Gameplay Logistical Improvements

bigredsk10 · 07-06-2012, 12:52 AM

I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting would just make a confusing interface. Everything needs to be consistent. If some actions are undoable but not others it will create frustration for players.

It sounds to me like you tapped the bombshell because you didn't know what it does. I did the same thing. Now I know not to tap it unless I want it to shell up.

timcoffman · 07-06-2012, 12:53 AM

(07-06-2012 12:48 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote: I can agree to your point of view, I am just of the opinion that implementing 'Confirm?' dialogs to every non-undoable action would get on your nerves soon, because moving a unit may sometimes bring up the dialog (if it changes the fog of war) and sometimes it doesn't. All in all, I think this would complicate a hitherto simplistic UI and game.

(07-06-2012 12:37 AM)timcoffman Wrote: Why should pointless actions be not possible? Is it any more or less of a "user error" than Un-shelling and re-shelling?

I would suggest that bombing near the edge of the fog of war is decidedly a non-pointless action WHEN you don't know what will happen in the fog. If you suspect an opponent is in the fog it totally makes sense to bomb next to him. But you could be wrong!
As it stands right now, every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome. Allowing you to take your chances by firing blindly with a Bombshell close to the fog of war would break this because now your actions may yield results or they may not. One solution I proposed was giving the Bombshell a view of 4 spaces, but keep his shooting range at 3.

I dispute the assertion that "every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome". Every move that changes the boundary of the fog of war has an unclear, unknowable outcome. That's my point.

Kamikaze28 · 07-06-2012, 12:57 AM

(07-06-2012 12:53 AM)timcoffman Wrote:
(07-06-2012 12:48 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote: I can agree to your point of view, I am just of the opinion that implementing 'Confirm?' dialogs to every non-undoable action would get on your nerves soon, because moving a unit may sometimes bring up the dialog (if it changes the fog of war) and sometimes it doesn't. All in all, I think this would complicate a hitherto simplistic UI and game.

(07-06-2012 12:37 AM)timcoffman Wrote: Why should pointless actions be not possible? Is it any more or less of a "user error" than Un-shelling and re-shelling?

I would suggest that bombing near the edge of the fog of war is decidedly a non-pointless action WHEN you don't know what will happen in the fog. If you suspect an opponent is in the fog it totally makes sense to bomb next to him. But you could be wrong!
As it stands right now, every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome. Allowing you to take your chances by firing blindly with a Bombshell close to the fog of war would break this because now your actions may yield results or they may not. One solution I proposed was giving the Bombshell a view of 4 spaces, but keep his shooting range at 3.
I dispute the assertion that "every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome". Every move that changes the boundary of the fog of war has an unclear, unknowable outcome. That's my point.

Yes and no - yes, you don't know what is hidden in the fog of war; but no, you clearly know beforehand what parts of the map will become visible to you when you move your unit.

timcoffman · (This post was last modified: 07-06-2012 01:03 AM by timcoffman.)

(07-06-2012 12:52 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: I'm sorry, but what you're suggesting would just make a confusing interface.

I understand there's a fine line between protected a user from themselves and avoiding pointless frustration.

(07-06-2012 12:52 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: Everything needs to be consistent. If some actions are undoable but not others it will create frustration for players.

The designers clearly felt like moving to a new hex should require a confirmation. They also recognized that many users would find that particular set on training wheels onerous. I think they need to further explore this concept- in my opinion it will make the difference between an OK game and a wildly successful one.

(07-06-2012 12:52 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: It sounds to me like you tapped the bombshell because you didn't know what it does. I did the same thing. Now I know not to tap it unless I want it to shell up.

I can't believe you're blaming the user for doing it wrong. Are we still having this conversation in 2012?

(07-06-2012 12:57 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:
(07-06-2012 12:53 AM)timcoffman Wrote:
(07-06-2012 12:48 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote: I can agree to your point of view, I am just of the opinion that implementing 'Confirm?' dialogs to every non-undoable action would get on your nerves soon, because moving a unit may sometimes bring up the dialog (if it changes the fog of war) and sometimes it doesn't. All in all, I think this would complicate a hitherto simplistic UI and game.

