Alex & Adam - Getting +1 Wit for Kills: Why it's a really poor change to Outwitters

[worldfamous]

(10-26-2012 09:24 AM)Emuchu Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 08:55 AM)Ravernoth Wrote:  Unpredictability is interesting, but it also lowers the skill factor.

How about other ways to make the game more strategically interesting without sacrificing skill, such as adding units/teams/terrain variables/game modes etc.

I don't think adding variables implicitly reduces the skill involved in gameplay. It'll increase the amount of calculation required to launch an attack, and players will be more able to launch attacks more often, but it's not like these values will be hidden or randomized, and I believe they'll be accountable like anything else in this game. It's just adding options to a strategy game, to me, and I wouldn't classify it as unpredictable.

Which leads me to ask, under what grounds do you think the +Wit/Kill change will reduce the skill needed to play this game at high levels?

More likely would be that it widens the gap between highly skilled players and less skilled players.

[TheQwertiest]

(10-26-2012 09:45 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  More likely would be that it widens the gap between highly skilled players and less skilled players.

isnt this better?

[worldfamous]

(10-26-2012 09:35 AM)Emuchu Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 09:19 AM)Admiral 77 Wrote:  I fear that many players will not want to reinvest the necessary time to learn the new strategies. I am not sure that I will...

Tell me about it... I'm a long-time fighting game enthusiast, and if there's one thing that I can count on in this genre, it's the constantly-impending release of Ultimate Fighting Franchise 4: Tournament Edition v.2013: (Slightly Different Edition), and a constant need to hit a forum somewhere to learn some crazy new game-breaking mechanic that's come out, and everything they've broken about my characters.

But that's what you get in the modern age of constant tweaks and metagames. Our games are going to evolve around us, whether we're willing to change with it or not.

This is one area where I totally disagree with you guys. I may not like that they're making this change, but there's no way I'm gonna stop playing just because I have to rework my strategies. This will still be the best game in the App Store, with nothing even taking a close second.

---

(10-26-2012 09:47 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 09:45 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  More likely would be that it widens the gap between highly skilled players and less skilled players.

isnt this better?

Not if you don't want to wait 3 days to be matched up with someone of equal skill. I think parity is always better as long as it's not manufactured parity. I'm not really worried about that anyway. Just taking a guess.

[Admiral 77]

(10-26-2012 09:52 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  This is one area where I totally disagree with you guys. I may not like that they're making this change, but there's no way I'm gonna stop playing just because I have to rework my strategies. This will still be the best game in the App Store, with nothing even taking a close second.

You know. I hope that I'm wrong... I agree with you that this I the best game in the App Store. But, if the game starts to become random or unpredictable or creates an environment that rewards turtling, it will lose much of its appeal for me.

[Emuchu]

(10-26-2012 09:52 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  This is one area where I totally disagree with you guys. I may not like that they're making this change, but there's no way I'm gonna stop playing just because I have to rework my strategies. This will still be the best game in the App Store, with nothing even taking a close second.

I wasn't saying that I didn't like the change, I was just sympathizing a bit with the guys who don't like change, as a person who plays a bunch of metagame-based games.

[worldfamous]

(10-26-2012 10:19 AM)Emuchu Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 09:52 AM)worldfamous Wrote:  This is one area where I totally disagree with you guys. I may not like that they're making this change, but there's no way I'm gonna stop playing just because I have to rework my strategies. This will still be the best game in the App Store, with nothing even taking a close second.

I wasn't saying that I didn't like the change, I was just sympathizing a bit with the guys who don't like change, as a person who plays a bunch of metagame-based games.

Yeah, I got that. I actually meant to quote the quote that you were quoting, but instead I quoted your quote and his quote in my quote.

[garcia1000]

Hey guys!!

After this discussion, I don't think I am qualified to give an opinion either way, as I am not a beta tester.

[RandyDogz]

I feel there is a big difference between unpredictable and random, both being thrown around here alot. Random has no part in a game like this, and the wit for kill is not random. But it is adding unpredictability.

What I think it's doing is breaking the set plays we've all learned. Before this change, I could usuallly predict pretty accurately what my opponents best response would be, and was often thinking 4-6 turns in advance. Now I'm finding I can't do this, and need to re-evaluate the board pretty much every turn.

I think it makes the game more forgiving and dynamic. I don't think it's so dramatic that the game needs to be entirely relearned by current players. I'm not sure which approach is better from a pure strategic perspective, but neither feels 'broken' or 'wrong' to me.

That being said, I don't know if any of this will make a difference in making the game more popular for new players (if that is the desired outcome of this change). The current game is a lot of fun, and its not till you've advance to a certain level until you start to notice its quirks. ie I don't think any aspect of the current game is turning off new players. Heck, even FTA wasn't apparent enough to me in the beginning to notice.

Sorry if this is getting off topic, but I think its relevant...

