Economy, Supply Cap, Turtling, and Predictabiliy

[.Memories.]

Gfish saves the day.

[Alvendor]

That said, I really like the idea of different values of wit spaces to increase to number of attack paths on the maps. Maybe a compromise between that and simplicity is to not make them upgradable but have different kinds. Wit spaces in the back of the map that are not usually attacked would give 2 or 3 wits making them high priority targets.

[GendryStorm]

(11-20-2013 04:39 PM)didgeralien Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 09:49 PM)brayton Wrote:  Also, does there need to be only 1 currancy in outwitters? Why not have a secondary, less substancial currancy(such as 'kills')? Outwitters obviously doesnt need research but...
unit upgrades bought with 'kills'?

For 3 Kills you can upgrade that soldier to do one extra damage or move one further. 12 Kills for Bombshell upgrade? (Assuming BS is still around) I like the idea of the 'Kills' required to buy an upgrade is "Unit cost x 1.4(Sqr Root of 2)".

---

Who says we cant have any new units?
Ranged unit that deals 2 damage 2 Hexs away, with 2 health and 2 HP? Yes please!

A 2nd currency is a great idea. I envision an account of KILS which is an accumulation of the 1 wit receved from a kill that can be used to perform an action from a 2nd category. This would/wouldn't be optional. If so, a bubble [Bank YES/NO].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Possible uses:
Heal base - a large cost vs small gain. (ex: 10 KILS = 1 BASE or simply 10% gain) + cap on # of hps/turn. At no point could base be greater than 5.
Split base - 2 bases each able to be assigned hps totalling 5, and placed on special new hexes. "FORTS"
Extra actions a la' brayton:
Increase in damage
Increase in reach
Suicide bomber: send scout into FoW get a look & die. Prevents KILS point collection by adjacent enemy. Only available to runners.
Dig a pit
Plant a tree
Build a wall
Move-do-over (reset unit to original position, and then only action is move) A kind of alt version of mobi teleport. Just a very general thought, poorly written.

I'm sure there are other less insane ideas, but a guy can dream...

Interesting ideas, though i'd rather have a new builder/digger unit than another currency other than wits. The builder/digger unit can make new avenues for attack or defense, thus reducing gameplay predictability. Wouldn't it be nice if we're able to dig a pit on the top hex of SFI, or bridge the gap on glitch or thorn gulley?

[CleverLeague]

How about we work on decreasing mobi use. That team has the edge in any game and you all know it. Turtling can't guard your entire base just select clinch points ...

[Flarp55]

yeah, it could be a universal "super unit" that costs 14 wits.

[jchris98]

(12-14-2013 10:45 PM)CleverLeague Wrote:  How about we work on decreasing mobi use. That team has the edge in any game and you all know it. Turtling can't guard your entire base just select clinch points ...

I've noticed you complain about mobis a lot (from a few other posts). But the truth is, the three most used races are relatively balanced. While most top players use Adorables, there are several who use scally or feedback. Just because you have not found a way to counter mobi use, doesn't mean that they are the best.

[ElPared]

If we're talking about Outwitters 2, it could be as simple as adding a unit that has a Chain Lightning attack to each team. Call it a Sapper or something.

Basically it could be a Soldier for 4 wits, attacks for 2 and hits units next to its target for the max amount of damage it dealt (so if it kills a runner at 1 HP it only deals 1 damage to adjacent units). The attack continues hitting adjacent units until there are none left, or maybe to a capped number of units. Either way, it would discourage players from having big walls of soldiers as two of these guys could decimate an entire turtle by themselves.

Another way could be to allow Snipers and Bombshells to fire at spaces behind units, even ones in the Fog of War. If you know what's behind a unit and have a ranged unit you can shoot it, turtle broken. To avoid OP-ness the blind firing could have a damage penalty. For snipers they attack for 2 instead and for BS it attacks for 3 with no splash, or something

[CombatEX]

(11-21-2013 05:47 AM)game_taker Wrote:  So far some of the other ideas given by CombatEX and brayton would add complexity into the game rules which would ruin the brilliant simplicity that Outwitters currently has.

