+- One Man Left Studios Community Forums (http://www.onemanleft.com/forums)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Outwitters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters (/showthread.php?tid=787)
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Ravernoth - 10-26-2012 05:37 AM
(10-26-2012 04:12 AM)worldfamous Wrote:(10-26-2012 04:09 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: Adam and Alex, many thanks for sharing your thoughts.Less predictable doesn't mean random. It will just be more challenging to run the numbers in your head.
I had the impression that a big motivation behind this change was to increase the profit, so apologies for that.
Re: making the gameplay more unpredictable, I can see where you are coming from.
The thing is, one of the great things about Outwitters is being a strategy game where there are no random elements and a win comes down purely to your tactics.
That's the reason a win is so satisfying and a loss is always a learning opportunity.
By adding this unpredictable factor, it changes that - and that will result in you willing or losing, but not knowing exactly why or whether it was more down to chance of how the kill wits played out than skill and strategy.
I feel that is not a worthwhile tradeoff, as the current gameplay already allow for skill and fun in abundance.
You're right, I don't mean random - I mean unknowable elements, or elements that are impractical to account for, for most gamers.
For example, look at a scenario under both systems:
1) Current Game
I've scouted and deduced from his moves that the enemy has X units in one of 2 formations.
I can work out an attack, calculating his responses, and my response in return, and execute a tactically correct attack that will lead to an advantage in both scenarios, leading to a win.
2) With the 'Wits for Kills' change
I've scouted and deduced from his moves that the enemy has X units in one of 2 formations.
I can work out an attack - but it's difficult to calculate his possible responses, and I have only a vague idea of what things will look like my following turn.
I attack anyway, and maybe it leads to a win, or a loss.
More unpredictable, yes. But less skill, and more guesswork too. Is that a good change?
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - =) Random Task (= - 10-26-2012 07:06 AM
Thanks Alex for speaking to us and sharing your thoughts and data!
What speaks against making it optional to play a "classic game" or a "wit for kill" game?
This would give players a choice (take away reasons to complain) and as I wrote before I know another online turn based strategy game which also lets the players choose between game style variants.
I can very well imagine players might transition from one style to the other if the other is really more fun. In any case having a choice will make people happier than being forced to adjust to a new game style they have not originally bought into.
Just my 2cents.
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Ravernoth - 10-26-2012 07:51 AM
(10-26-2012 03:06 AM)oneadamleft Wrote: We're glad Ravernoth is enthusiastic enough to do all of this analysis. Sincerely.
Thanks for adding that, though I'd understand if it was tongue in cheek
(10-26-2012 03:06 AM)oneadamleft Wrote: Here's why we haven't back-pedalled on the kill bonus just yet:
Good to know it's still being assessed!
(10-26-2012 03:06 AM)oneadamleft Wrote: Here's the data we've collected from replays provided by our testers so far:
Total games: 63
Overall Averages:
Winner's kill bonus spread: +2 wits (ranging from -5 to +9 wit advantages)
Winner's cap pt bonus spread: +2.25 wits (ranging from -5 to +15 wits)
Special Unit Kill Wit Averages:
Bombshell loses by 0.25 kill wits, wins by 4.8 kill wits*
Scrambler loses by 4.3 kill wits, wins by -1.8 kill wits**
Bramble loses by 2.5 kill wits, wins by 3.8 kill wits
Mobi loses by 0.5 kill wits, wins by 1.3 kill wits***
None loses by 1.5 kill wits, wins by 1.6 kill wits
* Bombshell's highest kill bonus spread was +9, which Bramble also reached. Bramble is used a lot more often, but did reach high kill spreads as many times as Bombshell.
** Scrambling doesn't give a kill wit in the current build.
*** Only 5 replays featured Mobi.
It's good to know that the Scrambler is being tested with the wit change, as that is only fair.
The stats verify that one of the obvious effects is a buffing of the Bombshell, since it kills more units. This is a unit that needs no buffing.
If you're testing changes, please consider a balancing change to make it a max of +1 wit per attack. So a Bombshell could only gain 1 wit at a time, bringing in line with other units.