(07-06-2012 12:37 AM)timcoffman Wrote: Why should pointless actions be not possible? Is it any more or less of a "user error" than Un-shelling and re-shelling?

I would suggest that bombing near the edge of the fog of war is decidedly a non-pointless action WHEN you don't know what will happen in the fog. If you suspect an opponent is in the fog it totally makes sense to bomb next to him. But you could be wrong!
As it stands right now, every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome. Allowing you to take your chances by firing blindly with a Bombshell close to the fog of war would break this because now your actions may yield results or they may not. One solution I proposed was giving the Bombshell a view of 4 spaces, but keep his shooting range at 3.
I dispute the assertion that "every action in Outwitters has a clearly visible and known outcome". Every move that changes the boundary of the fog of war has an unclear, unknowable outcome. That's my point.

Yes and no - yes, you don't know what is hidden in the fog of war; but no, you clearly know beforehand what parts of the map will become visible to you when you move your unit.

I will suggest that knowing "beforehand what parts of the map will become visible to you when you move your unit" is an acquired skill. I expect that for my first couple of dozen games, I will not be able to visualize that ahead of time. I will simply move my piece, then wonder why I can't see a particular hex that I guessed would be within my field of view. This would be solved by showing my the new boundary of the fog of war and asking me to confirm it before continuing with new actions. It would give me the opportunity to move differently if I realized I would be getting results different than I predicted. Why should I be required to accurately predict game mechanics when I have a helpful computer running my game which can assist me, within the limits of the rules?

bigredsk10 · 07-06-2012, 01:25 AM

Quote:I can't believe you're blaming the user for doing it wrong. Are we still having this conversation in 2012?

Essentially, yes, I think you're doing it wrong. It couldn't be more simple the way they have implemented it. You click the shell. A little picture of a running guy pops up. If you want to, you click the running guy button and then your guy un-shells. It can't possible take more than doing that one time to figure out how it works.

If you wanted to debate whether words would be clearer than an icon on that button, then thats a reasonable discussion.

Instead you want the developers (all two of them) to completely rework the interface to follow a model that would cause more problems than it fixes. The day after it launches. And claiming their game will flop if they don't listen to you.

Frankly, I have a feeling you've played a bunch of hero academy and it is jarring not to be able to experiment with different strategies using the undo button.

CombatEX · 07-06-2012, 01:28 AM

I hope this isn't changed. Yes, I understand the frustration, but you just have to be careful when making your moves. It's kind of like how you can mis-micro your units in Starcraft. I know this is a turn-based game and the precedent set by other games is that you can take back moves if you haven't received new info, but that doesn't mean Outwitters has to be exactly the same. You don't even have time pressure unlike an RTS so misclicking in this kind of game is inexcusable. Just be more careful.

As for having the computer show you where the fog of war will have moved instead of predicting it yourself... it's not that difficult to do it yourself and it's nice not having to click another confirmation screen every time you move a unit.

If anything does come of this thread, I hope it's only an OPTIONAL setting to turn on this clunky interface the TC is proposing and not an outright switch.

timcoffman · (This post was last modified: 07-06-2012 01:55 AM by timcoffman.)

(07-06-2012 01:25 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote:
Quote:I can't believe you're blaming the user for doing it wrong. Are we still having this conversation in 2012?

Essentially, yes, I think you're doing it wrong. It couldn't be more simple the way they have implemented it. You click the shell. A little picture of a running guy pops up. If you want to, you click the running guy button and then your guy un-shells. It can't possible take more than doing that one time to figure out how it works.

Well, I did it twice.

(07-06-2012 01:25 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: If you wanted to debate whether words would be clearer than an icon on that button, then thats a reasonable discussion.

Instead you want the developers (all two of them) to completely rework the interface to follow a model that would cause more problems than it fixes. The day after it launches. And claiming their game will flop if they don't listen to you.

Are two developers too few to do really good work? My experience in software development and UI design tells me that it would not "cause more problems than it fixes." Is there a better time to tell them ways to improve?

I think this game will be a big hit with a small audience. That small audience will consist of people who don't mind blaming themselves for being punished for making mistakes that have no irreversible consequences.

I think that if they introduce some different UI design, they could engage a much bigger audience, which I want them to do because it is fun and I'd like to continue playing for a long time with plenty of opponents.

