|
Post by pixelgeek on Oct 24, 2010 21:55:17 GMT -5
I agree with you Zac. But a lot of people have asked about it. A lot of people have emailed us about it. So we wanted to collect some data and see what the community thought. Maybe it might be an idea to ask these people what specific problem they are having that they think Overwatch will address? Ask for specific game examples of what they see as a problem and then look at how to solve that instead of just adding overwatch? Overwatch might not be needed or it might not really be a problem or the answer to their specific problem
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Oct 25, 2010 0:22:06 GMT -5
I agree with you Zac. But a lot of people have asked about it. A lot of people have emailed us about it. So we wanted to collect some data and see what the community thought. Maybe it might be an idea to ask these people what specific problem they are having that they think Overwatch will address? Ask for specific game examples of what they see as a problem and then look at how to solve that instead of just adding overwatch? Overwatch might not be needed or it might not really be a problem or the answer to their specific problem Let's start a different thread to discuss that...and keep this one to the original question. What do you think? I haven't given my opinion on whether we need it or not.
|
|
|
Post by shinzuer on Oct 25, 2010 7:30:40 GMT -5
That's a good idea. Just hope no one starts to question their questions. " There you see, you really don't need overwatch you foolish person ." Oops just reread pixelgeek's post. So it's overwatch hunting then ? Well certainly there's room for both points of view ? Just make overwatch, if it's implemented, an optional rule.
|
|
|
Post by pixelgeek on Oct 25, 2010 9:13:17 GMT -5
Just make overwatch, if it's implemented, an optional rule. One of my core experiences in game design and testing is that gamers are often very bad at determining the core source of a problem. Or at least at explaining it to developers. There are several issues that come up that can be revealed by some direct questioning and specific game examples 1) People sometimes play the rules incorrectly and aren't aware of it (shockingly common) 2) People sometimes want rule changes simply to fit their play style 3) The issues raised are often caused by something other than the point people think In order to make sure that Overwatch is the correct thing to do its really necessary for people to explain, using game examples, why the addition needs to be added. Just having people ask for something is a bad reason to add it to a game. If it needs to be added then it needs to be added but in my experience of playing Bounty and AE-WWII the system has no requirement for it. If people are asking for it then the issue needs to be explored more fully and some game driven rationale for the change needs to be presented and discussed.
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Oct 25, 2010 13:32:04 GMT -5
I think it might be a neat new dirty trick to add in.
That way, it's in there for when it's needed, but at the same time, it's not a rule that is available all the time.
|
|
|
Post by pixelgeek on Oct 25, 2010 15:05:45 GMT -5
I think it might be a neat new dirty trick to add in. I think that would be a great thing to add.
|
|
|
Post by dijit80 on Oct 25, 2010 15:54:08 GMT -5
I think it might be a neat new dirty trick to add in. I think that would be a great thing to add. Ditto, perhaps the best and most straight forward suggestion. Duncan
|
|
|
Post by jkoo on Oct 25, 2010 16:59:35 GMT -5
I agree. Overwatch as a dirty trick would be great. No more need of balance and simple rules.
|
|
|
Post by abbysdad on Oct 25, 2010 17:19:33 GMT -5
Ah, I love it when you guys ask for something we've already got in draft form for the next book
|
|
|
Post by CmdrKiley on Oct 25, 2010 17:51:24 GMT -5
Dirty Trick!, I was just about to suggest that. Call it "Gotcha!"
Another possibility would be a special ability of a new hero type (say....Camper....or something).
Great way of introducing it without revamping the core rules.
|
|
|
Post by dijit80 on Oct 26, 2010 15:42:02 GMT -5
Or call it 'wait 'til you see the reds of their eyes'
|
|
|
Post by shinzuer on Oct 28, 2010 18:04:55 GMT -5
Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by Darkson on Oct 28, 2010 22:38:02 GMT -5
It's nice to see you guys come to the same conclusion that we did when we were discussing it among our crew.
|
|
|
Post by varagon on Oct 30, 2010 1:26:35 GMT -5
It's nice to see you guys come to the same conclusion that we did when we were discussing it among our crew. I don't know, Rob. Perhaps you came to the same conclusion we did! I can't wait to see your iteration of it.
|
|
|
Post by cosworth on Jan 7, 2011 2:49:58 GMT -5
I do miss overwatch a bit. It's a nice option strategic option.
I like the one from gnomesofzurich:
Overwatch (Special Action) The model in question covers an area, preparing to fire on enemy units that move within its line of sight. A model taking the Overwatch special action must expend all its action points to do so. Each time an enemy model moves into the line of sight of the model taking the Overwatch special action, the model in question may fire upon it up to a maximum number of times equal to the number of action points expended.
Except for the forced use of all AP. Other than that it's clean and simple
|
|