(10-13-2012 11:54 PM)Joggies Wrote:  Who knows if I'm representative of others, but I LOVE the concept of Outwitters, I'm PREPARED to pay for it through buying add-ons and what not, but I HAVEN'T YET and will continue to hold off for the time being. Why?

Specifically:
- the queue stacking issue really breaks the game for me. This should be easily fixable and it's a huge issue. I'm in the top 100 list, but have essentially stopped playing until this gets fixed because it distresses me. I've posted to this effect previously.
- Also, first turn advantage saps away a lot of joy for me. I win easily as P1 every time. I win as P2 a majority of the time, but it's a painful grind (although sweet as treacle when you beat a queue-stacker in multiple games). But often enough you lose, sometimes to a slightly worse player who was just good enough to get across the line by leveraging the P1 advantage.

I'll be happy to splash $5-10 on Outwitters once the two issues are fixed. (And immediately if there was an underaking to resolve them soon.)

(10-14-2012 02:35 AM)garcia1000 Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 10:43 PM)W1cked21 Wrote:  _ Put adds for people who didn't pay anything after 20 or 30 games played.

I like this

(10-14-2012 01:43 AM)poweewee Wrote:  

(10-13-2012 01:06 PM)worldfamous Wrote:  I've talked to many app junkies that get excited when I tell them about one of the best games I've come across, only to be let down when I tell them they have to play against other humans and not a computer. With all the crap making money out there, it sure is frustrating to hear a game like Outwitters can't make it.

Thats exactly what my friends feel. They have to wait a day for the other player to move? Turns some of them off. Unfortunately, I dont think it is too easy to create an AI to play against.

(10-13-2012 11:54 PM)Joggies Wrote:  Finally, there is one issue that doesn't worry me personally that much, but I have noticed from a lot of posts that it causes anxiousness for many players:
- the hidden ranking system. People seem to be getting put off by the opaqueness and they get frustrated by results they don't expect. They want to know roughly where they are placed, not just if they are in the top 100. If players' approximate percentile ranking was always available to them, I suspect more people would be willing to commit with their wallets and it would have a direct impact on the revenue situation.

(10-14-2012 04:49 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  Instead I would suggest you change the 'Speed Mode' to something more akin to speed chess. Maybe give each player a 1 hour clock. This serves the duel benefit of guaranteeing a hard limit to the amount of time a game can take and also allowing a player to take a semi-prolonged break to go do something if they've been good about playing quickly during their other turns.

(10-14-2012 05:42 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 04:49 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  Instead I would suggest you change the 'Speed Mode' to something more akin to speed chess. Maybe give each player a 1 hour clock. This serves the duel benefit of guaranteeing a hard limit to the amount of time a game can take and also allowing a player to take a semi-prolonged break to go do something if they've been good about playing quickly during their other turns.

This. But make it friendly matches only so that people can't complain about having to leave halfway through a game.

(10-14-2012 05:50 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 05:42 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:  

(10-14-2012 04:49 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  Instead I would suggest you change the 'Speed Mode' to something more akin to speed chess. Maybe give each player a 1 hour clock. This serves the duel benefit of guaranteeing a hard limit to the amount of time a game can take and also allowing a player to take a semi-prolonged break to go do something if they've been good about playing quickly during their other turns.

This. But make it friendly matches only so that people can't complain about having to leave halfway through a game.

i think it would be useless if its only for friendly matches. haha

(10-14-2012 04:49 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  I advise against 30 min turn 'speed' games. If you want a speed game the turn limit has to be more on the order of 2 min. Why? It's easy enough to set aside something like an hour for a game which is pretty much guaranteed with a 2 min turn game (chess clock mode would be even better though, see below). 30 min turn games on the other hand can drag on for something like 5 hours even if you take your turn quickly every time. Let's say you average 1 turn per 2 min, but your opponent decides to take their turn once every 20 min. Then a 30 turn game would take over 5 hours. Not to mention games can even go up to things like 50-60 turns so even if you both take reasonable turns, once every 5 min, the game would still take a long time. Since this is a speed mode if you ever have to go away for more than 30 minutes throughout this 5 hour period... well too bad. You lose.

Instead I would suggest you change the 'Speed Mode' to something more akin to speed chess. Maybe give each player a 1 hour clock. This serves the duel benefit of guaranteeing a hard limit to the amount of time a game can take and also allowing a player to take a semi-prolonged break to go do something if they've been good about playing quickly during their other turns.

• There could be say 2 options: 15 minutes per player, or 30 minutes per player
• The timer would work like a chess clock, i.e. once a player submits his turn, the other player's timer starts counting down
• The timer is on the server, i.e. it counts down whether the player is in or out of the app.
• The player receives a notification when it's his turn, e.g. "It's your turn with X, you have 12 minutes 25 seconds on your timer"
• When a player's timer runs out, he loses.
• OR another option is: When a player's timer runs out, he enters 'Sudden death' mode where he has say 45 seconds per turn
• If we want to help account for long games, we could add say 15 seconds to each player's timer per turn.
• If we think that Speed Games aren't as accurate at assessing skill as the normal league rankings, we could have Speed Games count for say 75% of normal games in terms of ranking points
  

(10-14-2012 07:57 AM)blckace Wrote:  Seperate leader board for the speed mode, like 2v2 ranking
Would be perfect