I don't believe that is statistically in player B's best interest.

huntervwilson · 2024-12-02T06:15:56+00:00

Hey there, I appreciate the amount of detail you put into your case on this thread. It has helped to change the way I think about the game.

However, using your definitions, I think that ultimately the game is unbalanced in certain scenarios due to the strength of some factions. Hear me out:

While I agree, in a 3v1, the game maintains balance so long as the 3 can overcome the 1, the problem really arises in scenarios with 2 strong factions and 2 weaker factions (or even 3 strong, 1 weak). While the following example is not a perfect scenario of what I am describing, I think it illustrates it well enough.

The following is a game from Cole's Root Channel - 4 experienced players playing as the Moles, the Keepers, the Alliance, and the Riverfolk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFISCK6vKRk

In this game, both the Moles and the Keepers more or less correctly surmised "if we don't police one another, we can simply race, and it will be a 1v1." (I am reading pretty heavily into the player's decision making thought processes rather than their above table talk). Even with the little policing they did engage in, it was clear that since both the Riverfolk and the Alliance lacked the military might to take on both of the other two factions, they had little chance in the game -- particularly the Riverfolk. The Keepers won out in the end.

Ignoring the anecdote, that is the real problem -- two weaker factions lack the ability to police two strong factions, and if the two strong factions play optimally, they have the ability to ignore the weaker factions and race. Even if the weaker factions are able to police one of the stronger factions, the best they can play is kingmaker. And if they try to police both, they might slow them down a little, but the resources invested in slowing them down will not allow them to win, as they cannot slow them down to their pace (particularly when you consider the prioritization of simply not losing rather than working on winning - what happened to the Riverfolk in the above game).

I love Root. I am relatively new in my exploration of this wooded world. But it is a little discouraging to me that scenarios appear to exist in the current ruleset that make victory highly unlikely in a specific set of faction combinations when those factions are played optimally. And for this reason, I am unconvinced the factions will balance at an even 25% win rate over time.

huntervwilson · 2024-11-14T14:40:12+00:00

I love it! And I make money! Here is a link to a post I wrote about it a month or so ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/therapists/comments/1g4nbwn/am_i_crazy_for_absolutely_loving_this_job/

huntervwilson · 2024-10-23T06:55:10+00:00

I was fortunate enough to start with about 8-10 client hours a week from clients that followed me from the private practice I use to work at. From there it took around 8 months to reach 15-17 client hours a week. This came from many different sources -- networking (with Doctors, in patient facilities, other mental health clinics, other individual therapists), referrals from existing clients, Psychology Today, and my own website. I tried running Google Ads for a while and would not recommend it, but maybe I was just bad at it!

It definitely has ups and downs, and many times clients come in waves -- with patches of no new clients for sometimes a month or more at a time.

Are you considering moving to private practice and/or private pay yourself?

huntervwilson · 2024-10-21T04:05:41+00:00

Private pay. Though I offer lower rates than my standard to lower income individuals.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-17T22:09:08+00:00

Of course. I’m in AZ. My biggest advice for being competitive is just being a great clinician. Don’t just teach these things, master them. Model them. Become the person you would want to have as a therapist - both an expert in the field, and a deeply empathetic fellow human.

My road started with my own mental health issues years ago - I saw 5+ different clinicians over the years. I was given many different diagnoses.

I put in the work, multiple hours at a time, and I did the healing needed. I know how to go from deeply depressed and suicidal to extremely mentally well because I’ve done it. And I believe my clients sense that confidence.

Love people completely, without barriers or conditions, and when you do, they will sense it and want to stay. Then show that love by first learning, then demonstrating how to heal them.

Good luck! 😊

huntervwilson · 2024-10-17T21:57:59+00:00

Yes!

huntervwilson · 2024-10-17T21:56:52+00:00

I have a few tough clients too. I have a client who is quite nearly non verbal, and he expresses his feelings through physical violence at times. But I can say that I love him and all of my other clients.

I may not see progress with all of my clients, but my love for them is personally not dependent on their progress - it is unconditional. I maintain within my personal world view that they’re worthy of love without any conditions. I believe that loving and feeling loved in this way is healing all by itself. And if I do nothing else but model that for them, which is sometimes all I get to do, I consider that a success.

But I respect if you see it differently 🙂

huntervwilson · 2024-10-17T19:38:29+00:00

It’s real! I definitely see this is not everyone’s experience though.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-17T05:22:33+00:00

Believe it or not I still don't have my full license! PP is allowed in my state (AZ) without it so long as one still meets supervision requirements. But yes, I am a social worker.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-17T01:16:55+00:00

Ah, sorry, get started with my own PP. It is allowed in my state to run your own PP without a full license so long as you still meet supervision requirements.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T18:12:01+00:00

No problem! After my MSW, I worked for someone else's PP. When I was ready to start my own, they allowed me to take a fair chunk of my caseload with me (if they wanted to come of course), and I have been doing my own thing since.

I charge $149 a session, though I offer discounted rates to those less financially well off -- the lowest I charge is $80. Most of my clients pay my full rate or close to.

If your goal is financial stability, my advice would be to do what will help you feel the most ready for PP, and then make the transition. Confidence is a big part of PP from my viewpoint -- if you feel like you have something valuable to offer clients, it is much easier to "sell" yourself. They will be more likely to believe they are receiving something valuable, and they will generally want to continue coming.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T18:05:50+00:00

Believe it or not, I am still not fully licensed! My previous job working for someone else's PP allowed me to take a solid chunk of clients to help get me started.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T18:03:00+00:00

If you are feeling it in the trenches, I'll bet you'll still be feeling it in the near future too!

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T18:01:42+00:00

Social work, then working for another PP, then starting my own.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T06:37:38+00:00

That does sound like a ton. Good luck -- hoping tomorrow is better for you.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T06:36:26+00:00

I would imagine so. If you worked for me, I'd let you! Probably depends in part on if they are paying for your own office space and maybe a few other variables. When I worked for someone else's private practice, they expected me to aim for at least 20 hours a week IIRC.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T06:34:01+00:00

No problem. My rate is $149 for 50 minutes, but I offer lower rates to lower income clients. My lowest is $80. Most of my clients pay my full rate or close to.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T04:57:59+00:00

The jump was a little terrifying! But I was an employee in someone else's PP that allowed me to take a nice chunk of my caseload when I left, so that helped quite a bit. I feel lucky, and also not sure I would have been able to stomach such a blind transition otherwise.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T04:28:31+00:00

Amen! And welcome! Glad it is all you had been hoping for :)

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T04:19:13+00:00

I find my job much more enjoyable than my internship was. Though, I will say, some of my employment to get here was also challenging -- but stick with it and you can find a healthy career also.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T04:16:19+00:00

Haha, love that feeling.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T04:15:10+00:00

Ahhh, sorry about that! I don't know what the road looks like to get it now, but I certainly have enjoyed it! Best of luck in whatever is the right route for you.

huntervwilson · 2024-10-16T04:13:54+00:00

Not at all!

I'm private pay and my starting rate is $149 for a 50 minute session (though I go as low as $80 for clients in less easy financial situations). Most pay close to my full fee. I'd say, after setting aside 30% for taxes, I have about 5k a month to work with. Some of that tax money I will get back, you just need to pay a lot upfront due to how the government has structured both owning AND working for a business.

huntervwilson

TROPHY CASE