The New Rules (and why I'm not a Fan)

[Vuvuzaela]

(11-23-2012 04:03 AM)ChamomileMF Wrote:  Your soldier scenario is somewhat flawed.
You said that p1 with 2 soldiers attacks and kills 1 of 2 p2 soldiers. P2 then has 8 wits and spawns a sniper and kills one of p1's soldiers.

In no map can p1 actually move across and attack/kill anything on the first turn.

You are absolutely right, this does not exist anywhere in the game. What I wanted to demonstrate was that, with all else being equal, attack vs. defense is a fairly balanced system (before the rule change). To do this, I manufactured a scenario that does not exist. However, my other point was that wits are better spent immediately simply because they will have a bigger impact on the game (that whole my wits divided by opponent's wits thing). If it takes a few extra turns for each side to attack/ defend, then it even more so proves that those extra wits are not that helpful.

[Emuchu]

(11-23-2012 04:45 AM)Vuvuzaela Wrote:  

(11-23-2012 04:03 AM)ChamomileMF Wrote:  Your soldier scenario is somewhat flawed.
You said that p1 with 2 soldiers attacks and kills 1 of 2 p2 soldiers. P2 then has 8 wits and spawns a sniper and kills one of p1's soldiers.

In no map can p1 actually move across and attack/kill anything on the first turn.

You are absolutely right, this does not exist anywhere in the game. What I wanted to demonstrate was that, with all else being equal, attack vs. defense is a fairly balanced system (before the rule change). To do this, I manufactured a scenario that does not exist. However, my other point was that wits are better spent immediately simply because they will have a bigger impact on the game (that whole my wits divided by opponent's wits thing). If it takes a few extra turns for each side to attack/ defend, then it even more so proves that those extra wits are not that helpful.

I think one of the major points of the extra starting Wits is to give Player 2 insurance against a lot of the old version's FTA surprise rushes and opening strategies. Opening Foundry with a Player 1 rush is less viable as Player 2 now has the additional resources to protect his Sniper AND scout for a rush, and it's much more difficult to score an early Sniper kill on Sweetie Plains.

Sure, the 3 starting Wits will lose their impact as the game progresses, but having them ensures that both players have even opening development.

[:!:CoryMo:!:]

Almost all of the complaints I've seen about the updates come down to this: "I have to change tactics and I don't like that".
You should be changing and adapting in each and every game depending on the moves of your opponents. One thing I like about this game is that no one technique can produce a win every time. I lost a game a few days ago where my opponent hit me with nothing but runners. I wasn't expecting it and didn't prepare for it. Just yesterday I won a game using nothing but a single soldier a single sniper and bramble.
Every game is different and the updates haven't changed that. I can almost guarantee the top players are adaptive in technique.

[Necrocat219]

Firstly I want to state that I'm on the fence with the +1 wit rule and even though I've been playing with it for a while I want to see actual % statistics and how fun players find it before coming to my own conclusion. However I can say with confidence that it is an extremely potent counter to runner rushing the medic at the beginning of the game. At my level I always did it knowing it would get me a +1 wit at minimum, but now that it breaks even giving your opponent a chance to kill your runner with theirs isn't worth it. ( Also means more flexible openings )

(11-22-2012 05:01 PM)Vuvuzaela Wrote:  Furthermore, as the game goes, the value of each wit in the over all game goes down. Allow me to explain this. At the start of the match, let's say I start with 6 wits and my opponent starts with 5. I have a significant advantage over him, as I have 6/5 as many wits as he does. If I divide 6 by 5, you get 1.2 However, the next time I have my turn (let's say we each get 6 wits a turn), I will have 12 wits to his 11. 12/11 is only 1.09. That is .11 worse than the previous turn. As this goes on, this decimal gets smaller and smaller and smaller. If it goes on to infinity, the decimal will just look like 0. If you apply this to the start of the game, you can see how being given extra wits doesn't help if you can't spend them immediately. If one player stars with 5 wits and the other 8, there is a decimal of 1.6. However, if those extra wits are not used immediately, their affect is spread out. Now, they are 8 wits out of 13 vs. 10 wits. The fraction for that is 1.3. That means those extra wits are just not as useful the longer you hold onto them. Since those extra wits mean less over time, they don't really help the defender. While a clever player may be able to win anyway, there is now a clear advantage in going first.

