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

[Ravernoth]

This feature is in beta, but it seems likely to go live with the update in a few days. It feels like OML may have decided from the beginning to go ahead with this change regardless of feedback. It's understandable if they see it as an attempt to win a new audience.

But knowing that they do read these forums, I want to make a last ditch effort to show them the downsides of this change.


Short version: Outwitters had perfect gameplay mechanics. And this change breaks that elegance and balance in numerous ways, while contributing little and worsening many aspects.

My guess is that Outwitters' poor sales performance has given Alex and Adam the impression that the gameplay is lacking.

Despite us fans and the critics praising the brilliantly simple yet deep gameplay, OML don't see that they've produced a gem, and that the flaws are in the business model and the marketing. Here's another good post on this topic.

Quick look at what's wrong with this change:



Why has OML come up with this 'Wits for kills' change?

I can't recall a single person saying that the gameplay needed changing. What needs work?

• Special unit or heavy balancing - possibly.
• Fix FTA - yes.
• Fix Matchmaking - yes.
• Create new teams and maps - yes.
• Offer a speed or realtime option for instant gratification - yes.
• Radically change the core gameplay? - No. No. No.
  

So, why then?

It seems that this change is intended to have one or both of these effects:


First Intended Effect: Speed up the game so that it's more appealing to casual players and tire kickers

Actual Effect: Worsens gameplay and does not increase appeal to casuals

A player looking for immediate and continuous gameplay will not stick with Outwitters just because he can kill 5 units instead of 3 units before waiting 20 minutes for his next turn.

Say RTS and other realtime games have an 'Instant Gratification' factor of 100.

Outwitters has an 'Instant Gratification' factor of around 10 - which is fine with us async fans.

This change might boost this factor to 15 for Outwitters. Which does nothing for realtime fans.

And any 'rush' that the change adds while killing units, quickly becomes a sinking feeling when your units are decimated on the counter.

Better solution: Speed or realtime game option.


Second Intended Effect: Reduce turtling/defensive play

Actual Effect: Encourages turtling/defensive play

Giving wits for kills might seem on the surface to reward aggressive play and discourage defensive play.

But in fact it does the opposite.

A turtler does not get fewer kills by being defensive. If anything, his counter attack (especially with a Bombshell) is likely to kill more units than the initial attack.

I haven't seen this myself, but sniper turtling is apparently an effective defensive strategy now.

Better solution: Do nothing - the 8 wit FTA fix already addresses this. FTA forced P2 to defend, and allowed P1 to turtle with impunity. Address Bombshell balancing.


Here are the major downsides of this 'Wits for Kills' change:

So, the change doesn't do what it's intended to do. But that's not the end of it. This change also has a huge impact on the rest of gameplay:

• Reduces the skill factor in the game
  Because it causes larger swings in matches. If you imagine Outwitters as a tug of war to get enough of an advantage to get over the line, and each player taking turns to tug. This change causes each tug to be much bigger, and therefore you can get over the line easier. To use another analogy, we've given each boxer metal gloves so that each punch is more violent, and knockouts are easier and require less skill.
  

• It is an awkward hack to the gameplay.
  OML's stated goal was to see if simple rules could create an interesting strategy game. And they succeeded - the gameplay mechanics as they were, were pretty much perfect.
  
  The game is built around wits - each action costs a wit. Removing the wit requirement for kills to spice things up does not gel with the rest of the gameplay. Outwitters is a symphony, and now you want to add a thumping bass to it to make it more appealing.
  
  Why not give wits for attacking a base? Wits for moving next to an enemy unit? Wits for attacking an enemy unit?
  

• Rewards something that needs no reward
  A kill already has the benefit of removing an enemy unit.
  

• Planning becomes confusing and complicated
  1 wit for some attacks, and 0 wits for others adds a layer of almost arbirtrary complexity onto the elegance of Outwitters. Even top ranked players have commented on the difficulty of assessing a situation - whereas before the player was in control, now it feels more like guesswork. Testers have been unable even to properly assess the Bramble and FTA change because of how much this wit change unbalances the game.
  

• Benefits a player almost randomly
  Since outcomes of skirmishes are much more unpredictable. Depending on who kills more units in an exchange (which should not necessarily be the goal of an exchange). This is related to the previous point.
  

• Removes an element of decision making.
  Delivering a blow for a kill is a decision that costs a wit that you could be using to do something else. Making it free lessens the game.
  

• Scouting is discouraged, reducing one key aspect of strategy, leading to more guesswork rather than skill, and lessens the game.
  

• Special units are more unbalanced. Bombshells, which by most accounts is already the strongest special, get even stronger. A bombshell attack killing 3 units now GAINS 2 wits. Scrambler is even weaker, since the scrambler and his target usually get killed the following turn, granting the opponent 2 wits.
  

• Speeds up the whole game unnecessarily and unevenly by giving extra wits in spurts.
  

• Forces your players to relearn the game. Outwitters is a game of skill, where the layers of depth are only uncovered with time, experimenting and experience. This change means much of what we know would be invalid.
  
  Think about the scale of the change - we had a long discussion about whether 3 wits for P2 was a good amount to fix FTA. Yet this change can give a player 2-5 wits in a single turn.
  

Alex and Adam, if youre reading this, I hope you can see why it's a hugely flawed change that doesn't fix what it's intended to fix, radically changes the feel of the game AND breaks a beautifully balanced game on top of it.

Please listen to your fans and don't implement this change.

And if you've read this, please vote in the poll and share your thoughts.

[Eijolend]

I can clearly see what worries so many people about the change. I'll withhold my judgement until I get to try it out though.

[TheQwertiest]

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

[aaronINdayton]

I hadn't really thought about it before, but this change does sound like it would make bombshells better and scramblers worse (assuming when they scramble you do not receive a wit for a psuedo-kill). Put that together with the new added complexity of calculating how many wits you and your opponent will be able to generate in hypothetical battles.... and it sounds like a whole lotta bad.

If this is true, I'm more against this game play change than I realized!

[RandyDogz]

I'm torn.

On one hand, I'm pretty new to this async strategy game genre and have really learned a lot and have a lot of respect for the opinions of the top players posting here (thanks for sharing btw!) and the negative points/lack of positive points back up the position.

On the other, I will say I'm having a blast in beta and the game feels ALOT more fun for me. But this may be due to the change to address FTA and nothing to do with the +1 wit change.

I think I'd err on the side of caution and just do the FTA change for the moment. But then again, I wouldn't want them tinkering with the gameplay all the time, so maybe it's now or never...

So I haven't voted lol

[ArtNJ]

I still dont like it, but have played under 10 beta games with this rule. Not exactly a knee jerk reaction though; I have thought about it a bunch, and played some good players in beta.

Anyway, like you said, I think they have their mind made up. The game is a financial flop, so can exactly get too worked up over their trying something they think might help, even if I personally dont see any reason why it would help in the slightest.

Who knows what, if anything, they did wrong. There isnt exactly a big track record for this kind of game being a huge success in the app store. Great Big War Game was a financial dud as well I hear. Hero Academy was described as a "mild success" a long while back (something like that).

[GreatGonzales]

Hmm Ravernoth makes some pretty compelling arguments... Having never played with the new wit rule myself, I feel I can't make a fair assessment. But I am concerned about worsening the game for the sake of financial benefit. That would be too bad.

Speaking of which, is this change really going to have a significant financial impact? Is it worth it?

[ArtNJ]

I've stated my rational elsewhere: on certain maps, it helps the attacker, because the limiting factor is the initial wits to strike the first blow. The defender, with 2 or in some cases 3 fewer units after the initial blow, cant generate or use extra wits effectively from the hole they are in after the first strike of enhanced potency. Its not insta-win or anything like that, but Harti has demonstrated a powerful initiative in a couple of games. This is a problem on single spawn maps where P2's extra wits are hard to utilize.

In other situations, particularly on the 2 spawn maps where FTA is less of an issue with the 3 bonus wits for p2, I predict that enhanced defensive ability will or at least could lead to more protracted and long games. I havent had anything along these lines yet, but its something I predict.

[game_taker]

As said before, I am not in beta so I cannot say if it will stop turtling or simply assist it. Also I dont think anyone who is not in beta can effectively which it does. However I have to strongly agree with about the point stating the money issue is the marketing strategy, and if that is the real reason for the change if the game the no one wins.

[garcia1000]

Ravernoth persuasively provides us with the "against" side of this debate. Would someone provide the "for" side, or is it so hated by testers that no one likes it, lol