Gameplay Logistical Improvements

[timcoffman]

(07-06-2012 12:23 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:18 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  I would urge the designers to reconsider such a drastic decision, since it makes the difference between an enjoyable game that forgives my mistakes and a frustrating game that I will discard after a couple matches.

Seriously, there is not a contradiction between making a game fun and making it challenging- the lack of an undo capability makes the game less fun without increasing the challenge.

The user interface for every successful operating system on the market today has had UNDO capability for _decades_. Even this iPhone has UNDO.

While true, we are not talking about an operating system here, but a game where decisions should have meaning and consequences. The fog of war mechanic denies any undo related to troop movement, because then you could just scout out your enemy, undo all actions and respond to your enemies positioning which you now know ultimately eliminating the fog of war as a relevant mechanic.
Part of the challenge of Outwitters is dealing with surprises and using the fog of war to your advantage by sneaking a unit past your enemy without him/her noticing.

I agree with you, with some clarification: that meaningful and consequential decisions should have meaning and consequences.

The fog of war is exactly what makes this a potentially fun and interesting game; I would not suggest reducing its role at all. Would I DID suggest is that the fog of war defines the difference between a consequential action and an inconsequential one. For example:

• spawning a new unit next to my base: inconsequential, because I have not penetrated the fog of war. I should be able to undo this, in case I mis-tapped
• moving a scout close to my enemy's base: consequential, because I have not penetrated the fog of war. I should have to confirm this, because I can't undo it if I mis-tapped.
  

---

(07-06-2012 12:36 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:29 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

This came up during beta and was discussed at length - the truth is: you cannot incorporate the Bombshell mechanic with the other rules without breaking some implicit assumption - apparently, this approach was deemed the most acceptable by the devs.

I would suggest that this can quite simply be solved by (1) only showing the potential damage indicator on visible opponents and (2) permitting bombing ANY hex, not just hexes containing opponents.

Allowing any hex to be bombed would enable absolutely pointless actions which are currently not possible. Un-shelling and re-shelling a Bombshell on the spot is a user error to me, which might be addressed by implementing a delay before a second tap is registered or even allowing the re-shell to be free.

Why should pointless actions be not possible? Is it any more or less of a "user error" than Un-shelling and re-shelling?

I would suggest that bombing near the edge of the fog of war is decidedly a non-pointless action WHEN you don't know what will happen in the fog. If you suspect an opponent is in the fog it totally makes sense to bomb next to him. But you could be wrong!