PDA

View Full Version : The Banner Saga: Factions (Most Obvious Problems/mistakes)



BattleSloth
03-16-2013, 01:13 PM
In no particular order.

1. Not allowing players to click a unit and view all of its stats during the game. Duh? When is this coming? It's long overdue.

2. Not listing the exact details of a unit's abilities in games, numbers and all. Currently, if you want to learn the exact details of a unit's ability, you either have to upgrade to that unit first, find something in the forums, or go to a wiki.

3. No hexagons. You set out to make a game with strategic combat, and decided to go with the standard grid. Hexagons would have opened up more.

4. Pointless grind. This isn't an RPG: this is a strategy game spinoff of an RPG. Don't waste people's time with grinding, especially to those who have already paid money. A lot of people are going to go berserk when they read this, that's because they are brainwashed, Skinner Box rats. No, artificial time barriers are not a good thing to have on a strategy game.

5. The fire pit map. Please... kill it.

loveboof
03-16-2013, 01:32 PM
I shall reply in no particular order. lol

1. I really like the fire pit map! IMO probably the best in terms of strategic environmental decisions...

2. Nothing wrong with squares instead of hexagons - pretty pointless gripe if you ask me :)

3. I can understand people disliking a 'grind', but it has been proven time and time again that multiplayer games benefit from such systems. It adds longevity and gives a feeling of progression.

4. Yes, clicking for more unit info could be useful.

5. Yes, perhaps more detailed information on abilities could also be useful.

Alejandro Mackgyver
03-16-2013, 01:49 PM
Pointless grind. This isn't an RPG: this is a strategy game spinoff of an RPG. Don't waste people's time with grinding, especially to those who have already paid money. A lot of people are going to go berserk when they read this, that's because they are brainwashed, Skinner Box rats. No, artificial time barriers are not a good thing to have on a strategy game.

I like how you circumvented any criticism directed towards your post by claiming they're "brain washed." But if you'd like to learn more about how skinner box principle is actually applied in games then I'd direct you towards this (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1) article on Gamasutra that accurately describes Skinner box principles and their application in games. More specifically how they compel a player to continue playing a game, not on forming his/hers' opinions on said game.

And I'll second Loveboof's defense of this system adding a feeling of progression to a game.

There have been plenty of post (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1206-The-Strategy-of-Ultimate-Win) already bringing up all of your qualms that I recommend you check out for the answer to your demands.

Chopsticks
03-16-2013, 02:07 PM
1. Yeah, this desperately needs to be put into the game. As well as a quick and easy way to tell if an enemies unit is rank 2/3.

2. Also a valid point, I agree w/ you here.

3. Hexagons are fun and all, but I thinks squares work better for this game.

4. I agree here. The renown required for you to get a rank 1 team is a bit long, but it's reasonable. 40 renown for rank 0 to rank 1 isn't too bad. However, to get from rank 1 to rank 2 it suddenly costs 150 renown. That is just too ridiculous of a jump.

5. The firepit map can be annoying, but at least it adds some variation to the game.

Guğmundr
03-16-2013, 02:42 PM
1. Not allowing players to click a unit and view all of its stats during the game. Duh? When is this coming? It's long overdue.
It's on Stoic's to-do list. Should be coming fairly soon.



2. Not listing the exact details of a unit's abilities in games, numbers and all. Currently, if you want to learn the exact details of a unit's ability, you either have to upgrade to that unit first, find something in the forums, or go to a wiki.
Good point. Perhaps an in-game encyclopedia, similar to the "Civilopedia" in the Civilization series, would fit nicely in Factions.



5. The fire pit map. Please... kill it.
To be honest, the Great Hall is my least favorite map, but I don't think it's broken. It makes for an interesting change in tactics, IMO.

Vexbane
03-16-2013, 02:43 PM
In no order:

1- Fire pit map is great and adds some strategic depth to battle. Better than just lining up with no terrain.

2- As for hexs vs squares. In this game really doesn't matter. That is a very small gripe imo.

3/4- I agree about more info being displayed. Especially ranks. You can click on a unit and see its stats though, but only when it is its turn to go. Not good enough. That is currently the only way to see if the unit is rank 2.

