+1 Wits: Why is it a mistake?

[CombatEX]

First off, I'm not going to judge the success or potential for success/failure that +1 wits brings. It is far too early to judge either way and it is possible that ultimately, given enough time, we would discover that +1 wits is beneficial. That being said, I feel it is an unnecessary risk. It alters and complicates the core mechanics of a game which is focused on merging strategic depth with simplicity. However, this alone is not enough for concern. So then, what is the real problem?

Overview
- Current +1 Wit Solution Lengthy testing period and unknown yield
- Proposed Alternate Solution Map balancing and guaranteed long-term success
- Why Choose Map Balancing over +1 Wits? Further advantages of map balancing over fundamental game changes

Current +1 Wit Solution

Trying to implement a new mechanic which is a huge overhaul to the game is risky and we will only know if it is truly beneficial after many months have passed. Any data collected in a short period of time will not be accurate. For example, let us presume that games remain the same length on average after 2 months have passed. What does this reveal? Not much. Why? Because there are numerous possible explanations. It could be because this change does not prevent turtling. However, it is also possible that this change does help prevent turtling but players are simply more conservative due to being less familiar with the new mechanics and hence the game lengths are increased as a result. Those are two opposite conclusions that share the same data. Let us consider another possibility. Now consider the scenario where games become shorter after 3 months. Again, what does this reveal after such a short period? Once again, not much. Games may be shorter because the change does indeed help to fix turtling. However, once again there are alternate explanations. For example, perhaps players learn how to adjust to the new mechanic more quickly on the offensive, but take longer to determine the proper defensive responses. Once again there are conflicting conclusions one can reach given the same data. The point is that there are so many variables involved that one cannot simply take data in a short period like 1 or 2 months and pass an accurate judgement. Among other issues, players need time to reach the same level of comfort and skill that they were at before the change before accurate comparisons between pre-update and post-update data can be made and this will take time.

Proposed Alternate Solution
Balance maps instead of altering fundamental game mechanics as is done with +1 wits.

We know that proper map balancing will ultimately have a positive result as we have already seen that some maps are more balanced than others and some cater less to turtling. For example, Peekaboo is a bad map in the sense that it encourages turtling and there are maps that are widely agreed to be significantly better like Sweetie Plains. Besides turtling there is also the issue of how some specials are stronger on certain maps. In particular, bombshells seem to have an edge on smaller maps, but generally not as much on larger ones (well, again, map design is critical as a bombshell on Foundry - a large map - can still be quite strong due to map layout). Foundry is another interesting case. It is likely the map which sees the fewest special use due to the fast tempo of the games. This further goes to show the drastic impact on the way an Outwitters match plays out based on the map. We can see that map balancing is a guaranteed method for working towards both more balanced games between specials AND decreasing turtling given the proper attention.

Why Choose Map Balancing over +1 Wits?

Now, you could say that map balancing is no better than +1 wits. In both cases it will take time to accurately assess the change. The difference? Two main points:

1. Map balancing is GUARANTEED to ultimately be beneficial. In fact, even if we decide to continue testing +1 wits and it turns out to be helpful, map balancing is still something which would improve the game further. The success of +1 wits on the other hand is purely speculation. It is a huge risk whereas map changes are not.

2. The influence of +1 wits extends across the entire game. No match is untouched by this change. Every single game played until a verdict is reached will be affected by this new mechanic. In the case of map balancing, only a fraction of games are influenced by a new map or a change to an existing map at any given point in time. What does this mean? Even if a map change or a new map proves to be a poor one, it hasn't been negatively impacting the entire experience of Outwitters players and can be altered or removed relatively easily (less backlash). However, if you want to remove +1 wits after it has affected every game over the course of the 2/3/4 month+ assessment period, what kind of message does that send? To go back to the original system after players have had to endure this mechanic for such a protracted period appears indecisive. Further more, players will have been subjected to a worse experience during this time. Again, little changes like individual map balancing is far less risky and will incur much less backlash if a particular map has a negative result. This is due to the modular nature of maps allowing changes to be made to 1 or 2 at a time. This ability is not present in a fundamental overhaul like +1 wits per kill which permeates the entire game.

[AJaW96]

The above is a lot to take in, but the key point of game balance before game redesign is a good one. While there was a lot of talk about bombshells and turtles, there were a lot of good points about Outwitters - the best one being the calculated chess like play. I love mechanics that encourage offence, but the game feels completely different now.

In summary, I would love if the above approach of balancing maps (and units) was taken rather than sweeping game play changes.

[CombatEX]

Yes, I probably could have made my point more succinct, but I'm glad you were able to pinpoint the main idea I was trying to convey. Anyway, I added an Overview section to outline the basic points I covered so hopefully that helps with readability.

