Airing of Grievances

[Panga Panga]

I posted this previously on the wrong forum and received no feedback. Tell me how I'm wrong or how I'm right, or what changes you'd like to see be made.

I love this game, I know I love it because I'm so passionate about it and I'm not usually passionate about games. So here's what bothers me about it.

Fundamental game changes in the midst of ongoing games
Outwitters is a game of rank and tiers, these are meaningful to the game. When you change the rules of the game, in the middle of the game, you cheapen the game. It's like playing the made up card game with your five year old little sister, it has no rules, so it no longer matter who wins.

You should let games already started run their course, and only implement the rule changes on newly started games. I'm not sure how hard this would be to implement, or if it's even possible, but it would be nice.

Mismatchmaking
I was just paired with a person in a 2v2 match that is 138 ranks below me and 118 ranks below our adversaries. This is unacceptable. My partner was completely inadequate at our level and his actions - repeatedly making Brambles and rushing with them (the bramble unit itself, he didn't even deploy it!); and inactions - complete failure to guard against incoming troops, not capturing his bonus hexes - made for a quick loss.

Why can't there be a limit as to the difference between players in matchmaking? For example: all players must be within 25 ranks and 1 tier of each other. This way the matches would be more even, fun, and rewarding.

Brambles
These matches are terribly tedious. You either have to rush as soon as one is developed, or fall into the excruciatingly long tit-for-tat gameplay. It's boring!

---

With the impending patch this may or may not be remedied. In fact, I think they have probably nerfed the Brambles much too severely, rendering them ineffective. Time will tell. A better fix, in my opinion, would have been to keep the Brambles and their vines as they were, but instead allow a wit per vine destroyed. So if you killed a parent vine with 2 children, you would receive 3 wits.

ONE MORE THING
In 2v2 gameplay I'm tired of winning/losing matches because one of the players stops playing and 4 days later I win/lose. It's completely hollow to the victors, but more importantly it punishes the partner for something completely out of their control. So why not make it to where the winning duo gets their points per usual, the losing active opponent neither gains or loses points, and the inactive person loses double points.

[CombatEX]

1. I agree wholeheartedly with the fundamental gameplay changes midgame. However, I imagine this is probably difficult to resolve.

2. As for mismatching I suspect you won't get penalized as much for that loss. That's how it works in 1v1 so it's probably the same in 2v2.

3. I enjoy bramble matches in concept (though the balance is currently off) so I don't think this is a fundamental problem.

4. Your suggestion for 2v2 randoms is interesting and would encourage me to play them (though at the end of the day I would rather just stick to arranged). Still, it's worth considering for people who do play 2v2 randoms. Alternatively I would suggest the following as it would deal with surrendering too:

If your ally surrenders, you can choose to continue playing and would assume control of your ally's turns (this is how it works in Starcraft 2). Timing out and surrendering would be treated the same. If your ally times out you can choose to continue playing and take over your ally's turns.

[Panga Panga]

2. The fact that I get penalized at all is what bothers me. It'd be like pairing up Obi Wan with Jar Jar to take on Darth Maul and Darth Vader, and other such nerdy comparisons.

I love - no, that isn't strong enough - I am in love with your idea about having the ally taking over for the timed out player. Brilliant.

[CombatEX]

Haha, that analogy... Well, I do agree that Jar Jar shouldn't be in a match with Obi Wan, Darth Maul, and Darth Vader. I suspect that part of the problem is that in 1v1 there is a much larger pool of players so a gap of 100 won't be as large as it is in 2v2. I imagine if you took rank 22 and 160 in 1v1 and had them play against rank 44 and 45 in 1v1 the match-up wouldn't be so terrible. Sure the rank 22, 44, and 45 players are better than the rank 160 player, but the rank 160 player would be competent. In 2v2 random I guess that the skill drops off much more quickly so a matching leniency that is adequate in 1v1 doesn't cut it in 2v2 (judging from your experience). If my suspicions are correct then this means that given time things should improve. But perhaps something needs to be done sooner.

[ElPared]

I definitely +1 your second point about game rules changing mid game. I lost a game to Ser Purple Wolf (granted I probably would have lost anyways) where I had a lot of 1 HP snipers and then suddenly his thorns could attack them and I lost horribly once he just thorn killed all my carefully positioned snipers.

I think before the buff I might have had a chance, but after it I got utterly destroyed.

point is you're right. Old games should play by the old rules after an update. (though it will be funny to see the many games I have going against Veggienauts players right now after Bramble 3.1 is live haha)

[GreatGonzales]

I also worry about all those bramble players who will suddenly have their thorns nerfed mid-game. But, I think it's probably very difficult for alex to resolve this...I guess he'd have to run all ongoing games on one server, while he brings the new rules to another server... I think he probably can't do it due to technical limitations.

[Bulby37]

Yea, it's sad when you get Nerfed or your opponent gets buffed in the middle of a game. If there is not an easy fix to be had, that may just be the price of progress. As to the 2v2 issues, his hidden ranking may have been closer to yours than the ranks let on? There is a fine line between waiting 9 days to fill out a match because rankings exclude all available players and starting a game pretty quickly with a noob or boob. As far as your partner quitting, it would give a semi-unfair advantage to the person controlling 2 teams because of the fact that your opponents would have to coordinate amongst one another, which happens less in randoms, while you could effectively plan out 2 of 4 turns worth of wits and perform as though you were a hivemind paired team. The one man gang would have a comparative level of coordination to the Mr.Banger/alexjiangs and krogoth/gurleyman's. Maybe allow people looking for practice to drop in without a ratings penalty?
Maybe there would be a clan of folks who just ran as Replacements.

[CombatEX]

(03-20-2013 01:38 PM)Bulby37 Wrote:  The one man gang would have a comparative level of coordination to the Mr.Banger/alexjiangs and krogoth/gurleyman's.

2v2 random teams already face off against arranged teams anyway so I don't see a problem with this. As long as arranged teams face off against randoms I see no problem with letting one player play for both teams if his/her random partner leaves. This can already happen with a person playing an arranged team with a main and alternate account against a random team. If you think that this shouldn't be allowed because that one person playing two accounts has an unfair advantage, then I could argue that Mr.Banger and alexjiang shouldn't be allowed to play as a team either for the same reason (easier to coordinate since they are brothers and can coordinate in person). But banning such team arrangements seems rather ridiculous so I think at the end of the day we shouldn't try to prevent players from controlling both teams. The only thing I might suggest would be separating randoms and arranged so that they cannot encounter each other in 2v2. I don't know if the 2v2 player base is large enough to accommodate 2v2 randoms though if separated. Perhaps it is but I wouldn't know as I only play arranged.

[ElPared]

well, wouldn't the current Veggies players just have all their 3HP thorns stay the same and all new ones have 2 HP? the old thorns would just all be "buffed" basically

[Gf!sh]

(03-20-2013 04:24 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  2v2 random teams already face off against arranged teams anyway so I don't see a problem with this. As long as arranged teams face off against randoms I see no problem with letting one player play for both teams if his/her random partner leaves.

Now here's another problem. If I get paired with a random partner, and against an arranged team... instant handicap right there.