+- One Man Left Studios Community Forums (http://www.onemanleft.com/forums)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Outwitters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Gameplay Logistical Improvements (/showthread.php?tid=136)
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - CombatEX - 07-06-2012 02:19 AM
@TimCoffman
I understand your points so I won't argue with them. Rather, I will say that though I agree your ideas would be quite nice (if made optional), there is a question of time and priority. I personally feel that while good suggestions, they aren't a priority because the current system is already more than adequate. As such I would prefer the developers spend more time on other features.
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - timcoffman - 07-06-2012 02:21 AM
(07-06-2012 02:09 AM)Temp22 Wrote: The fact of the matter is Outwitters is not Hero Academy. Outwitters is Chess, HA is checkers. Alex and Adam will not change that formula. I am glad they will not.I strongly disagree with this characterization. Both games use team consisting of members with different abilities, competing on various board configurations. Both aim to evenly balance their different teams. Outwitters adds (a) bankable action points (b) fog of war, © hex-based boards, and (d) infinite spawning, which I consider to be great features. Hero Academy has (a) greater variety of abilities on each team, (b) finer granularity of health and damage, and © unit resurrection.
These terms of level of intellectual challenge, these two games are much closer than chess and checkers are.
(07-06-2012 02:09 AM)Temp22 Wrote: The problem with the Bombshell is that if you slide your finger across it, it will unshell. I was a big advocate of taking away the information leak on enemies outside of the Bombshells range but Alex and Adam are convinced that it is not game breaking. So I doubt it will change.I don't think it is game-breaking either. I just think it is inconsistent. Alex and Adam will obviously only change it if (a) they consider it to violate their optimal design and (b) it fits in their development priorities.
(07-06-2012 02:09 AM)Temp22 Wrote: Just adapt to the game, it is theirs after all they can do what ever they want with it. Its free after all.Well, obviously I will either adapt to the game (and buy items from their store) or quit playing (and not pay).
Someone quitting because they don't like the gameplay or the style is one thing; quitting because the interface is frustrating is another thing entirely and is avoidable.
(07-06-2012 02:19 AM)CombatEX Wrote: @TimCoffman
I understand your points so I won't argue with them. Rather, I will say that though I agree your ideas would be quite nice (if made optional), there is a question of time and priority. I personally feel that while good suggestions, they aren't a priority because the current system is already more than adequate. As such I would prefer the developers spend more time on other features.
Thank you. You're most certainly right. Refactoring the UI is almost certainly not the most profitable use of their time right now, since they clearly have a path forward with additional teams, boards, etc.
(07-06-2012 02:19 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote: Before this thread derails into a comparison, may I redirect your attention to another thread, where this discussion has already been started: Differences/Comparison With Hero AcademyThanks for the link, it's quite interesting!
In this thread, some very excellent points have already been made.
Although, may I add, I desperately desire the "leagues" concept in Hero Academy!
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - MrUseless - 07-06-2012 06:33 AM
(07-06-2012 01:45 AM)timcoffman Wrote:(07-06-2012 01:25 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote:Well, I did it twice.Quote:I can't believe you're blaming the user for doing it wrong. Are we still having this conversation in 2012?
Essentially, yes, I think you're doing it wrong. It couldn't be more simple the way they have implemented it. You click the shell. A little picture of a running guy pops up. If you want to, you click the running guy button and then your guy un-shells. It can't possible take more than doing that one time to figure out how it works.
TC, I have found tremendous help by simply setting up a match with myself using pass-and-play. You can even choose the board. Then I just move a unit around until they are in a similar position and I can see exactly what something does, or how far I can see, or whatever. Is it a minor pain? Yes, but it's a great learning tool. Others agree, since it's posted in the Tips thread.
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - knighthalo123 - 07-06-2012 04:40 PM
so pretty much to sum up 3 pages of forum posts. OML PLEASE ADD EXTRA CONFIRMATION FOR MOVES AND ALL THAT STUFF BECAUSE WE ARE CLUMSY AND DONT LIKE TO LOSE
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - timcoffman - 07-08-2012 10:00 PM
In the video of the epic match that just came through in the news, I observed the losing side make exactly the (forgivable) mistake which prompted my comments. Such a shame.
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - projectantares - 07-09-2012 12:59 AM
If we could move, and revert indefinitely... That would be very boring, and cater to those who cannot "see" their next few moves / plan or predict the enemy.
Sure it's a game, but war is serious business!
The better player should win with skill, not gameplay manipulation.
