The future of Outwitters

[CombatEX]

So it's been a long time since I posted one of these, but here we go! As always I'll try to keep it as organized as possible.


A. Do we really want a "sequel"?
Maybe most of you do, but that's not exactly what I'm looking for. Sure, Outwitters could use new features, but I feel that the actual gameplay should remaining mostly unchanged. Why? For the same reason Chess 2: The Sequel sounds ridiculous (though that game looks interesting and I'll probably play it, it's never going to be a replacement for traditional chess). I don't want to see Outwitters replaced, I want to see it improved.


B. What I want to see
1. Expanded potential playerbase
This means release to other platforms, most importantly, PC. The game needs to have players if we ever want to see Outwitters make a dent on the strategy genre (which it certainly has the ability to do with its easy to learn, hard to master design). As others have stated, Outwitters is a gem that crops up once in a lifetime and it truly has greater potential than it may seem from its financial failure.

2. Live mode
Those of us who are still playing Outwitters are fine with asynch gameplay. In fact, it's possible the majority of us prefer it. However, if you look at negative comments on Outwitters, a large fraction of those pertain to the inability to just sit down and play a game. Many people, especially new players who don't already have an appreciation for the game, are turned off by the fact that they start a match and have to wait. And I think we all know how much waiting there can be. Even after you find an opponent they may take one turn and then not play again for a few hours or even until the next day. We're used to this, but many people are not and won't give Outwitters a chance as a result.

Additionally, even if we are accustomed to this, it could still be beneficial to have a faster game mode (I know some players around the forums have voiced support for a Blitz mode). One of the current problems with asynch competitive play is that it favors players who have more time to sit down and analyze their moves. For instance, especially on 1 spawn maps, I often can recreate the game (all of my opponents moves) from what I can see and how many units I know they have spawned. However, this can be a very time consuming process. If players want to reach the top, they can do things like recreating games turn by turn and wit-counting. It's by far the best way to play as you can often have knowledge of exactly how many wits your opponent has. But sitting down and recreating games, counting wits, etc is dull and harmful for the game. Having a live mode would make wit counting and turn recreation impractical. Players will have to rely purely on their game knowledge and intuition.

NOTE: I am not suggesting replacing asynch, just that having a quicker game mode would not only cater to many who are turned away by pure asynch, but also could prove beneficial to a competitive scene amongst current Outwitters fans.

3. More maps
Ideally Outwitters would have a map rotation every season to keep gameplay fresh and inspire new strategies. At the beginning of the season a few of the old maps would be replaced with new ones. OML would have to work too hard to create so many new maps so often so hopefully this can be achieved by outsourcing to the community with a map editor. The community can then decide which maps are best suited for competitive play and help OML pick which maps will enter the next season's map pool. In conjunction with a veto system (see below), the two or three most vetoed maps could be the ones rotated out and replaced by the new maps. This way there isn't too much turnover in the map pool as only a few maps are switched each season.

4. OSN integration into main game
OSN is a wonderful tool for improvement and also tracking player progress and statistics. Unfortunately it isn't well advertised from within the game and I imagine many, perhaps the majority, of players do not know it exists. OSN has become such an integral part of my Outwitters experience that I feel a "sequel" should have OSN's features prominently displayed from within the game.

NOTE: Doesn't have to be OSN necessarily, but a comparable set of features accessible from within the game


C. What I don't want to see
1. Oversaturation of new teams in competitive play
It seems like I'm in the minority but having more than 4 teams (4 teams is already pushing it) would likely ruin the competitive aspect of the game for me. Balance is hard enough as it is, just look at Veggienauts, and certain team matchups on different maps. Having 8+ teams would be exponentially worse. At the very least if we go above 4 teams, a veto system must be implemented (ability to pick a few maps that won't show up when you queue for a game). I already think it's a good idea with just 4 teams judging from the statistics released by CodePenguin and compiled by others in the data sharing initiative. For Scallywags and Feedback there are 3 or 4 maps which have terrible matchups (20-80, 30-70 w/l rates). Allowing 3 or 4 map vetoes would go a long way to creating a fair environment amongst the different races while still maintaining a large map diversity (you still need to master the other 7 or 8 maps with each race). This places the emphasis on winning when the odds are even in a test of head-to-head ability instead of on hoping to scrape a win with 1:5 odds. Overall this is healthier for a competitive environment.

Still not convinced? Take chess for instance. While it could be interesting seeing Magnus Carlsen trying to beat other GMs playing down a pawn in 1/4th of his games, it wouldn't be good for the competitive scene.

A compromise is to have new teams but only for use in friendly matches. This also opens up the ability for new teams to be used in tournaments without impacting game balance in competitive league.

2. Changes to the core gameplay
Keep the units intact. Soldiers, Runners, Medic, Sniper remain unchanged. Heavies? Perhaps they can be adjusted slightly but even heavies are okay as they are. Adorables can use them efficiently and predeployed heavies are useful for other teams. Occasionally other teams can warrant building a heavy too.
Keep the wit mechanic intact. It's brilliant, that's all I have to say.


D. Other thoughts
1. +2 wit spaces Perhaps implementing a type of wit space that gives +2 wits would prove beneficial to gameplay (as brainstormed in the comments of a thread I posted a while ago on predictability and turtling in Outwitters). On most maps there is a clear optimal path of approach when attacking your opponent. There is still enough variety that Outwitters is by no means stale, but I believe opening up other possible routes of attack would improve gameplay. One of the issues I addressed is that harassment of certain wit spaces is always inefficient and ultimately not worthwhile which closes off these routes of attack for good players.

Why are certain wit spaces not worthwhile? They are much further away from your spawn spaces than your opponent's and/or are not along the most direct attack path towards your opponent's base (for example, the top wit spaces on Long Nine or the top left and bottom right wit spaces on Foundry). These spaces occasionally see some action but more often than not they see none. By making these out-of-the-way wit spaces more valuable, it opens up the potential for new attack paths that aren't always directly towards your opponent's base.