5- All games generally have some kind of grind to them. This adds to the replayability and longevity. The game has rpg elements in the unit customizations and level ups. If everyone could get everything in game quickly (which technically they can with money if they so desire) they would get burned out and leave. Especially when this is more or less a tool for the team to test thing for the single player portion of the game. More of a bonus for us players, rather than being developed from the get go as their main focus.

Seems to me like you want everything handed to you and no real difficulty playing the game. You dislike the only strategic map there is, complain about leveling up your guys etc.. Your conclusion and broad generalization about all of us being "brainwashed" does nothing to give you any credit for your argument. These are just your opinions and nothing more. You barely gave any reasons for your conclusions as well so how is the team suppose to take this info in a constructive manner?

sweetjer
03-16-2013, 03:09 PM
But if you'd like to learn more about how skinner box principle is actually applied in games then I'd direct you towards this (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1) article on Gamasutra that accurately describes Skinner box principles and their application in games.

A little off-topic I suppose, but thanks for this article; it's really interesting!

masterblaster
03-16-2013, 03:55 PM
I sort of agree with the level grind, however there are two sides to this issue. First, the sense of accomplishment/replayability issue as mentioned in other posts. I dont have any problem with this if it's managed in a balanced and fair manner.

Which leads me to my next point. There is also research regarding games, moblie apps., etc. that shows that any immediate impediments (perceived or real) to using the full application drastically reduce user satisfaction and greatly increase the chance that users will decide not to continue the game, mobile app., etc.

So I sort of agree with the op, in that I think the amount of renown necessary for ranks 2 and 3 are ridiculously high. imho, a 40/80/120 renown system would work better, as it is a simple x2 and x3 of the original renown cost. but keep in mind this is a ftp game. unfortunately that means most likely there is something in the game to encourage people to spend real money. at least in this case, spending money is a time saver and not necessarily a ptw scenario.

squares vs hexagons i think is a valid point, but both systems work well in their own way. my only wish is that there was a melee unit with an ability to make diagonal attacks. diagonal attacks only for archers seems a bit unrealistic and limits tactical melee options overall. I think its a bit late to make such a drastic change from squares to hexagons.

at first i hated the fire pit map, but now I kind of like it. at least it adds variation to the mostly bland maps. its always interesting for me to see how opponents decide to start and move their units. I've had many fun and close matches on the fire pit map. I vote to keep the fire pit map, and design some new maps with features that require more careful choices for unit movement.

piotras
03-16-2013, 04:01 PM
Which leads me to my next point. There is also research regarding games, moblie apps., etc. that shows that any immediate impediments (perceived or real) to using the full application drastically reduce user satisfaction and greatly increase the chance that users will decide not to continue the game, mobile app., etc.

So I sort of agree with the op, in that I think the amount of renown necessary for ranks 2 and 3 are ridiculously high. imho, a 40/80/120 renown system would work better, as it is a simple x2 and x3 of the original renown cost. but keep in mind this is a ftp game. unfortunately that means most likely there is something in the game to encourage people to spend real money. at least in this case, spending money is a time saver and not necessarily a ptw scenario.

Yea... Stoic has a hard choice to make, given how diverse the playerbase is - you've got people that play rarely and mostly with friends, people like me who can squeeze in a game or two every other day and competitive players spending daily a few hours minimum. Wherever they shift the prices / grind level there will be a fraction of players that felt they were left out. In my opinion the current prices aren't that bad, given the audience they cater for.

Two
03-16-2013, 06:09 PM
Answering OP:
1) Agreed, this information should be there, otherwise it's also somewhat of a memory game, and strategy games should avoid that. (This is not a poker, to remember and count!)
2) Completely agree, I had to make a new unit to check that the ability was nothing like I had imagined it (distance, aoe, dmg cap, etc..)
3) Hexagons would be more interesting, yet squares do not seem to have many problems still.
4) Erm... I did not understand the point sorry. Too much grind is the argument? I think this is fine. You need the combat experience as a player as well, in order to get better.
5) Fire pit is awesome! Have played my best and worst games there! I would actually promote the idea of more environmental hazardous maps! :D

Cheers all,
Two

BattleSloth
03-16-2013, 06:23 PM
*Sighs* I typed up a big response and it logged me out. I don't love you anymore, Select All.

