Messages In This Thread

timcoffman · (This post was last modified: 07-06-2012 01:03 AM by timcoffman.)

(07-06-2012 12:52 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting would just make a confusing interface.

I understand there's a fine line between protected a user from themselves and avoiding pointless frustration.

(07-06-2012 12:52 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: Everything needs to be consistent. If some actions are undoable but not others it will create frustration for players.

The designers clearly felt like moving to a new hex should require a confirmation. They also recognized that many users would find that particular set on training wheels onerous. I think they need to further explore this concept- in my opinion it will make the difference between an OK game and a wildly successful one.

(07-06-2012 12:52 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: It sounds to me like you tapped the bombshell because you didn't know what it does. I did the same thing. Now I know not to tap it unless I want it to shell up.

I can't believe you're blaming the user for doing it wrong. Are we still having this conversation in 2012?

(07-06-2012 12:57 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:
(07-06-2012 12:53 AM)timcoffman Wrote:
(07-06-2012 12:48 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote: I can agree to your point of view, I am just of the opinion that implementing 'Confirm?' dialogs to every non-undoable action would get on your nerves soon, because moving a unit may sometimes bring up the dialog (if it changes the fog of war) and sometimes it doesn't. All in all, I think this would complicate a hitherto simplistic UI and game.

(07-06-2012 12:37 AM)timcoffman Wrote: 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!
As it stands right now, every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome. Allowing you to take your chances by firing blindly with a Bombshell close to the fog of war would break this because now your actions may yield results or they may not. One solution I proposed was giving the Bombshell a view of 4 spaces, but keep his shooting range at 3.
I dispute the assertion that "every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome". Every move that changes the boundary of the fog of war has an unclear, unknowable outcome. That's my point.

Yes and no - yes, you don't know what is hidden in the fog of war; but no, you clearly know beforehand what parts of the map will become visible to you when you move your unit.

I will suggest that knowing "beforehand what parts of the map will become visible to you when you move your unit" is an acquired skill. I expect that for my first couple of dozen games, I will not be able to visualize that ahead of time. I will simply move my piece, then wonder why I can't see a particular hex that I guessed would be within my field of view. This would be solved by showing my the new boundary of the fog of war and asking me to confirm it before continuing with new actions. It would give me the opportunity to move differently if I realized I would be getting results different than I predicted. Why should I be required to accurately predict game mechanics when I have a helpful computer running my game which can assist me, within the limits of the rules?