The biggest hit games on mobile devices are reaching the widest possible audiences. I think this game could reach very widely indeed without sacrificing any core gameplay.

(07-06-2012 01:25 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: Frankly, I have a feeling you've played a bunch of hero academy and it is jarring not to be able to experiment with different strategies using the undo button.

Do you feel like being able to "experiment with different strategies" would hurt this game? I find that attribute to be very rewarding in games of all kinds. I think arbitrarily stifling experimentation will put off a lot of potential players.

(07-06-2012 01:28 AM)CombatEX Wrote: I hope this isn't changed. Yes, I understand the frustration, but you just have to be careful when making your moves.

I don't mind having to be thoughtful. That's gameplay. I do mind having to be careful. That's poorly thought-through UI design.

(07-06-2012 01:28 AM)CombatEX Wrote: It's kind of like how you can mis-micro your units in Starcraft. I know this is a turn-based game and the precedent set by other games is that you can take back moves if you haven't received new info, but that doesn't mean Outwitters has to be exactly the same.

I don't think it's a precedent yet, though it should be.

I don't think Outwitters differentiating itself by reducing it's feature-set is a wise strategy.

(07-06-2012 01:28 AM)CombatEX Wrote: It's kind of like You don't even have time pressure unlike an RTS so misclicking in this kind of game is inexcusable. Just be more careful.

My play environment may not be the same as yours. My time pressure is completing my actions before I get to the front of the post-office line.

If the Outwitters designers subscribed to the same attitude as you and they sat in a design meeting and said that their users misclicking was just "inexcusable" and users should "just be more careful", then I would not be surprised if their audience remained small in spite of their great core gameplay. I suspect that is, fortunately, not true.

(07-06-2012 01:28 AM)CombatEX Wrote: It's kind of like As for having the computer show you where the fog of war will have moved instead of predicting it yourself... it's not that difficult to do it yourself and it's nice not having to click another confirmation screen every time you move a unit.

If anything does come of this thread, I hope it's only an OPTIONAL setting to turn on this clunky interface the TC is proposing and not an outright switch.

If anything does come of this thread, I hope it's really popular. Also, it's always a good idea to let experienced players streamline their interface. First, though, you have to build up experienced players from newbs.

Temp22 · 07-06-2012, 02:09 AM

The fact of the matter is Outwitters is not Hero Academy. Outwitters is Chess, HA is checkers. Alex and Adam will not change that formula. I am glad they will not.

The problem with the Bombshell is that if you slide your finger across it, it will unshell. I was a big advocate of taking away the information leak on enemies outside of the Bombshells range but Alex and Adam are convinced that it is not game breaking. So I doubt it will change.

Just adapt to the game, it is theirs after all they can do what ever they want with it. Its free after all.

bigredsk10 · 07-06-2012, 02:11 AM

Quote:Do you feel like being able to "experiment with different strategies" would hurt this game? I find that attribute to be very rewarding in games of all kinds. I think arbitrarily stifling experimentation will put off a lot of potential players.

That's a fair point. After hundreds of Hero Academy games I'm excited for a fresh game in the same genre. Outwitters is more expansive in a lot of ways (larger maps, saving move points, fog of war etc.). I think the 'think before you act' aspect is one of the things that is appealing to me about Outwitters. Funny enough, it actually reminds me more of chess, where you only get one move and have to predict the outcome. Hero Academy very often wasn't challenging because I had so much information at my disposal.

As a side note, I feel bad for the inevitable, and I'm sure constant, comparisons to Hero Academy for this game. I know they were developed simultaneously and they're so similar its hard not to compare them. My initial impression is they are both excellent games that are right up my alley.

Kamikaze28 · 07-06-2012, 02:19 AM

(07-06-2012 02:11 AM)bigredsk10 Wrote: As a side note, I feel bad for the inevitable, and I'm sure constant, comparisons to Hero Academy for this game. I know they were developed simultaneously and they're so similar its hard not to compare them. My initial impression is they are both excellent games that are right up my alley.

Before this thread derails into a comparison, may I redirect your attention to another thread, where this discussion has already been started: Differences/Comparison With Hero Academy
In this thread, some very excellent points have already been made.

And now back to topic.