Even thought the maths is partially correct I believe the assumptions you are making are wrong so your argument against this FTA fix is wrong also. You're making an argument based on your units just existing; however I've never come across a game that neither player moves their units. The reason that this argument of proportionality is wrong is because wits are necessary for moving and necessary for attacking. Both of these consume so and so wits per turn so this cumulative wit side of the argument is void

Now to the second flaw; comparing to your opponent (this quote is my argument backing up 8 wits):

Quote:Now to explain why I love a 7 or 8 wit start for player 2: Materialistic first turn advantage. This is as I classify it, how many wits you have to spend on units and move in comparison to your opponent. This is a 1 vs 1 or a 2 vs 2 game, so for that you can directly see if you're winning or losing a game by comparing how well you are doing.

You compared the total wits you have generated over the whole game; however you should only compare the difference between the two players if they are of equal skill; comparing the difference is always better than comparing the proportions. turn based games, even real time strategy games compare two teams by the difference between them. Even when both players are vastly inflated, the one with the advantage will win (except in 13 vs 14 bombshells lol )

[AJaW96]

I like the changes, however it does feel like a completely different game. Where before it felt calculated with careful positioning, the game now revolves around sweeping attacking manuevers. My only complaint about the update s a cosmetic one - the damage indicator that pops up when you attack. It does not display the feel of Outwitters and feels tacked on.

[game_taker]

(11-23-2012 11:10 AM)AJaW96 Wrote:  My only complaint about the update s a cosmetic one - the damage indicator that pops up when you attack. It does not display the feel of Outwitters and feels tacked on.

I actually like this new feature.

As for my opinion the on the +1 wit on kill -- I like it. For me it has made the games more interesting.

My opinion on the +3 wits for player 2 -- thank god. Before this update my games, as p2, would go in two directions.
(1) player 1 attack --> i defend --> if i defend well i counter and win otherwise i lose
Only occurs against scallywag (2) Am torn between getting scout or soldier. Scout would allow for a quick counter against a bs but leave me vulnerable if my opponent doesnt get a bs. Whereas solider would do the opposite. --> If I choose wrong and he gets bs he camps, I must attack, I lose. --> I choose right and he got bs, I attack then things get interesting.

Warning I am bit basis against bs.

[poweewee]

Re: +1 Wit
I do agree it feels like an entirely different game now. Somehow I can still try to predict my opponents' moves, and I guess it gives more variety with the number of possible moves per turn.

Re: 8 starting wits for P2
I haven't played a whole lot of games under this new mechanic (I'm still finishing my old games), but I suppose this would reduce the P1 advantage. I do NOT think that this would favor P2 entirely; besides, it is only for their first turn that they gain extra wits.

Re: Turtling
I'm not so sure that the wit-for-kill discourages turtling. Once the bombshells are set up, it would still be hard to break that wall. Perhaps the new mechanic makes it harder to setup the bombshells, but once they are set up, they are still very difficult to break through. I still think the bombshell needs to be balanced in some way.

[CombatEX]

(11-23-2012 06:27 AM):!:CoryMo:!: Wrote:  Almost all of the complaints I've seen about the updates come down to this: "I have to change tactics and I don't like that".
You should be changing and adapting in each and every game depending on the moves of your opponents. One thing I like about this game is that no one technique can produce a win every time. I lost a game a few days ago where my opponent hit me with nothing but runners. I wasn't expecting it and didn't prepare for it. Just yesterday I won a game using nothing but a single soldier a single sniper and bramble.
Every game is different and the updates haven't changed that. I can almost guarantee the top players are adaptive in technique.