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - timcoffman - 07-09-2012 02:00 AM
(07-09-2012 12:59 AM)projectantares Wrote: If we could move, and revert indefinitely... That would be very boring, and cater to those who cannot "see" their next few moves / plan or predict the enemy.
Sure it's a game, but war is serious business!
The better player should win with skill, not gameplay manipulation.
Throughout this conversation I have consistently tried to make the point that I advocate (a) unlimited undo/redo of actions that (b) do not affect gameplay by revealing information.
I draw a sharp distinction between gameplay and user interface. The gameplay makes the game what it is! I'm not suggesting anything to change it.
(07-06-2012 04:40 PM)knighthalo123 Wrote: so pretty much to sum up 3 pages of forum posts. OML PLEASE ADD EXTRA CONFIRMATION FOR MOVES AND ALL THAT STUFF BECAUSE WE ARE CLUMSY AND DONT LIKE TO LOSE
I prefer to lose due to strategic gameplay-related decisions, not mis-clicks. Whether the poor decisions were mine OR my opponents'.
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - projectantares - 07-09-2012 02:15 AM
(07-09-2012 02:00 AM)timcoffman Wrote: Throughout this conversation I have consistently tried to make the point that I advocate (a) unlimited undo/redo of actions that (b) do not affect gameplay by revealing information.
Regardless of whether new information is revealed you should be penalized for any movement made. If a scouting party were deployed during the Battle of Gettysburg, even with no gained information, a decision was made. The Commander must make an informed and appropriate decision BEFORE giving orders, based on current / relevant intel. So to say, troops aren't sent out, find nothing (or their Superior decides they really ought to have gone somewhere else), and re-deploy without taking time. In this case, time = wits.
This feature would also serve to drag games on even further than some people allow. It would be equivalent to moving every piece on your chess board to every possible location, without moving your hand from the pieces, to see what pattern "feels best" - considering no intel is to be gained from these actions. Someone who understands the mechanics of the game shouldn't need this "tool."
I'd have been on your side, years and years ago, when I was a bit too young to grasp Final Fantasy Tactics...
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - Harti - 07-09-2012 02:23 AM
I'm actually a little bit with Tim but I don't see a non-confusing way to implement that. As discussing about the pros and cons of an undo button is pointless, you should convert your argument energy into a massive brainstorming instead. If there's a good idea, I'm pretty sure everybody can agree on that somehow.
However, it would be difficult to check whether or not the fog of war changed or not - quite often it's even only 1 hexagon to be revealed (would this prevent you from undoing as well if it was an empty corner field next to your base?) and stuff like that. Sometimes the undo button would work but most of the time it would not.
It will probably be easier for everybody to just go to the settings and activate move confirmation dialogs.
RE: Gameplay Logistical Improvements - Kamikaze28 - 07-09-2012 02:23 AM
(07-09-2012 02:15 AM)projectantares Wrote:(07-09-2012 02:00 AM)timcoffman Wrote: Throughout this conversation I have consistently tried to make the point that I advocate (a) unlimited undo/redo of actions that (b) do not affect gameplay by revealing information.
Regardless of whether new information is revealed you should be penalized for any movement made. If a scouting party were deployed during the Battle of Gettysburg, even with no gained information, a decision was made. The Commander must make an informed and appropriate decision BEFORE giving orders, based on current / relevant intel. So to say, troops aren't sent out, find nothing (or their Superior decides they really ought to have gone somewhere else), and re-deploy without taking time. In this case, time = wits.
This feature would also serve to drag games on even further than some people allow. It would be equivalent to moving every piece on your chess board to every possible location, without moving your hand from the pieces, to see what pattern "feels best" - considering no intel is to be gained from these actions. Someone who understands the mechanics of the game shouldn't need this "tool."
I'd have been on your side, years and years ago, when I was a bit too young to grasp Final Fantasy Tactics...
I think this comparison does not help this discussion.
As I understand timcoffman, he wants to be able to rectify input errors whose rectification has no consequence whatsoever. Accidentally un-shelling and re-shelling a Bombshell without moving it is a prime example, as has been mentioned already. Spawning the wrong unit (without changing the Fog of War) due to a bump in the road or something like that is another example.
I don't disagree with his points, but I doubt a clean implementation is possible and even harder to communicate to the average user which will go bananas because he could undo this move but not that move.
Here's another problem - consider the following order of moves:
- inconsequential action (e. g. un-shell your Bombshell)
- consequential action (e. g. move a Runner)
- inconsequential action (e. g. re-shell your Bombshell)
- undo