As you may be aware, I agree with your basic premise but I'm afraid that based on OML's statements the only direction for Outwitters 2 is a game with added complexity. Perhaps I misunderstood, but Adam said that they would probably only do a sequel if they have a compelling enough way to mix up the formula. Personally this isn't what I want from the sequel if it means what I think it means. I want Outwitters 2 to basically be Outwitters 1 but with extra features, not changed core gameplay.

However, I still do think that my suggestions can be done in a way that doesn't add much complexity. Alvendor put it well.

(11-21-2013 06:33 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  I really like the idea of different values of wit spaces to increase to number of attack paths on the maps. Maybe a compromise between that and simplicity is to not make them upgradable but have different kinds. Wit spaces in the back of the map that are not usually attacked would give 2 or 3 wits making them high priority targets.

As I say in my original post, I feel Outwitters would benefit greatly from an increase in the number of viable attack paths. I'm not sure that the compromise Alvendor proposes - simply making 'safe' witspaces worth more would be enough to encourage attacking them, but it's possible this could work and it would be less complicated. If this really is enough, then I'd gladly take this over my original suggestion. The only reason for the tiered witspace approach is because I'm not sure that a simple flat increase is enough. Hopefully we'll be able to try this though =)

As for the supply cap change, I honestly think this is just an obvious move to decrease turtling and ever so marginally increases complexity. It's still very intuitive and fits within the simple nature of Outwitters. That is - units take up supply equal to their wit cost and you have a maximum supply that you can support on the board at any given time. When Outwitters first came out there were proposals to limit the number of specials to a hard cap. I was opposed to this as it's a seemingly arbitrary restriction and also counter to the simple nature of the game (only one unit has a limit while the rest don't?). However, though I disagreed with the solution, the reason for this proposal was understandable. It's not as exciting playing a turtle game in general and especially against Scallywags who build a ton of bombshells. The supply cap would still give you flexibility to choose what composition of units you think is important, but also make too many bombshells undesirable as it limits your ability to make other units to support them.

Just imagine SvS on Peakaboo if it were only viable to get out a couple bombshells. I think most of us who have been in 100/200+ turn games would welcome this change.

The rest of this I've already said before so but if you missed it, beyond fixing Scallywag related problems, the limit on unit production from a supply cap would also have the potential to create more action in general. When you hit the supply cap, you can't spend wits on making more units so instead you have more wits to spend on movement and attacking. This encourages more mobilization of your units and trades instead of just sitting around. Combine this with additional targets created by a change to witspaces (increased value for safer wit spaces) and you have more reasons to move around the map along different routes.

[boyxoneder]

I like the supply cap idea. I dislike the economy wit space thing. I have no argument against I just don't like it. Supply cap is great and teams with more variation are great. More area of effect damage and damage over time units and variety of units per team. I know it is harder to balance but would be great. And as I posted somewhere else a game mode that can be play atomically would make outwitters 2 legendary. Who else agrees with more units that do area of effect attacks and possibly damage over time attacks to help limit the camping I like the discussions on there posts though

[Flarp55]

(12-16-2013 07:18 AM)ElPared Wrote:  If we're talking about Outwitters 2, it could be as simple as adding a unit that has a Chain Lightning attack to each team. Call it a Sapper or something.

Basically it could be a Soldier for 4 wits, attacks for 2 and hits units next to its target for the max amount of damage it dealt (so if it kills a runner at 1 HP it only deals 1 damage to adjacent units). The attack continues hitting adjacent units until there are none left, or maybe to a capped number of units. Either way, it would discourage players from having big walls of soldiers as two of these guys could decimate an entire turtle by themselves.

Another way could be to allow Snipers and Bombshells to fire at spaces behind units, even ones in the Fog of War. If you know what's behind a unit and have a ranged unit you can shoot it, turtle broken. To avoid OP-ness the blind firing could have a damage penalty. For snipers they attack for 2 instead and for BS it attacks for 3 with no splash, or something

What if there are two units next to the unit you attack with chain lightning? Does it hit both or randomly pick? On one hand hitting both would be OP but on the other, randomness kind of destroys Outwitters.

BS is good enough and it doesn't need a buff... but I think it could be implemented for snipers.