+- One Man Left Studios Community Forums (http://www.onemanleft.com/forums)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Outwitters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: The future of Outwitters (/showthread.php?tid=3748)
RE: The future of Outwitters - CombatEX - 07-16-2014 05:22 AM
I agree that map rotation shouldn't be excessive or there isn't time for strategies to develop on any of the maps. I was actually thinking along the lines of Starcraft 2 where two or three maps are phased out each season and replaced with new ones. I edited my post to clarify that I don't intend for the entire map pool to be changed every season. Thanks for bringing that up Erenan!
(07-15-2014 11:40 PM)Syvan Wrote: The thing I would want most from a sequel is a re-balancing of the standard units to make defending less efficient. Personally, I would lower soldier HP or increase the wit cost to discourage the default soldier wall and promote more map movement and aggressiveness. The game is most fun when there are units flying all around the map.
I think that my +2 wit space suggestion and tailoring map design to it can go a long way towards addressing your concerns without crippling the soldier. The problem right now is that you're encouraged to only attack along one path (MAYBE two on certain maps like Long Nine or Thorn Gulley). Part of the reason is that harassing wit spaces just for the sake of harassing them is hard to do efficiently. Usually wit spaces are best harassed on the way to your opponent's base which means that it doesn't really open up new possibilities for aggression but simply adds another element to the single path of aggression on a given map. By making harassment of out-of-the-way wit spaces (wit spaces not on the way to your opponent's base) cost efficient, it encourages more movement around the map instead of turtling until you can break through your opponent's defenses along the single optimal attack route.
I also have a suggestion for revamping the bombshell into a more aggression-focused unit which should help further, but I'll post that thread later. I don't want to distract from discussion here at the moment.
RE: The future of Outwitters - Flarp55 - 07-16-2014 06:17 AM
For section B3, see the thread I just bumped that I made 6 months ago.
Also, I'd like to see still only 4 teams, but 4 new teams that are totally different from the current ones.
RE: The future of Outwitters - Syvan - 07-17-2014 01:41 AM
(07-16-2014 05:22 AM)CombatEX Wrote: I think that my +2 wit space suggestion and tailoring map design to it can go a long way towards addressing your concerns without crippling the soldier. The problem right now is that you're encouraged to only attack along one path (MAYBE two on certain maps like Long Nine or Thorn Gulley). Part of the reason is that harassing wit spaces just for the sake of harassing them is hard to do efficiently. Usually wit spaces are best harassed on the way to your opponent's base which means that it doesn't really open up new possibilities for aggression but simply adds another element to the single path of aggression on a given map. By making harassment of out-of-the-way wit spaces (wit spaces not on the way to your opponent's base) cost efficient, it encourages more movement around the map instead of turtling until you can break through your opponent's defenses along the single optimal attack route.
I also have a suggestion for revamping the bombshell into a more aggression-focused unit which should help further, but I'll post that thread later. I don't want to distract from discussion here at the moment.
Yeah, maps are part of the problem, but I think if there is any chance of a future mode where we play synchronously, games need to be shorter. A quick check of the SuperTitan replays suggests that the average game length is 30 turns, and each turn probably averages more than a minute once the game gets going, so for the 50 turn matches, we're looking at hour long games. If we compare to something like hearthstone, those games run about 10-15 minutes and that feels really nice.
In addition to more victory routes, I think that a sequel really needs to think about how to promote shorter matches in a balanced way. The game already promotes defensive play by design, it simply costs more to attack than defend. The soldier furthers this mentality by being really tanky. I feel like I could write all day about the problems with a 4 HP soldier, but it basically boils down to the fact that it can't be 1-shot by snipers and heavies.
Maybe a better solution is to remove medics entirely and consider boosting the HP of the sniper and maybe the specials to compensate.
It's also possible that I am missing the appeal of Outwitters, so is the fun for most people in a slow battle of positioning a soldier wall?
RE: The future of Outwitters - lawtai - 07-17-2014 01:45 AM
I definitely don't like the slow grind of games and really hate the turtling aspect that can show up either. Anything to encourage attacking would be welcome by me.
RE: The future of Outwitters - Flarp55 - 07-17-2014 03:09 AM
I think 4 all-new teams are the way to go. Well-picked specials could fix all these problems. Also maybe consider giving the soldier a base health of 2?
RE: The future of Outwitters - GreatGonzales - 07-17-2014 04:14 AM
In theory OML could make Outwitters 2 relatively cheaply because of all the code which can be moved over to the sequel. But I think it needs a new feature to bring in casuals. New teams, new maps won't cut it. I really think a map editor, with good social integration, would be awesome.
RE: The future of Outwitters - =) Random Task (= - 07-17-2014 04:17 AM
Great post by CombatEX above. I happen to agree with everything he wrote.
RE: The future of Outwitters - amoffett11 - 07-17-2014 04:24 AM
There is no incentive for them to make all new teams. People who are playing now would get Outwitters 2 anyways, and people who aren't playing don't care if the teams are new or not, it's all the same to them anyways. What's important is that whatever teams they have are balanced and fun to play, and for the most part the current teams achieve that. What they could do is redesign the teams, for example, a bird team with a pelican/stork who "mobis" guys around, a scary team with a zombie who bites people and turns them to his team (a scrambler), a reptile team with a turtle for a bombshell, etc. The point is, special abilities are difficult to create and balance, so there's no sense in scrapping the one's they have (except for that bramble).
RE: The future of Outwitters - Flarp55 - 07-17-2014 04:30 AM
There are still balance issues in the teams. For one, feedback are still somewhat weaker than A and S. And also, as for the incentive, some people who stopped playing earlier because they thought some team was OP or something, they could rejoin the game. A lot of people hate turtling, and maybe some people left because they hated scallies or something. At the very least, if the teams are kept the same, the team that is free to use shouldn't be scallywags because the turtling aspect might drive off some players.
RE: The future of Outwitters - Necrocat219 - 07-17-2014 05:22 AM
CombatEX's post summarised what I would love to be in the game, but unfortunately I'm not sure the iOS has quite the right audience to gain a large enough player base for that to be worthwhile for OML. Moving it to PC would be great, and with the TTL release on android maybe that would work. They could have added features to have us help us spread the game, like posting leaderboàrd rankings to Facebook or twitter. I also have seen no video guides or video reviews. Just a few straight up replays in YouTube so having a way to watch the game as a person without the game could be really attractive.
One game model I would like to see included would be like the mastery tree on LoL, and have each game you complete unlock one point in it. If they were minor buffs that had a small impact on the game, that your opponent couldn't see, it would create a sense of self tailoring that I would enjoy and I think many others would. It would add increased variation to games as you would possibly have to be prepared for more openings and play styles. There would be a bit more randomness added, but it would keep the game much more interesting.