Before I begin, I wanted to clarify that you do have a point, it just fails to address a rather significant issue (which I will mention shortly). First things first, however. People who are complaining about the change really should reserve judgement as you suggest. +1 wits has been out for such a short period that one cannot truly assess whether it is beneficial or detrimental. That being said, I feel that it is the wrong approach to fixing turtling and special balance in Outwitters.

Now for the point I feel you miss in your assessment that people are primarily annoyed because they have to change tactics. Let us consider a scenario with chess. I could propose changing the left-most pawn for each player so that it starts 1 space forward from the current setup. Now, undoubtedly people would be outraged if this were implemented. While it is true that players would have to change tactics as a result of this change, it is safe to say that I would be missing the point if I were to propose that the reason people were upset came down to needing to adjust their tactics... In reality, it would be more due to the fact that the game worked well before the change and it just makes the game unnecessarily different. Even if the change isn't for the worse, why make it unless there is a good reason to believe it will make a notable improvement.

Now, there are differences between the chess situation and Outwitters. Outwitters actually does need changes to fix balance issues and turtling while chess does not. However, the point of my analogy was to avoid the notion that people are simply upset because they need to adjust. Rather, there is something to be said about changing a system when the perception is that the old one worked well already. This is the case with chess and is the reason I brought up the analogy. In the case of Outwitters, I would propose that some of the reason people are upset is due to the fact that the fundamental mechanics of Outwitters, like chess, already worked well and as a result makes this change seem superfluous. As with chess, it's not simply players not wanting to have to adapt to new rules, but also players questioning why the rules are being changed and essentially creating a very different game when it isn't clear that there is a benefit.

I propose making incremental changes* with guaranteed long-term success instead of drastic changes with questionable success (+1 wits/kill falling into the latter category).

*I explain what I mean by incremental changes here: Proposed Alternate Change - Note: This is the same link as the one above.

[ChamomileMF]

(11-23-2012 04:41 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  I propose making incremental changes* with guaranteed long-term success instead of drastic changes with questionable success (+1 wits/kill falling into the latter category).

You, sir, said it perfectly. While I still very much enjoy the game, it is very much a fundamentally different game with the update.

The p2 8 wit start was absolutely necessary to negate p1 advantage, but the +1 wit per kill changes the balance of the UNITS. I find that I have been playing much more defensive games due to the now inherent weakness of the runner and the need to protect my medic (a now absolutely necessary unit).

That part of the game wasn't broken, why fix it? It is still a very enjoyable game, and for some reason it's made my local games more fun.

I don't claim to know all the answers but it will be interesting to see the long term effect this update has on league play. As a newer player, it's easy for me to change my tactics. Will it be so easy for the top 200?

[game_taker]

(11-23-2012 04:41 PM)CombatEX Wrote:  Let us consider a scenario with chess. I could propose changing the left-most pawn for each player so that it starts 1 space forward from the current setup. Now, undoubtedly people would be outraged if this were implemented. While it is true that players would have to change tactics as a result of this change, it is safe to say that I would be missing the point if I were to propose that the reason people were upset came down to needing to adjust their tactics... In reality, it would be more due to the fact that the game worked well before the change and it just makes the game unnecessarily different. Even if the change isn't for the worse, why make it unless there is a good reason to believe it will make a notable improvement.

I know this was just an analogy, but it seems like it completely misses the change that the +1 wit on kill gives. A change in position of a pawn for one player is more so like adding 3 wits to p2.
A better analogy would be playing 2 vs 2 chess. Which has the added rule that on a kill you give that piece to your team mate to place on their turn. Which like the +1 wit on kill changes the game completely. The bottom line is this is a game. If you take it seriously it doesn't matter that much since this game still has leagues and measures skill quite well, which i feel are the reasons people play this game seriously. If you play to have fun then has ignore the changes in tactic and the fact that the game was working before and ask yourself: Are you having more or less fun with the new change?

As for the reason for the change, I am 100% sure that the +1 wit on kill was added because it was believed to make a notable improvement.