Why are these not being used?

[Judment]

It is my opinion that these three maps would make a brilliant inclusion for the so called speed mode which is currently circulating. They are smaller so this means that there is less time and rom to turtle and the proposed +3 wits renders the fairly obvious FTA invalid. They look like they would be perfect for the job!

[alexjiang1]

Those are some nice maps
http://www.onemanleft.com/wp-content/upl...ack-v5.png
http://www.onemanleft.com/wp-content/upl...wag_v3.png
http://www.onemanleft.com/wp-content/upl...les-v3.png
For those of you who can't see them.

[terenceshiu2005]

Nice pictures! Thank you for sharing!

[CombatEX]

Well the Feedback map I'm pretty sure is just an early iteration of Glitch. Likely the Adorables and Scallywags map were also early concepts which were later scrapped in favor of the current maps. You can tell these are old ideas because they use the 1 neutral wit space idea which Alex and Adam have since said wasn't viable (it increases FTA).

[oneadamleft]

Like Combat says, they were early concepts. They weren't even really maps, just placeholders while I was figuring the background designs out. In our testing experience, more choke points like that actually make it easier to turtle (fewer openings to plug).

[poweewee]

I like the idea though of having a wit spot (possibly two of them) that are up for grabs between the two teams. These wit spots shouldn't be accessible through one runner spawn and move.

This might require a larger map though.

[CombatEX]

I agree it would be interesting if neutral wit spaces could be successfully implemented, but here is the basic problem with trying to get them to work without exacerbating FTA:

(09-26-2012 05:26 AM)CombatEX Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 05:18 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  

(09-26-2012 05:16 AM)Necrocat219 Wrote:  A map that has a few wit spaces you have to fight over a middle or a few middle wit spaces would be awesome and tense.

that would be cool but i think this will create another FTA issue

Yea, then we would be seeing situations like this. Here the 'wit spaces' (cities) are in the center rather than for a specific player. You can see that FTA in the case of neutral central wit spaces would be a big advantage for the first player. The 3 wits for P1 or 8 wits for P2 fixes wouldn't address P1's ability to move first and capture neutral spaces as in this Advance Wars example.

The fix specified in the case of Advance Wars also isn't applicable to Outwitters for a couple reasons.

1. There are already predeployed units in Outwitters, so giving P2 another predeployed unit doesn't help in the same way. Potentially you could make it so that P2 has a predeployed unit in range of a neutral wit space while P1 doesn't have any in range on the first turn, but this is beginning to become convoluted. There is another problem with this addressed below.
2. There is no fog of war in (this version of) Advance Wars. Giving P2 an extra unit in Outwitters to capture a neutral wit space earlier would also have the unintended side effect of giving P2 more map vision.

[Flarp55]

Just looking at old threads, when was scrambler able to have 3hp?

[.Memories.]

(03-28-2014 10:58 AM)Bbobb555 Wrote:  Just looking at old threads, when was scrambler able to have 3hp?

(11-11-2012 03:05 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  Like Combat says, they were early concepts. They weren't even really maps, just placeholders while I was figuring the background designs out. In our testing experience, more choke points like that actually make it easier to turtle (fewer openings to plug).

They were in the concept phase.

[Harti]

It used to have 2 in beta, too. We felt this was a tad bit too strong