I think the biggest barrier for new players is no offline mode. I know the AI concerns, so at this point just adding some preset arrangements and goals would at least give new players the opportunity to properly test drive the game. ie damage the base within 3 turns, defend your base for 10 turns, kill an opposing special, etc. I think Hero Academy had something like this, and helped to gauge whether I liked it enough to expend the effort to learn the game (I couldn't stand the game after a few async matches cause I couldn't get into the flow of the game, offline ultimately confirmed it lol - but could of gone the other way). Throw gamecentre achievements on top, and I think you'll see alot of people getting into this without even scratching the surface on the depth of the online component. Evolve this to user created content (ie design and upload their own scenarios) and you'll even better engage your players.

Right now I'm sure there's a lot of people who like it but can't handle the async aspect and quit before really getting into the game. The other benefit of looking at offline options is that most current players probably couldn't care less, so you're not going to alienate anyone.

[CombatEX]

Thank you Ravernoth. You have essentially addressed all my concerns with this mechanic. Thanks for laying out the issues in a thorough manner. +rep

(10-25-2012 04:06 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  i will just share my opinion (no harm intended)

i think one of the reasons why the +1 wit for killing was recieved so negatively by alot of beta testers
was because of the initial negative feedback of a few.
like in class, when a teacher asks what the answer to a question is, the next few students would likely copy the answer of the first student if they are unsure.

i think some of the players are afraid. they feel safe with the skill they have on the current mechanics of the game. (and i completely understand that)

we should also try to find the positive side of this change.
i think we should be a bit more open and give the developers of the game a chance. im sure they have their reasons for implementing a change. they wouldnt want to ruin a game they invested so much money and time on.

i think we should learn to adapt to the change.
(please dont flame me and ask stuff about what the positive side is, i dont know, but i am open to change. as it is the only constant in this world)

edit: i think you should have added something neutral to the poll

I understand that bandwagon mentality can exist. However, I believe that is irrelevant in the context of this thread. What you should consider is what he discusses in his main post.

[Samura|]

Just to add balance to the argument (to help understand the developers' point of view), as there's been little discussion about the positives of the change, or at least rebuttals to the negatives (which might be due to the general resistance to change). And I appreciate that OML really think there's a good reason for this change. I personally am indifferent for now (from being strongly averse initially), though I think more playtesting may be required to check balance across maps etc, implications for FTA, simply because of the number of changes in the current beta. I'd probably prefer no change just in case something gets broken, but in practice in the games I've played you get into the new format pretty quickly.

Here are my thoughts about some concerns raised in this thread:

1) turtling - I don't think this change increases turtling, as many have suggested. This is because the change gives a wit bonus to the one who takes the attacking initiative. Yes, your opponent could counter and get even more of a bonus. But here's a mathematical look at this... when FTA is fixed, the wit balance will be +3, -3, +3, -3... and so on. If on your turn you take the initiative to attack and can kill say 3 units, you'll suddenly become +6. If your opponent kills the same number of units, you'll be back at -3 after his turn. He needs to kill 6 units for you to be in an equivalent wit disadvantage (of -6). All I'm saying is an advantage like this can turn a battle, if you attack smartly (as Adam explained). Obviously the fear with turtling is that your attack is inadequate, and you get crushed by the counter. This fear is the same with this rule change. You still shouldn't attack if you're going to get crushed when you attack. But this rule means you now get additional wit to launch the attack, and therefore a higher chance of a successful attack.

Re bombshell turtling - yes I agree at first glance the BS looks to be even more powerful now. However here's one thing that reduces the BS's 'strength'. This is the fact that one of the most effective ways to counter a BS is to save up sufficient wit (say 10+) to launch a strong attack that can take out defenses and take out the BS in one swift attack. Having more wit as you launch your attack can only help you to take out a BS. Think of the reverse - i.e. if you only received 3 wit a turn, BS's would be even more insanely powerful, just because it would be nigh impossible to kill. With more wit in the game, the BS becomes easier to take out.

2) unpredictability - I think 'unpredictable' is probably the wrong word to be using, it implies randomness. There's nothing random about this, it simply creates more permutations of the possible outcomes, therefore requiring more analysis of your opponent's possible responses. This should eventually allow for even greater skill disparity to appear. Plus it's really not as hard as it looks. You broadly know how many units are within killing range of your opponent. If it's 2 units, you know it's possible for them to gain +2wit to their standard wit count if they attacked. Not exactly rocket science.

3) having to re-work strategies - I think that's always a part of this game in any event. People discover an interesting use of a scrambler, a mobi or a BS. Then develop ways to counter. Then there'll be a counter to that! This change could open up many more strategic possibilities.


Having said that, I do have some concerns to add too:

1) without having playtested this in enough detail, I'm concerned this adds further to FTA (particularly on certain smaller maps). I.e. P1 may have enough wit to launch a devastating attack before P2 can spawn enough defense. I know there's little evidence in the beta games, but then players don't tend to play beta games the same way as they play league games. I.e. they're experimenting rather than going for a quick kill of the opponent. I can imagine the issue's the same for 2v2, where some maps are prone to early rushes. If there's no P2 wit boost for 2v2 in the pipeline at present, this could tip the balance more sharply so that rushes might be v dififcult (or worse impossible) to stop (at least that's my speculation).

2) wits in the game - yes this definitely adds more wit to the game, and reduces the scarcity value of wits. Hard to tell what the right balance is, but the status quo didn't seem to require fixing. More wits should mean faster games - for better or worse.