Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 278

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: When you win, it's because you were better - would be nice

  1. #21
    Superbacker trisenk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    54
    I'd prefer the last hit to be more like preceding ones - 1str/1arm, no chance to miss, and +1 when you have 2 adjacent allies. No additional bonus for third ally. This way it's nerfed compared to older variant, but it's not that dependent on luck.
    Last edited by trisenk; 02-26-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  2. #22
    I've got nothing against the randomness per se, but of course the statements "You win because you're better" or "real choice over random art" are a little - misleading, maybe. They're not lies, far from it, but they're not exactly true. There may be luck involved, and it may well cost or win you a match, since these tend to be close affairs.

  3. #23
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Tnankie, the game is like chess, but it isn't chess. RoA, right where it hurts. (just joking in the spirit of things). If the game were too similar to chess, simply iterating turns would dictate the course of the game.

    I don't mean to say the current iteration of the Thrasher is the best, and by no means do I believe I'm absolutely correct on it's balance. Look at the SA, I think it's underpowered, and discussed it in beta, many think it's alright where it is now . Some people think the TH is too random now, I feel as a player I can work with it. It's a good discussion, and people will have different opinions and perspectives.

    I just mean to address in some way the idea that the game is too random, which I think it's not. There is and can be randomness involved, but this doesn't trump skill. In the highest levels of play, between two evenly matched players, putting yourself in a position to take the win with 90% or come back at 80% is thrilling and both players can acknowledge at times, (calculated) risks may need to be taken.

    Now you might argue there's too much randomness or luck involved for less experience or skilled players...not necessarily true. It's all a part of learning. Newer players will realize randomness can sometimes give them wins, but conversely, it will also not be consistent, because it is random. I don't think it really provides a big impact, and in general, learning how to tactically use the chance hits and when to take those chances, means precisely that the game isn't dictated by chance (it's not depending on the dice constantly and playing the probabilities to your favor) - because you don't always should be taking it and need to decide if you want to, when you want to. (I realize the way I'm writing this makes it seem chance is huge, it's just enough to make a difference is what I'm pointing out, but not too big to always want to take the chance.)

    I think this is a major difference to chess. And well, if we wanted to be playing chess...there's chess. We don't need a 2nd chess .

    Who knows tho. I do like the idea that the max damage the Thrasher's last attack does is 2 to str (and can't miss) no matter how many allies are beside as long as there is an ally adjacent . And I think it would make sense if rank 2 is +1 for another ally beside, and rank 3 is another +1 for another ally beside ...would this lead us back into the old situation? Maybe, but at least the thrasher couldn't do what he used to with only 1 willpower.
    Last edited by raven2134; 02-26-2013 at 08:37 PM.

  4. #24
    well there isn't chess with vikings and partial damage. (Take or not take in chess...)
    But my point was actually that chess is purely deterministic and that people still play it, in rebuttal of too predictable and stale. Hell I see people playing chess in the street I usually stop and watch a game or two.

    You say calculated risk...I say games decided by random number generator. I have been in situations with both the thrasher and the chance to hit, where a hit wins the game and a miss dooms you. Have both players made mistakes leading to that point? Absolutely! Could play have gone differently so that this luck roll did not determine the game? Yes. Does chance balance itself out over 1000s of games? yes! But I've played 40 games, and that is not a big enough sample for luck averaging to take effect. (Nor is 100). But that is beside the point, that game I am playing right now this game of skill, gets settled by chance.

    I feel it cheapens my wins as much as it frustrates me when I lose to it. When I win because I got a lucky roll, it doesn't feel like I won. It feels like the server assigned the win to me.

  5.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #25
    Creative Director Alex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    108
    Interesting response to the Thrasher. I don't believe its fair to throw up our hands and say that the whole game isnt about skill because one unit out of 12 has a random chance special attack. The thrasher is meant to be that one wildcard. Not much to complain about when facing him either - the change to make his last attack random has only made melee teams that relied on the Thrasher's previously overpowered output easier to defeat. when I play the thrasher I tend to use his 3 exertion to much greater advantage, there are several viable stat builds you can make with him.

    XCOM gave every single attack a chance to miss and that can be fun, too. I dont get the impression this one exception is really throwing off the balance of the game. Personally, we like a small amount of chance involved, and we designed it that way on purpose. A win is still hugely dictated by skill.

  6. #26
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I also personally feel games that place everything in the players control more static. Yes people play chess, there's an audience for it, it is deterministic. But, I don't like chess. I find chess boring and lacking in emotion. At this point, it is a matter of preference I realize, but for the same amount of frustration there is for losing because I missed or because my opponent hit, I also feel the highs of clinching the win due to it. Not everyone will like it. But I think we have an exciting and fair mix with the game right now. Wins are hugely dictated by skill. A small amount of chance makes things exciting. Some may feel the game assigns the win on chance actions...but then I have personally never viewed myself as being in control 100% of the time.
    Last edited by raven2134; 02-26-2013 at 09:57 PM.

