The future of Outwitters

[Flarp55]

(07-28-2014 10:26 PM)Qwerty Wrote:  I think that the game could make another mode, 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1

The idea is that A tries to put B's base to 0, B tries to defeat C, and C tries to defeat A. Makes for interesting strategy.

[Chemoeum]

(07-29-2014 03:04 PM)Flarp55 Wrote:  

(07-28-2014 10:26 PM)Qwerty Wrote:  I think that the game could make another mode, 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1

The idea is that A tries to put B's base to 0, B tries to defeat C, and C tries to defeat A. Makes for interesting strategy.

Don't you mean C defeat D and D defeat A? There are four players.

[.Memories.]

But, wouldn't 1v1v1 be cool, too? I vote yes.

[TheGreatErenan]

Yeah, as far as FFA goes, three players would be good because the hex layout is well suited for multiples of three. Plus, you wouldn't have to wait for three whole players to take their turns before you get to move again, and ganging up would only constitute a 2v1 affair instead of a harrowing 3v1 onslaught. Still, I suppose the whole ganging up on one player thing would nevertheless be a real problem.

[LegacyofEight]

I had idea for 1v1v1v1!

Played on Blitz Beach

Yellow and Blue are "sabotage" players. Their goal is to stop red and green from accomplishing their goal. Red and Green are "rushers". They have to destroy the base of the player across from them. Whoever accomplishes their goal wins.

The rushers play normally, rushing the base across from them. Sabotage players try to hinder them by spawn squats, etc. Rushers have some ways of blocking sabotages, though and they are........TBD!!!!!!!! We can discuss this later but is the idea good?

[awpertunity]

(07-30-2014 03:30 PM)LegacyofEight Wrote:  I had idea for 1v1v1v1!

Played on Blitz Beach

Yellow and Blue are "sabotage" players. Their goal is to stop red and green from accomplishing their goal. Red and Green are "rushers". They have to destroy the base of the player across from them. Whoever accomplishes their goal wins.

The rushers play normally, rushing the base across from them. Sabotage players try to hinder them by spawn squats, etc. Rushers have some ways of blocking sabotages, though and they are........TBD!!!!!!!! We can discuss this later but is the idea good?

lol I had a similar idea a while ago and just thought it was too complicated. my version was played as 2v2 but you're on the opposite team of your partner so you're going for the same goal together. spawn squatting wasn't going to be allowed though.

---

(07-30-2014 02:14 PM).Memories. Wrote:  But, wouldn't 1v1v1 be cool, too? I vote yes.

Free for alls in strategy games are silly. The turtling player will always win the the early aggressor and early defender is always screwed... I hated this mode in Starcraft for exactly this reason. You don't benefit from ever attacking, but can only lose units and resources for doing so.

---

Forgive the grammar just on my phone

[Syvan]

(07-30-2014 06:01 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 02:14 PM).Memories. Wrote:  But, wouldn't 1v1v1 be cool, too? I vote yes.

Free for alls in strategy games are silly. The turtling player will always win the the early aggressor and early defender is always screwed... I hated this mode in Starcraft for exactly this reason. You don't benefit from ever attacking, but can only lose units and resources for doing so.

---

Forgive the grammar just on my phone

I played Galcon a long time ago, which was a simple little iOS RTS that had 4 player FFA by default. The games between 2 players are typically resolved in under a minute, but with a 3rd player they would constantly end up in staring contest stalemates only broken by the first person to get bored. Since a game of outwitters can already take weeks to resolve, we could easily be looking at thousand turn games that would probably last longer than OML wants to pay for servers.

[awpertunity]

Yeah I used to love mushroom wars. But the league rankings are based on random 1v1, 3 person, or 4 person FFA games all combined together which is just so stupid. Like you can't veto maps or choose your preference, if you queue up to play you might play a 1v1 or a 3/4 player FFA. The 1v1s are so much fun. The FFAs are just dumb luck and so stupidly frustrating I just stopped playing altogether.

[onealexleft]

(07-31-2014 12:38 AM)Syvan Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 06:01 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  

(07-30-2014 02:14 PM).Memories. Wrote:  But, wouldn't 1v1v1 be cool, too? I vote yes.

Free for alls in strategy games are silly. The turtling player will always win the the early aggressor and early defender is always screwed... I hated this mode in Starcraft for exactly this reason. You don't benefit from ever attacking, but can only lose units and resources for doing so.

---

Forgive the grammar just on my phone

I played Galcon a long time ago, which was a simple little iOS RTS that had 4 player FFA by default. The games between 2 players are typically resolved in under a minute, but with a 3rd player they would constantly end up in staring contest stalemates only broken by the first person to get bored. Since a game of outwitters can already take weeks to resolve, we could easily be looking at thousand turn games that would probably last longer than OML wants to pay for servers.

Had a chance to try out the upcoming Galcon 2, and I can say from the brief time I played in it's online beta, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

[Poc 13]

What I think would be very interesting since we are all giving our input anyway, what if we make threads with polls, each containin different aspects if the game and our ideas such as: special ideas, new team names, game modes improving this outwitters(obviously the way to go) or outwitters 2, and maybe we could even vote for the best OMC maps to be implemented...

Other ideas i loveeee: being able to play created maps against others(at least in friendlies), Sharing on social media...if that's possible then it's obviously an easy way to advertise, and I would like to see an AI feature... Also A&A i hope you both just sit back and watch this thread grow as ideas come to you