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Emuchu - 10-26-2012 08:38 AM
One of the unintentional side-effects of the Wit/Kill mechanic, now that I think about it, could be a side-effect buff to Mobi. The bonus kill wits may discourage sacrificial Runner recon, but Mobi's guerrilla recall tactics (where the Adorables team sends a unit forward to kill something in a normally suicidal attack, but Mobi recalls the unit afterwards, see Calmon!'s replays) allow the Adorables team to carry on their business as usual. This gives Mobi the additional utility of being a recon unit. It sounds nifty, but as Adam and Alex make it sound, Adorables isn't getting much representation right now.
As for the whole element of uncertainty, I think I'm for it. Several players say that they can often guess, with extreme accuracy, what their opponents are doing at any given time, so adding more numbers to crunch sounds to complicate things will hopefully make games more interesting.
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Ravernoth - 10-26-2012 08:55 AM
(10-26-2012 03:45 AM)oneadamleft Wrote: Just to clarify: this is not a profit thing. Alex and I think it makes the game more strategically interesting, and from our analytics, it changes next to nothing balance wise. A forum poll split 50/50 with 4 votes is not a majority of our beta testers.
Are you referring to the analytics between the special units? They did show that bombshells are overpowered now. How do the analytics show that the rest of game balance does not change? Surely it changes the entire balance of combat and unit interaction.
Unpredictability is interesting, but it also lowers the skill factor.
How about other ways to make the game more strategically interesting without sacrificing skill, such as adding units/teams/terrain variables/game modes etc.
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Admiral 77 - 10-26-2012 09:19 AM
(10-26-2012 04:45 AM)Promicide Wrote: I do believe a lot of naysayers are embittered and opposed to the change because it will force them to re-assess their strategy..
Why would we want to have to relearn/rebuild our strategies that we have been developing for months for a game that is already considered to have nearly perfect game mechanics by a majority of this forum?? Someone else said " why fix what isn't broken?"; I completely agree.
I fear that many players will not want to reinvest the necessary time to learn the new strategies. I am not sure that I will...
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Emuchu - 10-26-2012 09:24 AM
(10-26-2012 08:55 AM)Ravernoth Wrote: Unpredictability is interesting, but it also lowers the skill factor.
How about other ways to make the game more strategically interesting without sacrificing skill, such as adding units/teams/terrain variables/game modes etc.
I don't think adding variables implicitly reduces the skill involved in gameplay. It'll increase the amount of calculation required to launch an attack, and players will be more able to launch attacks more often, but it's not like these values will be hidden or randomized, and I believe they'll be accountable like anything else in this game. It's just adding options to a strategy game, to me, and I wouldn't classify it as unpredictable.
Which leads me to ask, under what grounds do you think the +Wit/Kill change will reduce the skill needed to play this game at high levels?
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Bad Herr Day - 10-26-2012 09:34 AM
I couldn't agree more with the main argument of this thread. Ive lost interest in playing my beta games because of the wit for kill change.
The extra wit for killing a unit cheapens wits and the game and makes it a lot harder to calculate the outcome. The game was already hard enough and there was no need to make it harder and more random.
Wits should mean a lot. Attacking should cost wits. Full stop.
I will consider playing a different game if free wit for a kill goes live.
Don't break a beautiful game.
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - Emuchu - 10-26-2012 09:35 AM
(10-26-2012 09:19 AM)Admiral 77 Wrote: I fear that many players will not want to reinvest the necessary time to learn the new strategies. I am not sure that I will...
Tell me about it... I'm a long-time fighting game enthusiast, and if there's one thing that I can count on in this genre, it's the constantly-impending release of Ultimate Fighting Franchise 4: Tournament Edition v.2013: (Slightly Different Edition), and a constant need to hit a forum somewhere to learn some crazy new game-breaking mechanic that's come out, and everything they've broken about my characters.
But that's what you get in the modern age of constant tweaks and metagames. Our games are going to evolve around us, whether we're willing to change with it or not.
RE: Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters - KMan 29 - 10-26-2012 09:37 AM
I am feeling like the wit for kill dynamic has to benefit the bramble the most of the specials. It is the only unit that has unlimited wit-usage potential(from what I understand) Think about getting 3-4 extra wits to protect the force that just attacked with a layer of bramble. No other team could get such instant gratification from extra wits. Its not as if any other team can move a piece again or spawn anything extra (if spawn was already used).