  7. #27
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    I have to agree that the Randomness of the Thrasher (in my opinion) isn't throwing a wrench in the overall structured tactical gameplay in Factions. It's true that their are times when it feels like a Thrasher simply won the game due to luck. But in truth, in the absense of the Thrasher there are these same moments. Just off the top of my head I'd recon that I encounter the late game high armor attacks probably more frequently than a late game Thrasher hitting for high STR.

    The arguement boils down to whether or not the randomness in the game is negative or positive. I definately remember games where Thrashers ended it against me with what seem like improbably luck but you know what, I also remember these matches where I overcame what felt like inprobable odds and it was awesome! I think it kinda sucks to lose to, but is also very cool to win with. I think these moments are a huge positive, especially considering the alternative where when half your units are dead, you just know you can't win but have to dredge through the final moments.

    I recall one match with Tirean; he missed 3 90% hits in a row giveing me the win just barely! This was more than 3 months ago and I still remember it as an epic overcoming of the odds! (he was not as estatic )

    And also as a final note, matches where a Thrasher hitting for a couple extra STR wins the game are always very close ones. I would imagine even if there Thrasher didn't get the nut draw with STR some other unit would bang or bust on a high armor hit.

    Oh and X-COM, amazing game - but exceedingly frustrating when your units die on the first hit to the weakest units in the game. I have loaded many a save game due to that randomness and find Stoic's take much more fun to play with
    Last edited by Slimsy Platypus; 02-26-2013 at 10:12 PM. Reason: spelling

  8. #28
    Huh, actually I like to have that rather small influence of chance into the game. If you're losing, you can still go risky and do some 70% shots or something like that.
    Generally, some chance is also reducing the frustration of losing, because the loser can think to himself "Man, this could've been ended differently, if that thrasher had hit less strength."

  9. #29
    Firstly, much like my matchmaker concerns I don't think this affects the majority of games. I also understand that pragmatically a cost benefit analysis might suggest it is more effort to fix/change things than it is worth.
    So I would say, 90%< games are decided by skill alone. This is deffinitely not a pure luck game, this is a discussion about how much of a role and when, luck plays its part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    XCOM gave every single attack a chance to miss and that can be fun, too.
    X-COM built the whole game around chance, so you are much more likely to have the averaging effect to take place in a single encounter. This (factions) is different as often there are only 3 or for chance rolls in the game and I feel those rolls have too much influence on win/loss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slimsy Platypus View Post
    The arguement boils down to whether or not the randomness in the game is negative or positive. I definately remember games where Thrashers ended it against me with what seem like improbably luck but you know what, I also remember these matches where I overcame what felt like inprobably odds and it was awesome! I think it kinda sucks to lose to, but is also very cool to win with. I think these moments are a huge positive, especially considering the alternative where when half your units are dead, you just know you can't win but have to dredge through the final moments.

    I recall one match with Tirean; he missed 3 90% hits in a row giveing me the win just barely! This was more than 3 months ago and I still remember it as an epic overcoming of the odds! (he was not as estatic )

    And also as a final note, matches where a Thrasher hitting for a couple extra STR wins the game are always very close ones. I would imagine even if there Thrasher didn't get the nut draw with STR some other unit would bang or bust on a high armor hit.

    Oh and X-COM, amazing game - but exceedingly frustrating when your units die on the first hit to the weakest units in the game. I have loaded many a save game due to that randomness and find Stoic's take much more fun to play with
    So you save scum to avoid luck in other games but are ok with the level here? I do agree this is a philosophical discussion, I don't think there is a right or wrong answer. But for all the examples, especially the Tirean example....you didn't overcome the odds, the server said you win and that really annoys me.

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenDread View Post
    Huh, actually I like to have that rather small influence of chance into the game. If you're losing, you can still go risky and do some 70% shots or something like that.
    Generally, some chance is also reducing the frustration of losing, because the loser can think to himself "Man, this could've been ended differently, if that thrasher had hit less strength."
    I am prepared to take full responsibility for my mistakes, I can't take responsibility when the server decides against me. Mind you I don't gamble (real life) for these reasons. Don't get me wrong losing still hurts, but I am pissed off with myself for playing badly not with external luck deciding the game.


    Finally for the staleness of determinism, I find the infinite variety of both the human brain [defensive player, super aggressive, likes archers, all melee], and the external factors [is my opponent drunk and playing poorly for them, merry and playing with gay abandon bold dancing moves big flanks etc? bad day at work and trying to smash anything?] affecting it to be quite sufficient in providing me with enough variation provided there is sufficient complexity and emergence in the initial system. (I watch a chess game, but won't bother with draughts/snap/tic-tac-toe)
    Last edited by tnankie; 02-26-2013 at 10:28 PM.

  10. #30
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    You can also get mad at yourself for playing in such a way that you end up being in a position where someone can luck win against you...or you need luck to win against someone. I have felt this way, and in some ways this is still myself claiming responsibility for having to rely on luck .

  11. #31
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    The concept of "the server said you win" can be perceived in a host of different ways, some of them not as negative. Randomness isn't always negative. People play Yahtzee. And I'm sure some people have fun doing so.