[Necrocat219]

I'm personally having a love hate relationship with the +1 rule: It's had an effect of making taking out the medic turn 3 with a runner harder (if they take your runner out with theirs they have a slight advantage as opposed to before) and I'm finding it fun but it makes the game much more complex in terms of analyzing positions. I'm on the fence about it.

I'm going to fully agree with you on one thing though, and that's we definitely need map balance, I can still think of disadvantages on player 2 on a few maps (sniper threatened on Longnine for example as still a major weakness) So I think at least a few tweaks need to be made.

[CommandConquerer]

IMHO, the +1 wit is great. Suddenly runner spam and early game rushes are no longer viable, even at lower levels. It encourages fast paced games and aggressive play, and also allows specials to be spawned much more frequently. Lets face it: if you rushed a special before, chances are your opponent will simply swamp you with soldiers before you can make any use of it. Not so anymore if you can get a few early kills in.

As for turtling, why discourage it at all? Turtling is a legit strategy. There are bad turtles and good turtles. There are tricks to maintaining a turtle wall and smashing through one, knowing when to hold a line, and when to go for a full out attack. It is a deep, competitive strategy. Why do we want all maps to be ultra fast swap fests? Let the turtle maps stay, I say. It is just another play style. There is no 'better' or 'worse' playstyles. Only ones that work, and ones that don't.

[Harti]

From the beta forums:

(10-14-2012 04:23 AM)Harti Wrote:I think I have an interesting idea balancing the +1 idea out:

http://harti.us/uploads/outwitters/idea.jpg
(warning: ultra-wide picture. 4080x667)

Briefly described:
- Instead of immediately getting the refund of 1 wit after destroying an enemy unit, a wit bulb will appear on the destroyed enemy unit's field.
- It will stay there until picked up or destroyed.
- It can only be picked up by allied units. If an enemy unit steps on it, it breaks into pieces.


This way, you can still perform easy consecutive attacks. But you still need to make sure you've got enough wits to move. And it makes Snipers less powerful as they can't pick it up immediately!

[Necrocat219]

(11-23-2012 09:50 PM)CommandConquerer Wrote:  IMHO, the +1 wit is great. Suddenly runner spam and early game rushes are no longer viable, even at lower levels. It encourages fast paced games and aggressive play, and also allows specials to be spawned much more frequently. Lets face it: if you rushed a special before, chances are your opponent will simply swamp you with soldiers before you can make any use of it. Not so anymore if you can get a few early kills in.

As for turtling, why discourage it at all? Turtling is a legit strategy. There are bad turtles and good turtles. There are tricks to maintaining a turtle wall and smashing through one, knowing when to hold a line, and when to go for a full out attack. It is a deep, competitive strategy. Why do we want all maps to be ultra fast swap fests? Let the turtle maps stay, I say. It is just another play style. There is no 'better' or 'worse' playstyles. Only ones that work, and ones that don't.

Spawning early specials is a completely viable tactic. Bombshell and especially scrambler rushes were and are still very deadly. I first got rushed by Harti with a bombshell (Although I guessed it's position
right so took it out) and then p1noyboy just crushed me with a turn 7 scrambler I think which wowed me and made me rethink uses of specials.

[=) Random Task (=]

CombatEX, I hear your arguments and I was also initially opposed to the wit for kill rule when I first learned about it as I thought the game was so well balanced that any change would just disturb a perfect environment.

Still I would now like to make a plea in favor of the change:

I think we agree that the wit for kill rule does not shift the balance of the gameplay in general. It just introduces a new dynamic. I am with you that before the change it was easier to calculate the moves. With the new rule a new element of insecurity was introduced (similar to the effect of the fog of war) without introducing an element of luck. Everything is still deterministic but just more complex now. Since it is now much more complex to calculate everything, games will more often take a surprising turn. We had players writing about their "burnout feeling" since playing felt very repetitive after some time. The wit for kill change will increase the volatility of the balance of power, while still retaining the basic principle that only the understanding and foresight of the players will determine how the game develops as no dices are rolled.

As a side effect the change is a perfect solution to shift the usefulness of the units toward the more expensive units. Many of us shared the impression that the heavy unit was not very efficient under the old ruleset. You will probably agree that its usefulnes is now much more in line with its cost in most situations.

[Gf!sh]

Also, I hate runner spammerz. Glad those are gone now (and/or the usefulness of it).

[daHsu]

Personally, I absolutely love the new rule. It changes the game completely, sure, but it also really filters out the good players from those that play a lot and get on with 50/50 wins.
It does take some time to get used to, but smart players should be taking advantage of the opponent's blunders. I've seen myself lose whole forests of 4-5 runners, but I've also been able to move entire armies across the map in a single turn, and with only a few wits.
Don't you guys think the +1wit/kill mechanic lets you do far more in a turn than before? Really gives you the chance to literally "outwit" the opponent