Gameplay Logistical Improvements

[timcoffman]

Players almost universally expect to have the option to experiment before committing their actions.

The problem is the instant and irrevocable mode of taking actions. Every action is 100% committed as soon as you tap it.

The problem is, that's not how people actually play. For example, I tapped my Bombshell twice by accident, and suddenly I've lost two actions by mistake (transforming and un-transforming), with no logical reason why I can't just take back my move- I've not received any new secret information yet.

The interface needs to be completely reworked to allow you to take your moves back at any point UP UNTIL you've received new information, i.e. revealed a hex which you did not see before. This implies that you would need to confirm any action which DOES reveal a new hex, which is a much better mode of play than an optional confirm on move actions.

---

When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

---

During playback, there are two issues:
(1a) I don't care in the least when an opponent is making a move I can't see, so it's a waste of my time to show me an indicator about that. (1b)
(1b) The screen still scrolls around to the area where activity is taking place that I CAN'T SEE, giving my hidden information I shouldn't have.

(2) The replay should allow me to step forward and back in the play sequence by one move at a time. I cannot tell if it is actually doing that, because most of the time the fast-forward and rewind buttons seem to have no effect.

[Eijolend]

Moving makes you confirm the action before you actually take the action unless you deactivated that in the menu.
While not being able to undo moves was a design decision as the developers already stated, I agree that the bombshell should probably have the same kind of confirmation window as moving does.

[Kamikaze28]

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  Players almost universally expect to have the option to experiment before committing their actions.

This mindset is brought to you by Hero Academy where you have to experiment before committing your turn unlike board games like chess where undos are a thing of training. Outwitters is really about think first, then act.

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  The problem is, that's not how people actually play. For example, I tapped my Bombshell twice by accident, and suddenly I've lost two actions by mistake (transforming and un-transforming), with no logical reason why I can't just take bake my move- I've not received any new secret information yet.

The interface needs to be completely reworked to allow you to take your moves back at any point UP UNTIL you've received new information, i.e. revealed a hex which you did not see before. This implies that you would need to confirm any action which DOES reveal a new hex, which is a much better mode of play than an optional confirm on move actions.

I can understand that this frustrates you, but as you already said - the interface would have to be heavily reworked to clearly communicate which actions can be undone and which ones can't be undone. An inconsistent undo button might produce more headaches than solve problems.

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

This came up during beta and was discussed at length - the truth is: you cannot incorporate the Bombshell mechanic with the other rules without breaking some implicit assumption - apparently, this approach was deemed the most acceptable by the devs.

[timcoffman]

I would urge the designers to reconsider such a drastic decision, since it makes the difference between an enjoyable game that forgives my mistakes and a frustrating game that I will discard after a couple matches.

Seriously, there is not a contradiction between making a game fun and making it challenging- the lack of an undo capability makes the game less fun without increasing the challenge.

The user interface for every successful operating system on the market today has had UNDO capability for _decades_. Even this iPhone has UNDO.

[Kamikaze28]

(07-06-2012 12:18 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  I would urge the designers to reconsider such a drastic decision, since it makes the difference between an enjoyable game that forgives my mistakes and a frustrating game that I will discard after a couple matches.

Seriously, there is not a contradiction between making a game fun and making it challenging- the lack of an undo capability makes the game less fun without increasing the challenge.

The user interface for every successful operating system on the market today has had UNDO capability for _decades_. Even this iPhone has UNDO.

While true, we are not talking about an operating system here, but a game where decisions should have meaning and consequences. The fog of war mechanic denies any undo related to troop movement, because then you could just scout out your enemy, undo all actions and respond to your enemies positioning which you now know ultimately eliminating the fog of war as a relevant mechanic.
Part of the challenge of Outwitters is dealing with surprises and using the fog of war to your advantage by sneaking a unit past your enemy without him/her noticing.

[timcoffman]

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  Players almost universally expect to have the option to experiment before committing their actions.

This mindset is brought to you by Hero Academy where you have to experiment before committing your turn unlike board games like chess where undos are a thing of training. Outwitters is really about think first, then act.

These games (Outwitters and Hero Academy) most closely resemble physical board games, where all my friends certainly let me take back my moves when I screw up so long as they haven't revealed anything. Your example of chess is a good one: in chess, I can make my move then keep my hand on the piece while I survey the new landscape before committing by removing my hand to indicate it is my opponent's turn.

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  The problem is, that's not how people actually play. For example, I tapped my Bombshell twice by accident, and suddenly I've lost two actions by mistake (transforming and un-transforming), with no logical reason why I can't just take bake my move- I've not received any new secret information yet.

The interface needs to be completely reworked to allow you to take your moves back at any point UP UNTIL you've received new information, i.e. revealed a hex which you did not see before. This implies that you would need to confirm any action which DOES reveal a new hex, which is a much better mode of play than an optional confirm on move actions.

I can understand that this frustrates you, but as you already said - the interface would have to be heavily reworked to clearly communicate which actions can be undone and which ones can't be undone. An inconsistent undo button might produce more headaches than solve problems.

I think the interface would have to be re-worked, but I'm suggesting a COMMIT function (with, for example an option to autocommit your moves in the settings). It doesn't get more clear than that.

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

This came up during beta and was discussed at length - the truth is: you cannot incorporate the Bombshell mechanic with the other rules without breaking some implicit assumption - apparently, this approach was deemed the most acceptable by the devs.

I would suggest that this can quite simply be solved by (1) only showing the potential damage indicator on visible opponents and (2) permitting bombing ANY hex, not just hexes containing opponents.

[Kamikaze28]

(07-06-2012 12:29 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  Players almost universally expect to have the option to experiment before committing their actions.

