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

[CombatEX]

(10-26-2012 01:13 PM)Samura| Wrote:  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.

I agree. I haven't noticed turtling being much better or worse, the momentum swings are simply greater.

Quote: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.

It's not unpredictability, it's tedium. You're right, this change doesn't add any randomness to the game. Your moves are still strategic, but as p1noyboypj put it, it's just more tedious to have to account for +1 wits in every single scenario. Perhaps that's not a bad thing, but it certainly doesn't promote what OML intended which was making the game more enjoyable for casual players. Now there are even more variables to consider.

Quote: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.

Yea, no problem here. Adapting is just a part of the game.

Quote: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).

I'm not sure about this, but, this harkens back to one of Ravernoth's crucial points. The gameplay works as it is. It doesn't need fixing and doing this change could upset balance in the way you mention here or in other ways. It simply isn't a necessary change and it doesn't seem all that beneficial.

Quote: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.

This is a similar to the point above, the game doesn't seem to need fixing. At least, not with such a major change to the fundamental gameplay. Maybe things like some minor unit balancing *cough* non-predeployed Heavy *cough*, but not a major overhaul like this.

The main issue is that even if this doesn't make the game worse, does it make the game better? Or does it just make the game different?

[worldfamous]

That's about the 5th time I've heard someone say that the developers' goal is to make the game more enjoyable for the casual player. Did they actually say that somewhere or is that an assumption. Hearing that, I inferred that this move was indeed about the money. I know that Alex and Adam have said it's not, and I believe them when they say that. Where is that line coming from? Was it in a beta email or something? Is my inference crazy?

[CombatEX]

(10-26-2012 01:52 PM)worldfamous Wrote:  That's about the 5th time I've heard someone say that the developers' goal is to make the game more enjoyable for the casual player. Did they actually say that somewhere or is that an assumption.

Adam posted this sentiment on the beta forums. I'm not sure it's okay to pull his quote from there and put it on here so I'll just reiterate, yes, the 'appeal to casual players' argument was expressed by OML in a beta thread where people were discussing +1 wits.

As for doing it for more money, I certainly wouldn't blame them and would in fact encourage it if I thought it would work. It's not some cheap sell-out like adding in-game currency and powerups for real money. ugh... even the thought makes me sick. Rather, it's just a change in gameplay that, though I personally think is less fun, doesn't break the game. So again, if it somehow makes more people buy the game, I'm all for it. I just don't see why a casual player would think +1 wits is more fun when it actually increases the amount they need to think before making a turn. In other words, if anything I would worry about this change having an adverse result.

[Fluffysox]

I havn't scrolled through all these pages of posts, but have Adam and Alex actually commented here yet?

[CombatEX]

They've commented a few times.

[terenceshiu2005]

(10-26-2012 03:52 AM)blckace Wrote:  I wish I was in beta to help you test the scrambler balance

It is definitely good to have more feedback players like blcake to do the beta because the kill +wits will affect the feedback players most!

[Promicide]

(10-26-2012 09:19 AM)Admiral 77 Wrote:  

(10-26-2012 04:45 AM)Promicide Wrote:  I do believe a lot of naysayers are embittered and opposed to the change because it will force them to re-assess their strategy..

Why would we want to have to relearn/rebuild our strategies that we have been developing for months for a game that is already considered to have nearly perfect game mechanics by a majority of this forum?? Someone else said " why fix what isn't broken?"; I completely agree.

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...

Can't speak for you, but it should be the art of developing new strategy that makes this game worth playing. You are definitely right about the fact that there is nothing "broken". However other developers (like blizzard) have made changes against the will and wishes of their players and it usually ends up for the best in the long run. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I don't think it will literally ruin the game. I'm no ST, but I am a master league player. And the thought of this change in the games mechanics kind of excited me. It throws specials for different races into a different balance, but I would say to mod the specials and not remove the kill for wit change

[garcia1000]

As a professional game designer I applaud OML for their process, no matter what the final decision is.

[Promicide]

(10-26-2012 02:59 PM)garcia1000 Wrote:  As a professional game designer I applaud OML for their process, no matter what the final decision is.

Agreed. These devs are very well connected to their players and ecosystem and if the change does turn out to be a bad decision we can bet they will fix it. The intent is good.

Oh and for those of you threatening to leave the community due to the change you can and WILL be replaced. I hate to put it like this but OML has probably gotten the money they needed from you, so financially they aren't missing out. I don't think many of those players will leave anyway until there is a resource-asynchronous-TBS game for iOS that can measure up to this one. Ill say it too, easily the best app on the app store.

[joelduque]

(10-26-2012 03:12 PM)Promicide Wrote:  Oh and for those of you threatening to leave the community due to the change you can and WILL be replaced. I hate to put it like this but OML has probably gotten the money they needed from you, so financially they aren't missing out. I don't think many of those players will leave anyway until there is a resource-asynchronous-TBS game for iOS that can measure up to this one. Ill say it too, easily the best app on the app store.

Nice one. You put it bluntly and I think you made your point across.