+1 Wits: Why is it a mistake?

[CombatEX]

First off, I'm not going to judge the success or potential for success/failure that +1 wits brings. It is far too early to judge either way and it is possible that ultimately, given enough time, we would discover that +1 wits is beneficial. That being said, I feel it is an unnecessary risk. It alters and complicates the core mechanics of a game which is focused on merging strategic depth with simplicity. However, this alone is not enough for concern. So then, what is the real problem?

Overview
- Current +1 Wit Solution Lengthy testing period and unknown yield
- Proposed Alternate Solution Map balancing and guaranteed long-term success
- Why Choose Map Balancing over +1 Wits? Further advantages of map balancing over fundamental game changes

Current +1 Wit Solution

Trying to implement a new mechanic which is a huge overhaul to the game is risky and we will only know if it is truly beneficial after many months have passed. Any data collected in a short period of time will not be accurate. For example, let us presume that games remain the same length on average after 2 months have passed. What does this reveal? Not much. Why? Because there are numerous possible explanations. It could be because this change does not prevent turtling. However, it is also possible that this change does help prevent turtling but players are simply more conservative due to being less familiar with the new mechanics and hence the game lengths are increased as a result. Those are two opposite conclusions that share the same data. Let us consider another possibility. Now consider the scenario where games become shorter after 3 months. Again, what does this reveal after such a short period? Once again, not much. Games may be shorter because the change does indeed help to fix turtling. However, once again there are alternate explanations. For example, perhaps players learn how to adjust to the new mechanic more quickly on the offensive, but take longer to determine the proper defensive responses. Once again there are conflicting conclusions one can reach given the same data. The point is that there are so many variables involved that one cannot simply take data in a short period like 1 or 2 months and pass an accurate judgement. Among other issues, players need time to reach the same level of comfort and skill that they were at before the change before accurate comparisons between pre-update and post-update data can be made and this will take time.

Proposed Alternate Solution
Balance maps instead of altering fundamental game mechanics as is done with +1 wits.

We know that proper map balancing will ultimately have a positive result as we have already seen that some maps are more balanced than others and some cater less to turtling. For example, Peekaboo is a bad map in the sense that it encourages turtling and there are maps that are widely agreed to be significantly better like Sweetie Plains. Besides turtling there is also the issue of how some specials are stronger on certain maps. In particular, bombshells seem to have an edge on smaller maps, but generally not as much on larger ones (well, again, map design is critical as a bombshell on Foundry - a large map - can still be quite strong due to map layout). Foundry is another interesting case. It is likely the map which sees the fewest special use due to the fast tempo of the games. This further goes to show the drastic impact on the way an Outwitters match plays out based on the map. We can see that map balancing is a guaranteed method for working towards both more balanced games between specials AND decreasing turtling given the proper attention.

Why Choose Map Balancing over +1 Wits?

Now, you could say that map balancing is no better than +1 wits. In both cases it will take time to accurately assess the change. The difference? Two main points:

1. Map balancing is GUARANTEED to ultimately be beneficial. In fact, even if we decide to continue testing +1 wits and it turns out to be helpful, map balancing is still something which would improve the game further. The success of +1 wits on the other hand is purely speculation. It is a huge risk whereas map changes are not.

2. The influence of +1 wits extends across the entire game. No match is untouched by this change. Every single game played until a verdict is reached will be affected by this new mechanic. In the case of map balancing, only a fraction of games are influenced by a new map or a change to an existing map at any given point in time. What does this mean? Even if a map change or a new map proves to be a poor one, it hasn't been negatively impacting the entire experience of Outwitters players and can be altered or removed relatively easily (less backlash). However, if you want to remove +1 wits after it has affected every game over the course of the 2/3/4 month+ assessment period, what kind of message does that send? To go back to the original system after players have had to endure this mechanic for such a protracted period appears indecisive. Further more, players will have been subjected to a worse experience during this time. Again, little changes like individual map balancing is far less risky and will incur much less backlash if a particular map has a negative result. This is due to the modular nature of maps allowing changes to be made to 1 or 2 at a time. This ability is not present in a fundamental overhaul like +1 wits per kill which permeates the entire game.