This mindset is brought to you by Hero Academy where you have to experiment before committing your turn unlike board games like chess where undos are a thing of training. Outwitters is really about think first, then act.

These games (Outwitters and Hero Academy) most closely resemble physical board games, where all my friends certainly let me take back my moves when I screw up so long as they haven't revealed anything. Your example of chess is a good one: in chess, I can make my move then keep my hand on the piece while I survey the new landscape before committing by removing my hand to indicate it is my opponent's turn.

Chess does not have fog of war. You don't gain any information by making a move in chess and then taking it back. You would gain information in Outwitters by doing this.

(07-06-2012 12:29 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

This came up during beta and was discussed at length - the truth is: you cannot incorporate the Bombshell mechanic with the other rules without breaking some implicit assumption - apparently, this approach was deemed the most acceptable by the devs.

I would suggest that this can quite simply be solved by (1) only showing the potential damage indicator on visible opponents and (2) permitting bombing ANY hex, not just hexes containing opponents.

Allowing any hex to be bombed would enable absolutely pointless actions which are currently not possible. Un-shelling and re-shelling a Bombshell on the spot is a user error to me, which might be addressed by implementing a delay before a second tap is registered or even allowing the re-shell to be free.

[timcoffman]

(07-06-2012 12:23 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:18 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  I would urge the designers to reconsider such a drastic decision, since it makes the difference between an enjoyable game that forgives my mistakes and a frustrating game that I will discard after a couple matches.

Seriously, there is not a contradiction between making a game fun and making it challenging- the lack of an undo capability makes the game less fun without increasing the challenge.

The user interface for every successful operating system on the market today has had UNDO capability for _decades_. Even this iPhone has UNDO.

While true, we are not talking about an operating system here, but a game where decisions should have meaning and consequences. The fog of war mechanic denies any undo related to troop movement, because then you could just scout out your enemy, undo all actions and respond to your enemies positioning which you now know ultimately eliminating the fog of war as a relevant mechanic.
Part of the challenge of Outwitters is dealing with surprises and using the fog of war to your advantage by sneaking a unit past your enemy without him/her noticing.

I agree with you, with some clarification: that meaningful and consequential decisions should have meaning and consequences.

The fog of war is exactly what makes this a potentially fun and interesting game; I would not suggest reducing its role at all. Would I DID suggest is that the fog of war defines the difference between a consequential action and an inconsequential one. For example:

• spawning a new unit next to my base: inconsequential, because I have not penetrated the fog of war. I should be able to undo this, in case I mis-tapped
• moving a scout close to my enemy's base: consequential, because I have not penetrated the fog of war. I should have to confirm this, because I can't undo it if I mis-tapped.
  

---

(07-06-2012 12:36 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:29 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

This came up during beta and was discussed at length - the truth is: you cannot incorporate the Bombshell mechanic with the other rules without breaking some implicit assumption - apparently, this approach was deemed the most acceptable by the devs.

I would suggest that this can quite simply be solved by (1) only showing the potential damage indicator on visible opponents and (2) permitting bombing ANY hex, not just hexes containing opponents.

Allowing any hex to be bombed would enable absolutely pointless actions which are currently not possible. Un-shelling and re-shelling a Bombshell on the spot is a user error to me, which might be addressed by implementing a delay before a second tap is registered or even allowing the re-shell to be free.

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!

[Kamikaze28]

(07-06-2012 12:37 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:23 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:18 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  I would urge the designers to reconsider such a drastic decision, since it makes the difference between an enjoyable game that forgives my mistakes and a frustrating game that I will discard after a couple matches.

Seriously, there is not a contradiction between making a game fun and making it challenging- the lack of an undo capability makes the game less fun without increasing the challenge.

The user interface for every successful operating system on the market today has had UNDO capability for _decades_. Even this iPhone has UNDO.

While true, we are not talking about an operating system here, but a game where decisions should have meaning and consequences. The fog of war mechanic denies any undo related to troop movement, because then you could just scout out your enemy, undo all actions and respond to your enemies positioning which you now know ultimately eliminating the fog of war as a relevant mechanic.
Part of the challenge of Outwitters is dealing with surprises and using the fog of war to your advantage by sneaking a unit past your enemy without him/her noticing.

I agree with you, with some clarification: that meaningful and consequential decisions should have meaning and consequences.

The fog of war is exactly what makes this a potentially fun and interesting game; I would not suggest reducing its role at all. Would I DID suggest is that the fog of war defines the difference between a consequential action and an inconsequential one. For example:

• spawning a new unit next to my base: inconsequential, because I have not penetrated the fog of war. I should be able to undo this, in case I mis-tapped
• moving a scout close to my enemy's base: consequential, because I have not penetrated the fog of war. I should have to confirm this, because I can't undo it if I mis-tapped.
  

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:  

(07-06-2012 12:36 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:29 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:17 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 12:05 AM)timcoffman Wrote:  When the Bombshell displays possible targets, it reveals hidden opponents which are one step beyond your current field of vision.

Thus, I can identify the presence of any opponents just beyond my sight without using any Wits. I would expect this to be contrary to the designers' intentions.

This came up during beta and was discussed at length - the truth is: you cannot incorporate the Bombshell mechanic with the other rules without breaking some implicit assumption - apparently, this approach was deemed the most acceptable by the devs.

I would suggest that this can quite simply be solved by (1) only showing the potential damage indicator on visible opponents and (2) permitting bombing ANY hex, not just hexes containing opponents.

Allowing any hex to be bombed would enable absolutely pointless actions which are currently not possible. Un-shelling and re-shelling a Bombshell on the spot is a user error to me, which might be addressed by implementing a delay before a second tap is registered or even allowing the re-shell to be free.

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.

[knighthalo123]

Makes sense, since if you have bombshell out, u can just fire randomly and the other team won't even know what hit them.