(12-07-2012 01:40 PM)djwhatthebleep Wrote:  

1. Spend (-3) wits to spawn a sniper. Spend (-1) to kill a soldier that was within range, and I get (+1) back. [down to 3 wits]
2. Spend (-1) to spawn a runner, (-1) to move him next to a nearby enemy runner, and (-1) to kill that runner, and I get (+1) back. [down to 1 wit]
3. Spend (-1) to move one of my soldiers next to another enemy runner to kill it, and then…
   

1. As before, spend (-3) wits to spawn a sniper. Spend (-1) to kill a soldier that was within range, so I get (+1) back. [down to 3 wits]
2. Spend (-1) to spawn a runner, (-1) to move him next to a nearby enemy runner, and (-1) to kill that runner, and I get (+1) back. [down to 1 wit]
3. Spend (-1) to move one of my soldiers back (maybe to get out of range of a sniper or something).
   

(12-08-2012 10:07 AM)game_taker Wrote:  Secondly, your step 2 are flawed where you spawn a runner. Unless you are in a 2 spawn map and have lost your extra wit point, at which point the problem is not the +1 wit it was losing you extra wit point.

(12-08-2012 10:07 AM)game_taker Wrote:  You should also consider how much less you would have been able to do without the +1 on kill. All you would have been able to do was kill that solider with your sniper, and attack an adjacent unit or move a unit.

(12-07-2012 10:16 PM)metalsquid Wrote:  Well, what is logical depends on how you view the mechanic and you could look at it either way. Your way is that a killing blow is effectively a "freebie" wherein your argument to allow a killing blow with 0 wits left makes sense. The other way is to view the mechanic as a "refund". You make a kill first, then you get the wit back. In other words, if you don't have the wits left to execute a killing hit, you don't qualify for the refunded wit.

Refunding wits is a clear cut mechanic. Everyone understands it. No wits = no move = no kill = no refund.

Freebie wits have the potential to cause confusion. Some players might wonder, "how come I have 0 wits but can still make a kill?" "But why can't I move?" "Is this a bug?", etc.

Also, the game would have to make extra checks to see if there are any units within range that you could land a killing hit on. Currently, it probably doesn't do those checks when you reach 0 wits and only lets you submit the turn. So yes, it would require more programming to implement the mechanic that way, I would argue at the expense of clarity of the rules. Personally, I think that great games are defined by simple, uncomplicated rules. This +1 wit thing might spice things up but to me, it was unnecessary and the game was fine without it. I would advocate reverting to the old system rather than change how it behaves.

(12-12-2012 02:37 PM)djwhatthebleep Wrote:  Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. I definitely see the different sides and the holes in my argument to have it changed so that an attack could be made with zero wits.

But I don't think it's a good counter-argument to say that you just have to be more careful on the order of your moves. Because there are situations that occur quite often where it doesn't matter the order of your moves and yet you are still robbed of the final bonus wit. Those situations are mostly when you are defending and every wit is used in an effort to attack an enemy's unit.

(12-08-2012 10:07 AM)game_taker Wrote:  Secondly, your step 2 are flawed where you spawn a runner. Unless you are in a 2 spawn map and have lost your extra wit point, at which point the problem is not the +1 wit it was losing you extra wit point.

And game_taker, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this (maybe you can elaborate).

(12-08-2012 10:07 AM)game_taker Wrote:  You should also consider how much less you would have been able to do without the +1 on kill. All you would have been able to do was kill that solider with your sniper, and attack an adjacent unit or move a unit.

I definitely consider this, but this is moot point because it also applies to the abilities of an attacker (which would not be able to attack with as many units).

…

There's plenty to think about here, and I think everyone's opinion is valuable. Let's keep discussing it.

---

(12-07-2012 10:16 PM)metalsquid Wrote:  Well, what is logical depends on how you view the mechanic and you could look at it either way. Your way is that a killing blow is effectively a "freebie" wherein your argument to allow a killing blow with 0 wits left makes sense. The other way is to view the mechanic as a "refund". You make a kill first, then you get the wit back. In other words, if you don't have the wits left to execute a killing hit, you don't qualify for the refunded wit.

Refunding wits is a clear cut mechanic. Everyone understands it. No wits = no move = no kill = no refund.

Freebie wits have the potential to cause confusion. Some players might wonder, "how come I have 0 wits but can still make a kill?" "But why can't I move?" "Is this a bug?", etc.

Also, the game would have to make extra checks to see if there are any units within range that you could land a killing hit on. Currently, it probably doesn't do those checks when you reach 0 wits and only lets you submit the turn. So yes, it would require more programming to implement the mechanic that way, I would argue at the expense of clarity of the rules. Personally, I think that great games are defined by simple, uncomplicated rules. This +1 wit thing might spice things up but to me, it was unnecessary and the game was fine without it. I would advocate reverting to the old system rather than change how it behaves.

This is very insightful; thanks for this response, metalsquid. I actually was initially very confused as to why OML decided to implement this new rule. But as I stated in my first post, it does make sense in that it speeds up games (which I think many would agree was a problem).

I think you make a great point about not being intuitive if there are free hits allowed at 0 wits. I don't know a way to solve that.

It looks like I'll just have to deal with the inherent problem with the new rule. It's not a perfect system, but I think it does make the most sense. It's unfortunate that that is true.