6. The forum sux :p (not really)

Here's an condensed version, which probably lacks some good points that I now can't remember:

@ Alejandro: I've written an paper on that article! The Skinner Box mechanisms are unnecessary to keep people playing. It uses up the time of people who just want to play a competitive strategy game. What if they had allowed us to upgrade units however from the start, but had also given a wider variety of alternate colors? Renown would be spent on names, banners, and color schemes. People get progression AND a good strategy game, without a time wall.

People seem to agree with me on stats/abilities.

Hexagons are totally superior, as they open up more movement options.

The fire pit map seems to favor some builds over others by a significant amount. Perhaps I'm based, as I've been using a melee heavy build (or all melee, hah, but I disliked the map before that, and even with archers). It just seems awkward if you spread your units out on both sides. So it makes me feel forced into a deadly 50-50 guessing game (with two arbitrary choices) against some builds. Maybe I need to play on it more.

Shiri
03-16-2013, 06:33 PM
Opening up more movement options ISN'T superior though. It would be inferior for this game, because the best part of it is how crucial position for everything is for things like movement blocking, shieldwall/heavy impact, varl size, and so on. Same reason you don't have diagonal movement. Expanded movement choice isn't a terminal value in and of itself, it's only worthwhile when the game would be better for having them.

I do really want that stat banner though.

masterblaster
03-16-2013, 10:33 PM
Hexagons are totally superior, as they open up more movement options.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. - The Dude


lol, well it is true that hexagons open up more movement options, but that doesnt make it totally superior. more options doesnt automatically equal better game.

personally, I would feel like renown is just a gimmick if it could only be used for names, colors, banners, and other decorative features. honestly I could care less about that kind of stuff. i think the answer is to just lower the cost of ranks 2 & 3 to a more manageable number. I also feel that beginning with a team of base units helps people learn the basics of the game before jumping into the complexities of the advanced units.

loveboof
03-17-2013, 08:43 AM
The 'grind' that has been raised as an issue is simply playing the game! It's not like we're killing boars in the forest (South Park)...

Yellow
03-17-2013, 08:48 AM
i will just go ahead and rate this thread with 1 star, as far from being constructive critisism it's just pure trash-talking about the game!

BattleSloth
03-17-2013, 11:35 AM
i will just go ahead and rate this thread with 1 star, as far from being constructive critisism it's just pure trash-talking about the game!

Even if you didn't like my opening tone, (which isn't totally serious, I'm a sarcastic person and I like the game) are you really going to say this hasn't been a constructive thread? People are talking about it, exchanging ideas, agreeing and disagreeing with me, and nobody is going berserk or anything.

I really care about those virtual yellow stars, though!

Tatski
03-17-2013, 05:54 PM
Other suggestions are fine exept for the firepit and the hexgrid
Hexgrid will make it a different game IMO and hexgrid doesn't mean that it's more complex than a standard grid... I like the square grid (for this game at least)because it's easier to funnel/choke/block enemy movement paths...
Firepit map is also fine, still my least favorite map in the game.. Sacrificing 1 or 2 str for better positioning is well worth it. Crossing the firepit will not cause you the game! I don't consider myself as a good player but I think I haven't lost in a firepit game where units are deployed on opposite sides of the pit, simply because my enemy is scared to cross the pit. Come to think of it, aside from Hall of Valor, it would be interesting if they implemented a page were you can see your personal stats like which map you is your strongest(best win/loss ratio), and which is your weakest, most used unit and least used unit and etc ..

Yellow
03-17-2013, 07:34 PM
Even if you didn't like my opening tone, (which isn't totally serious, I'm a sarcastic person and I like the game) are you really going to say this hasn't been a constructive thread? People are talking about it, exchanging ideas, agreeing and disagreeing with me, and nobody is going berserk or anything.

I really care about those virtual yellow stars, though!

Yellow Stars are the only reason to existance... lol...

On a more serious note, as u yourself adressed, ur opening tone was quite rude, even if u was being "sarcastical" it gives the entire comment a bad initial first impresion... and while some comments have been a bitt less critical, the entire thread still feels a bit like a hating thread, more than anything else, not to mention that most of the things here posted, have been adressed already by the devs and/or suggested/mentioned several times, so repeating them in such tone gives even further impresion of this being as i already mentioned indeed a hating thread... that's atleast how i feel about it...

