Suggestions

[Fluffysox]

So recently I came back to outwitters and I immediately panicked when I lost one of my 2v2s. Turns out that if your ally leaves/is killed, you lose. Now I understand that it's a good idea to have the mechanics as 'lose when your ally DIES' thing to encourage teamwork and all, but when they leave? I think you should be able to play for them and take their bonus with tiles etc, but obviously playing 1v2 maybe an advantage for some. So instead of having both players 5wits each a turn, perhaps you can control all their units and spawners but only hav an extra 2 wits a turn? Making it pretty much a 1v2 with you getting 2 bonus wits. (not including any tiles or anything). Sorry if it's a little confusing, I am horrible at elaborating.

Second of all I'd like a FRee for all mode where 3/4 players battle it out, each by themselves.

P.s the game is awesome and I love the way it is. I would still love this game even if it was never worked on again

[Kamikaze28]

(07-08-2012 03:18 PM)Fluffysox Wrote:  So recently I came back to outwitters and I immediately panicked when I lost one of my 2v2s. Turns out that if your ally leaves/is killed, you lose. Now I understand that it's a good idea to have the mechanics as 'lose when your ally DIES' thing to encourage teamwork and all, but when they leave? I think you should be able to play for them and take their bonus with tiles etc, but obviously playing 1v2 maybe an advantage for some. So instead of having both players 5wits each a turn, perhaps you can control all their units and spawners but only hav an extra 2 wits a turn? Making it pretty much a 1v2 with you getting 2 bonus wits. (not including any tiles or anything). Sorry if it's a little confusing, I am horrible at elaborating.

What I'm gathering from this is that you would like both players in a 2v2 to agree to a forfeit before it actually taking effect. Sounds reasonable, especially with random opponents.

(07-08-2012 03:18 PM)Fluffysox Wrote:  Second of all I'd like a FRee for all mode where 3/4 players battle it out, each by themselves.

Here's a scenario for you with 3 players:
Player A does 3 damage to base B and 2 damage to base C
Player B does 3 damage to base A and 2 damage to base C
Player C does 2 damage to base A and ends the game.
Who's the winner?
A clearly has lost since his base was destroyed. Did C win because he delivered the final blow? Or did B win because he did most of the work? What if B did 4 damage and C only 1?
With 4 players, it doesn't get any better.

[Fluffysox]

So wait....base a and b have 2 hp each and c has 1. Player c decides to do 2 damage to player 1 therefore eliminating him. Now it is player b and c? Perhaps make it last man standing?

Edit: I'm kind of confused, but I think I can make out that you think the game end when only 1 player dies? It could be, as I said battling till only 1 person is left alive and the eliminated could watch as spectators.

[Kamikaze28]

(07-08-2012 07:26 PM)Fluffysox Wrote:  So wait....base a and b have 2 hp each and c has 1. Player c decides to do 2 damage to player 1 therefore eliminating him. Now it is player b and c? Perhaps make it last man standing?

What happens to the units of Player A and his Bonus Wit spaces? They all self destruct and Wit Spaces become neutral?

[Fluffysox]

(07-08-2012 07:29 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  

(07-08-2012 07:26 PM)Fluffysox Wrote:  So wait....base a and b have 2 hp each and c has 1. Player c decides to do 2 damage to player 1 therefore eliminating him. Now it is player b and c? Perhaps make it last man standing?

What happens to the units of Player A and his Bonus Wit spaces? They all self destruct and Wit Spaces become neutral?

Sure XD

[Kamikaze28]

One remaining problem is scoring. Can the firstly eliminated player be scored before the remaining two are done? Otherwise, he'd have to drag an essentially finished game around for days just to receive his -points. Doesn't sound like fun.

Another idea would be to determine the order of the surviving players based on their base HP. So in the above scenario, the result would be:
1st place: player B (2 HP)
2nd place: player C (1 HP)
3rd place: player A (0 HP)
If feels like a conflict for player C to end the game and come in 2nd - he could have tried to win instead by not destroying player A and possible keeping him barely alive - which doesn't sound like fun for player A to be honest.

[Harti]

Another suggestion: You should be able to concede unranked games at any time even if it's not your turn.

[Fluffysox]

(07-08-2012 07:37 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  One remaining problem is scoring. Can the firstly eliminated player be scored before the remaining two are done? Otherwise, he'd have to drag an essentially finished game around for days just to receive his -points. Doesn't sound like fun.

Another idea would be to determine the order of the surviving players based on their base HP. So in the above scenario, the result would be:
1st place: player B (2 HP)
2nd place: player C (1 HP)
3rd place: player A (0 HP)
If feels like a conflict for player C to end the game and come in 2nd - he could have tried to win instead by not destroying player A and possible keeping him barely alive - which doesn't sound like fun for player A to be honest.

Perhaps he could choose to watch or choose to leave and have his point taken away? I don't know how the points work even in 1v1s, because when I watch replays, people get different scores. I'm extremely confused. Maybe you could add the normal scoring system and have extra points for 1st place? As for player A, he gets point deduction. And player B would have....normal score system divided by 10?

So it would turn out to be:
Player A - take away points (died first)
Player B - + extremely little (died second)
Player C - Normal win score (survived till end)

Oh, I thnk I understand what's confusing now. I'm trying to say have points like last person alive, but I think your trying to add points on how much damage you did/health you have?

---

(07-08-2012 10:21 PM)Harti Wrote:  Another suggestion: You should be able to concede unranked games at any time even if it's not your turn.

Good idea, would probably be easier to implement than that crap I posted

[Szei]

For 2v2 when your ally leaves or forfeits from inactivity you should not lose the game. Rather, your ally is kicked from the game and you continue playing. The game proceeds just like any other 2v2 game except you have full control over your ally's units, production, etc.

You shouldn't get any kind of wits penalty nor should you be allowed to move your ally's pieces on your turn. Normal turn progression should still apply!

Edit:

I thought I should add that currently playing 2v2 random is extremely risky since there is a good chance your ally will stop playing and eventually forfeit the game. Unless the change suggested above is implemented I don't see 2v2 random ever really taking off. At present I'm just sticking with 2v2 arranged teams when I play 2s.

[Fluffysox]

(07-09-2012 08:29 AM)Szei Wrote:  For 2v2 when your ally leaves or forfeits from inactivity you should not lose the game. Rather, your ally is kicked from the game and you continue playing. The game proceeds just like any other 2v2 game except you have full control over your ally's units, production, etc.

You shouldn't get any kind of wits penalty nor should you be allowed to move your ally's pieces on your turn. Normal turn progression should still apply!

Edit:

I thought I should add that currently playing 2v2 random is extremely risky since there is a good chance your ally will stop playing and eventually forfeit the game. Unless the change suggested above is implemented I don't see 2v2 random ever really taking off. At present I'm just sticking with 2v2 arranged teams when I play 2s.

Thanks for saying this, this is what I was trying to say in my first paragraph