    It definatley is less fun to lose than win, and even less fun to lose due to some aspect you feel you can't control. I'm not sure that that means we should be capable of controling everything, or not be able to effectively control anything. Most likely the most fun option is somewhere in between. One thing I am absolutely sure of is that the Banner Saga Factions is fun. Yes, there are times when it feels like I was not able to control the outcomes of my matches, but I have come to terms with that and for me personally, the game has remained fun (even in lieu of those events). Others might not have the same experience.

  12. #32
    I agree with raven in that when I lose to chance I believe the fault lies with me not playing well enough to prevent such a situation from occurring. As another point of note, if you feel such a unit in your enemy's lineup has the ability to throw such a game-changer into the mix, target him and limit his ability to do that damage. I personally do not like leaving Thrashers alive past the mid-game for this very reason, they tend to cause all kinds of havoc in the late game using flail.

  13. #33
    this is not a random = bad thought on my behalf, I think games that are about managing random events/chance to be quite entertaining, poker for instance (but not for real money). My feeling is that in those games chance falls both ways and often enough to balance itself out. This is true in factions as well if looking at the meta game (Elo Ranking). I think I am probably much more focused on the individual matches, perhaps chance in factions is simply something I've not been able to come to terms with...yet? ever?

  14. #34
    I think random chance is quite fun, depending on how it's built. TF2 random crits are quite annoying, although I do think it helps the cause of melee weaponry (wich has about a 10% higher chance to crit than ranged weaponry). Of course, there I also usually play on no crit servers, so the frustration of that is left behind, and I can play the game I want.

    Also, because nobody here nas mentioned it yet, Battle for Wesnoth is completely chance-driven, yet it is totally one of my favorite games overall. They just allowed me to feel my actions controlled the flow of battle, while also implementing chance correctly.

  15. #35
    Backer Conundrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    20
    Part of the skill of the game is attempting to mitigate luck.

    Thrashers are capable of sometimes dealing very large damage. Solution? Kill them, or keep your vulnerable units away until they can no longer BlF. When I'm playing against thrashers, I use a Shieldbanger to block them. That way, they can't BlF my shieldbanger without taking high Armour damage themselves, and they can't get at my other guys to even get a SHOT at a lucky BlF. If the thrasher didn't have that luck-based special ability, it would reduce that level of tactical thinking.

    Same goes for high armour shots. If the archer has 3 WP and 3 exertion left, maybe you're better off killing her instead of maiming her, just in case she manages to hit that 3-WP-boosted shot on you. Mitigate the luck.

    EDIT: Like with Slimsy's game vs Tirean. If Tirean missed 3 90% shots in a row, he probably had a chance to break armour instead and then take a 100% hit chance shot. He chose not to mitigate the luck, and unfortunately paid the price in that scenario.

    I think the luck adds depth, and adds opportunities to be more skillful, rather than takes them away.

  16. #36
    Junior Member djangoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    Ok so I'm a new player... mmm fresh meat... Should I not bother using Threshers right now? At least till I understand more about how units work with each other.

  17. #37
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    You get a thrasher in your first team. Use him as much as you'd like. If you like him, keep him. If you don't, change him out for something else .

  18. #38
    Senior Member Shiri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    I also personally feel games that place everything in the players control more static. Yes people play chess, there's an audience for it, it is deterministic. But, I don't like chess. I find chess boring and lacking in emotion. At this point, it is a matter of preference I realize, but for the same amount of frustration there is for losing because I missed or because my opponent hit, I also feel the highs of clinching the win due to it. Not everyone will like it. But I think we have an exciting and fair mix with the game right now. Wins are hugely dictated by skill. A small amount of chance makes things exciting. Some may feel the game assigns the win on chance actions...but then I have personally never viewed myself as being in control 100% of the time.
    There are other ways than randomness to prevent games being easily "solvable" (which is the "static" problem you're complaining about - people just following a pattern.) Skyseeker's ability is an example of that.

  19. #39
    Junior Member eAZy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    12
    While the discussion is all well and good about randomness, and I feel both sides make good arguments, I simply think the Thrasher is now (after nerf to last hit being able to miss) TOO random of a unit in general. Randomly hitting either strength or armour was often fine whichever way it went before the nerf. However, it now feels that even choosing to run a Thrasher at all means the player is going for a luck build. There's no reason to take him over the other Raider options in a dedicated plan.

    The only reason to run him would be if your plan ONLY requires that you do a total of 3 strength or armour, with anything else being extra. Although this is pretty exciting and can be a fun build (and I personally run 2 Thrashers myself), it is not sound teambuilding.

  20. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by eAZy View Post
    I simply think the Thrasher is now (after nerf to last hit being able to miss) TOO random of a unit in general. Randomly hitting either strength or armour was often fine whichever way it went before the nerf. However, it now feels that even choosing to run a Thrasher at all means the player is going for a luck build. There's no reason to take him over the other Raider options in a dedicated plan.
    I second this. I'm wondering, if it wouldn't make sense to reduce the count of flails by one, but cut the miss-chance, which is a too strong nerf, imho.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •