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

[oneadamleft]

We have an open door policy for replays that prove these theories you guys keep coming up with. No one is taking us up on that.

+2 average means that on average, across all skill levels, the winner gets 2 more kills than the loser. That's what we'd expect without kill bonuses. We measured it to determine if the kill bonus was resulting in a steamroll. What we've gathered so far says no.

Broken down by special unit, the difference between races is 3 bonus wits, which was concerning, but two of the races have data problems (Scrambler doesn't get kill bonuses yet, Mobi is barely used). We'll be watching that was we collect more replays.

[onealexleft]

(10-26-2012 03:31 AM)blckace Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 03:06 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  We're glad Ravernoth is enthusiastic enough to do all of this analysis. Sincerely. Here's why we haven't back-pedalled on the kill bonus just yet:

It breaks up stalemates faster by giving the player with more kills more momentum. It allows smart aggressive players to move up reinforcements on their attack run, and smart defensive players more resources to react. It also makes it slightly harder to count wits and predict each other's moves. Making the games less predictable is, in our opinion, more fun. Some of our testers agree with that. Some have not.

Here's the data we've collected from replays provided by our testers so far:

Total games: 63

Overall Averages:
Winner's kill bonus spread: +2 wits (ranging from -5 to +9 wit advantages)
Winner's cap pt bonus spread: +2.25 wits (ranging from -5 to +15 wits)

Special Unit Kill Wit Averages:
Bombshell loses by 0.25 kill wits, wins by 4.8 kill wits*
Scrambler loses by 4.3 kill wits, wins by -1.8 kill wits**
Bramble loses by 2.5 kill wits, wins by 3.8 kill wits
Mobi loses by 0.5 kill wits, wins by 1.3 kill wits***
None loses by 1.5 kill wits, wins by 1.6 kill wits

* Bombshell's highest kill bonus spread was +9, which Bramble also reached. Bramble is used a lot more often, but did reach high kill spreads as many times as Bombshell.

** Scrambling doesn't give a kill wit in the current build.

*** Only 5 replays featured Mobi.

I like idea of making the game more unpredictable but i play almost exclusively the feedback team and in their current state are probably the most affected by this change so it means i either have to change teams to another that doesn't suit my playstyle or less fun for me or quit all together which would suck

Suggestions for the scrambler

Two hp base health without being healable up to three
Scrambling units gives +1 wit
Scrambled units health is 2 hp instead of 1

All three changes seem necessary to make the scrambler a viable special with the +1 wit kill rule

We are doing another iteration in beta soon, and having scrambler get +1 wits for scrambling is actually in there.

[aaronINdayton]

Might want to limit the bombshell's wit generation potential also (if not already), otherwise it would just be silly, killing everything and gaining wits on an attack.

[poweewee]

(10-26-2012 03:06 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  It breaks up stalemates faster by giving the player with more kills more momentum. It allows smart aggressive players to move up reinforcements on their attack run, and smart defensive players more resources to react. It also makes it slightly harder to count wits and predict each other's moves. Making the games less predictable is, in our opinion, more fun. Some of our testers agree with that. Some have not.

I think Ravernot has already mentioned that "wits for kills" actually encourages more turtling. Instead of attacking, I would like to beef up my units, and set up an attack slowly, because I would not want to attack at once, and leave all my units hanging for the other team to kill. Adding unpredictability also discourages me to attack at once.

Under the current mechanics, I already make it a point to try and stay aggressive. Being passive lets the opponent set up that Bombshell. I still believe that to reduce turtling, nerfing the Bombshell is the way to go.

At least that's my point of view. Maybe it's just a new mechanic that we will get used to in the long run. But at the very least, if this pushes through, scrambling should also give +1 wit.

[oneadamleft]

(10-26-2012 03:18 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Look, its your game, and you need to try and make it profitable, so I think you are 100% entitled to go with your opinion rather than the majority.

Just to clarify: this is not a profit thing. Alex and I think it makes the game more strategically interesting, and from our analytics, it changes next to nothing balance wise. A forum poll split 50/50 with 4 votes is not a majority of our beta testers.

[blckace]

I wish I was in beta to help you test the scrambler balance

Currently I'm in a game with garcia10000, I've made three scramblers and we're at turn 60 and no matter what I try I can't get to his bombshells. The most frustrating thing that has come to light for me in this match is that scrambled units die as easy as flies from bombshell splash damage, i know they can be healed up but moving a healer to an exposed position just to heal one unit costs two wits and position disadvantage so moving the healer should be an option not a survival necessity and what if you scramble two units how can you heal both? I can only imagine how big the gap would be between specials after the proposed changes. Two health points for the scrambled units seems like one of the most important changes otherwise it's impossible to negate the bombshell advantage once it has been properly set up

edit I'm not against the +1 wit per kill change but I'm against how bad the scrambler will be in it's current state

[Ravernoth]

(10-26-2012 03:45 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 03:18 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Look, its your game, and you need to try and make it profitable, so I think you are 100% entitled to go with your opinion rather than the majority.

Just to clarify: this is not a profit thing. Alex and I think it makes the game more strategically interesting, and from our analytics, it changes next to nothing balance wise. A forum poll split 50/50 with 4 votes is not a majority of our beta testers.

Adam and Alex, many thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I had the impression that a big motivation behind this change was to increase the profit, so apologies for that.

Re: making the gameplay more unpredictable, I can see where you are coming from.

The thing is, one of the great things about Outwitters is being a strategy game where there are no random elements and a win comes down purely to your tactics.

That's the reason a win is so satisfying and a loss is always a learning opportunity.

By adding this unpredictable factor, it changes that - and that will result in you willing or losing, but not knowing exactly why or whether it was more down to chance of how the kill wits played out than skill and strategy.

There are many strategy games that have this random nature - Hero Academy, Magic the Gathering, etc.

There aren't many that are solely skill based yet so fun (Chess is pretty dull, apologies to fans )

You can multiply unpredictability and variation quickly with new teams and maps.

I feel that is not a worthwhile tradeoff, as the current gameplay already allow for skill and fun in abundance.

[worldfamous]

(10-26-2012 03:45 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 03:18 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Look, its your game, and you need to try and make it profitable, so I think you are 100% entitled to go with your opinion rather than the majority.

Just to clarify: this is not a profit thing. Alex and I think it makes the game more strategically interesting, and from our analytics, it changes next to nothing balance wise. A forum poll split 50/50 with 4 votes is not a majority of our beta testers.

I'm glad you said that. We were told it was being changed to appeal to the casual gamer. I guess we incorrectly inferred that it was about the money, which would have been ok anyway. I agree that a less predictable game is a funner game and early on I saw Outwitters heading down a path that would end up with just a few proven strategies and predictable outcomes. However, the strategies just seem to evolve and grow in numbers, leading me to believe that there is enough variation and a change like the +1 wit kill is not needed. All I ask is, please, be sure the change is for the better before you make it. Oh, and, give me some Bramble already!

---

(10-26-2012 04:09 AM)Ravernoth Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 03:45 AM)oneadamleft Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 03:18 AM)ArtNJ Wrote:  Look, its your game, and you need to try and make it profitable, so I think you are 100% entitled to go with your opinion rather than the majority.

Just to clarify: this is not a profit thing. Alex and I think it makes the game more strategically interesting, and from our analytics, it changes next to nothing balance wise. A forum poll split 50/50 with 4 votes is not a majority of our beta testers.

Adam and Alex, many thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I had the impression that a big motivation behind this change was to increase the profit, so apologies for that.

Re: making the gameplay more unpredictable, I can see where you are coming from.

The thing is, one of the great things about Outwitters is being a strategy game where there are no random elements and a win comes down purely to your tactics.

That's the reason a win is so satisfying and a loss is always a learning opportunity.

By adding this unpredictable factor, it changes that - and that will result in you willing or losing, but not knowing exactly why or whether it was more down to chance of how the kill wits played out than skill and strategy.

I feel that is not a worthwhile tradeoff, as the current gameplay already allow for skill and fun in abundance.

Less predictable doesn't mean random. It will just be more challenging to run the numbers in your head.

[Promicide]

I'm going to embrace the change. OML hasn't steered any of us wrong yet and maye they DO know best. I do believe a lot of naysayers are embittered and opposed to the change because it will force them to re-assess their strategy.. And this detrimental effect threatens what the rank they have achieved. I understand that frustration, but Outwitters is all about *adapting*. Consistently re-evaluating situations you are placed in; and thusly if you are truly a good "Outwitter", you will adapt well and figure it out.

Generally it is human nature to oppose change, but lets be real here. The game is fun, and will still be fun. I like new challenges and although this will change A LOT, I think it will add another element of satisfaction when playing. Some are getting a little too crazy with graphs and pie charts supposedly projecting the effects on sales.. As a player I can't help but think that's a little extreme... It's a game......on your phone.... So have fun with it.

[ArtNJ]

Just to clarify, I dont think its the biggest deal in the world. I do think it map undercut the FTA correction when overall data is examined post-patch. Sure, it helps the defender at times. But on smaller maps like Sharkfood it seems to boost the attacker more. Overall FTA will probably be less than it is now, because the +3 wits will make a big difference on maps with 2 spawns, but maps like Sharkfood will still be 60/40%.