Grits
03-18-2013, 01:07 AM
If you have a problem with the grind, just pay $20. Everyone wants everything for free these days. For those that want to go straight to competition, you can go ahead and pay for the game. Other people don't mind leveling up more slowly and learning the game as they go.

Chopsticks
03-18-2013, 01:47 AM
Even paying $20 will only get you a single rank 2 team. That's kind of unreasonable.

raven2134
03-18-2013, 07:36 AM
It's a tough balance to strike. Remember that the price also has to be commensurate to the time investment for non-money players otherwise the price-time differential will,

1. Encourage people to think the game is a grind (cos you can buy a lot of equivalent game time for cheap)
2. Cause non-money players to feel gimped/disadvantaged by the pay factor, because their time is worth comparatively little.

masterblaster
03-18-2013, 09:17 AM
Even paying $20 will only get you a single rank 2 team. That's kind of unreasonable.

well, thats the business model of FTP. LOTS of ways to spend LOTS of money and still not have ownership of the entire game. but at least TBS is not a ptw game. personally, i hate the FTP business models. I would much rather spend money up front for the entire package rather than all this 'nickeled and dimed' bullsheeit. all of these 'deals' like 24 hour renown boosts and that kind of stuff reminds me of a used car salesman and makes the game feel somewhat cheap. even the graphics used to promote these deals looks like something i see on local commercials for used furniture stores.

don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing TBS, and have logged more than 40 hours of gameplay in just 1 week. I've had many late nights thinking, 'just one more battle!' lol. but the entire FTP aspect of TBS is a real turn off to me.

KRD
03-18-2013, 09:31 AM
I would much rather spend money up front for the entire package rather than all this 'nickeled and dimed' bullsheeit.

And have three rank 3 units of each promotion available to you from the first time you run the game, just waiting to have their stats distributed and their names changed from the defaults? Would you honestly say that would make Factions a more complete experience or a better game?

Shiri
03-18-2013, 10:14 AM
And have three rank 3 units of each promotion available to you from the first time you run the game, just waiting to have their stats distributed and their names changed from the defaults? Would you honestly say that would make Factions a more complete experience or a better game?

Yes, actually. The game is strong enough just to be played for itself, there's a good amount of players who don't NEED extraneous rewards to enjoy just playing games for themselves. And it doesn't have to be forced on everyone. I'm hoping there are eventually "super-experienced units" with tonnes of kills for that exact reason, so someone can just enter the game and play the same complete experience as everyone else (pay to lose FTW!)

Flickerdart
03-18-2013, 11:43 AM
Character progression, in a game with RPG elements? No, let's get rid of it. Totally makes sense.
If you automatically give people maxed out units, you'll have a massive crowd whining about how the game is imbalanced, because they don't know how to play and get trounced by everyone they fight.

KRD
03-18-2013, 11:49 AM
That's not to say the game wouldn't work without character progression or pacing. Chess does. I'm just saying it wouldn't necessarily be better in every way conceivable for it.

Chopsticks
03-18-2013, 12:04 PM
Like, I don't mind paying at most $30-40 for this game. But as is it's just too expensive to get a rank 3 team, nevermind a rank 2 team. Let's say you buy an inexperienced rank 0 team and upgrade them to rank 2. That's 6x10 + 6x40 + 6x150 or 60 + 240 + 900 or 1300 renown.

I think most of the fun from this game comes not from the grind, but from the actual competitive nature of the game. IE: trying out new builds and combos. Things are fine right now w/ rank 1 teams, but later on it's going to get ridiculous w/ the rank 2 and 3 teams.

raven2134
03-18-2013, 12:19 PM
Well, in truth, there's no "right" place in the game yet for higher ranking teams. It's hard to find matches and even months down the line, majority of the playerbase will probably be running rank 1 and lower.

How we can integrate rankings smoothly into Factions is still currently something everyone (stoic+game+community) is in the endeavor of figuring out. Afterall, this wasn't introduced during the beta and with new stuff comes a new set of wrinkles to smoothen out.

Shiri
03-18-2013, 12:39 PM
Character progression, in a game with RPG elements? No, let's get rid of it. Totally makes sense.
If you automatically give people maxed out units, you'll have a massive crowd whining about how the game is imbalanced, because they don't know how to play and get trounced by everyone they fight.

Being able to pay to bypass it, like with any normal competitive game (strategy, fighter, whatever) and removing it altogether are completely different. Heck, you can have your cake and eat it if the prices end up such that you're paying an indie game price for one or two sets of units and grind up the rest, and then a full retail price (or even a decent amt more expensive) for everything.

Right now you can get every rank 1 unit you need for a respectable price (and then some), and is that really something to complain about?

Chopsticks
03-18-2013, 01:12 PM
I guess one other thing that should be noted: there really needs to be an option to temporarily rank down a unit so you don't have to have several different teams at different ranks.

netnazgul
03-18-2013, 01:13 PM
Like, I don't mind paying at most $30-40 for this game. But as is it's just too expensive to get a rank 3 team, nevermind a rank 2 team.
You know, trying to get all rank3 team through gaming is not so achievable either (in fact only several players have enough renown now to have at least 6 rank3 units, and most of them are renown grinders), so it should be expensive to get a rank3 team.

Also, you still need kills on those units to get them to rank3 (afair you can't buy units with 30 kills now), and by the time you actually get the killcount - you'd have enough renown to promote them all

Shiri
03-18-2013, 01:36 PM
I guess one other thing that should be noted: there really needs to be an option to temporarily rank down a unit so you don't have to have several different teams at different ranks.
I agree. In the meantime we can just stick to rank 1 though, and hopefully enough others will do that that we won't end up getting matched against 7+s much.

Chopsticks
03-18-2013, 02:09 PM
I've got at least 30 kills on each of my units on my main team. I have about 700 renown kicking around right now. That's not even enough for rank 2.

I haven't bought any colour variations, but I did buy 2 barrack expansions, another rank 1 team and a rank 0 team.

Leartes
03-18-2013, 04:59 PM
Pay your 30€ on the game and you have so much renown you don't know how to spend it. Honestly, I spend less than that and I played 60-70 games and I have 1600 renown and several teams in my barracks.

The game is about trying stuff out for me and I could try out tons of stuff on rank 1 already. Go build several teams, try them for 20+ fights and you got enough to upgrade your favorite team. From that point on it gets easier to mix and match as you get more and more units on higher ranks.

I bet there will be super experienced units to cut the kill-grind later on, but at the moment we don't need them. Also prizes are okish imo. Obviously less is always better. On the other hand I really want them to make that money, stoic deserves the success - and then it goes back into the single player game which they should focus on anyway.

Chopsticks
03-18-2013, 05:48 PM
1,600,000 renown? Really?

FfSsBb
03-25-2013, 11:05 AM
I don't understand this whole grind issue. Is there an endgame in The Banner Saga: Factions that I'm unaware of that is sooo much better then the rest of the game? Is playing with a level 18 team so much more fun than playing with a level 6 team? I think the whole MMORPG, JRPG and CoD grinds that a lot of people are expecting in their games can't be really applied here. Ask yourself, what are you playing TBS:F for? To challenge your tactical skills against other players, to be the best at the game, to kill the time until The Banner Saga Chapter 1 releases or to get your whole team to level 3 so you can play level 18 games?

Impaler
03-28-2013, 11:20 AM
You forgot the most important point: games being decided by a random number generator instead of skill, positioning and strategy

raven2134
03-28-2013, 11:43 AM
That simply isn't true :).

And to see this all you'd have to do is compare 2 people (even playing with the same build/same team and against the same opponent/team), and see which one wins more...

a) the one who is strategizing and playing accordingly.

b) the one who is taking strength shots on every turn without breaking.

:)

Just because we have the mechanic, doesn't mean it is the deciding one.

d2r
03-28-2013, 02:45 PM
Honestly, what is with people complaining about random chance? If you don't like the chance, break the enemy armour first. It's that simple. What, you really think that your 1 STR guy hitting someone with 17 ARM should be a guaranteed hit? Trying to avoid shots with a % chance to miss by breaking enemy armour first is part of the game's strategy.

Aleonymous
03-28-2013, 03:07 PM
I think the game is keeping a fair distance from pay-to-win type-of-games. And it should well continue in that principle. Not that paying your way to a rank-18 team would get you somewhere: most likely, it'd just get you a consistent beating by experienced players, to whom the matches would seem dull and unrewarding. What it is fun to spend renown on, is color variations, names and other "cosmetics" (I'd also suggest more color-customizations, ability to design sigils/banners etc).

Arnie
03-28-2013, 07:29 PM
In no particular order.

1. Not allowing players to click a unit and view all of its stats during the game. Duh? When is this coming? It's long overdue.

2. Not listing the exact details of a unit's abilities in games, numbers and all. Currently, if you want to learn the exact details of a unit's ability, you either have to upgrade to that unit first, find something in the forums, or go to a wiki.

3. No hexagons. You set out to make a game with strategic combat, and decided to go with the standard grid. Hexagons would have opened up more.

4. Pointless grind. This isn't an RPG: this is a strategy game spinoff of an RPG. Don't waste people's time with grinding, especially to those who have already paid money. A lot of people are going to go berserk when they read this, that's because they are brainwashed, Skinner Box rats. No, artificial time barriers are not a good thing to have on a strategy game.

5. The fire pit map. Please... kill it.

1. Unit Info: Yes, we've agree'd with this feedback for some time, but hadn't gotten a chance to implement it...UNTIL NOW! Next build will have all the info on every stat of every unit at the click of a button. HUZZAH!

2. Listing exact stats: Something we could add more of in the future. I do not disagree.

3. Hexagons: I don't know why hexagons make a game better. We don't have facing (not an oversight) and we wanted only 4 attack directions. Besides I can always roll out the old tired argument that chess is one of the most strategic games ever designed, and it's on a simple grid. Hexagons as a shape have existed for millennia and sometimes they are better for games and sometimes not. They are not better for The Banner Saga.

4. Pointless Grind: We wanted players to have a sense of progression. We honestly did not design the game to make anyone grind, but rather hoped people would find ranking up their characters to be rewarding. If the game was for pay instead of for free we'd still have a progression attached to it.

5. Fire pit map: HAHAhahahaha...man, we've had some real mixed feedback about this one. Some love, some hate. Do you have a better idea on how to keep a Greathall warm in the winter?

Thanks for the feedback. :)

Butters
03-28-2013, 10:52 PM
1. Unit Info: Yes, we've agree'd with this feedback for some time, but hadn't gotten a chance to implement it...UNTIL NOW! Next build will have all the info on every stat of every unit at the click of a button. HUZZAH!

Some more great news ! Really looking forward to this next build now :D

BattleSloth
03-29-2013, 08:50 AM
Cool, a dev response! Thanks for the reply. I'm excited about 1.7!

RobertTheScott
04-02-2013, 02:20 PM
I like how you circumvented any criticism directed towards your post by claiming they're "brain washed." But if you'd like to learn more about how skinner box principle is actually applied in games then I'd direct you towards this (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1) article on Gamasutra that accurately describes Skinner box principles and their application in games. More specifically how they compel a player to continue playing a game, not on forming his/hers' opinions on said game.

And I'll second Loveboof's defense of this system adding a feeling of progression to a game.

There have been plenty of post (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1206-The-Strategy-of-Ultimate-Win) already bringing up all of your qualms that I recommend you check out for the answer to your demands.

As someone who both supports progression and has expressed nervousness about how progression works in the past, I'd like to throw in my few cents. First of all, I see everything--even the multiplayer--as narrative driven. In a single match, the narrative is rather simple: a small number of named units go to war, help each other, and ultimately win or lose, with each mistake or good move having immediate, vicious consequences. This small narrative, however, is aided by a number of decisions in art-direction, sound design, and music that interact with the gameplay mechanisms: how loudly do people scream?

The meta-game doesn't have quite as strong a narrative, but it does have one. You have arrived at Strand, and allied yourself with its leader (a decision which may or may not be the right one, see the launch trailer.) Your goal now is to build up a team. In that context, some degree of grind is narratively meaningful. And I think that's been the philosophy of the game, for the most part. It isn't about gaging human psychology to be maximally addictive. It is about providing an experience--that of throwing your carefully-chosen, named troops against your opponent's in intimate combat--which is distinctive and fits within the overall narrative.