Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 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. #61
    Junior Member Bracket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Impaler View Post
    Hello. I'm new to the game and have played around 30 matches. It's very interesting and contains great depth, however the randomness really concerns me.

    I don't think chance-based outcomes have a place in a game like this. It would be vastly improved if these elements were removed and/or replaced with something more creative than just a random number generator.
    Is it fun to play lottery and sometimes come up on top? Is it exciting for some individuals? Sure. But in no way, shape or form are you involved with the outcome. This becomes a problem when everything else can be predicted and relied upon. Sure, you can make statistical projections and attempt to "work around" these chance-based situations. That does not change the fact that games can be decided by this number generator alone. Would you flip a coin to determine the outcome of bishop captures queen in Chess? I wouldn't, and this makes it hard for me to take this game seriously.

    The whole chance-based luck element feels very gimmicky. While it does allow for some "unexpected comebacks" - I find they're absolutely worthless since they were brought out from luck and not skill or out-maneuvering your opponent (which is deserving of praise and a sense of accomplishment - unlike that of winning via pure luck). I would much rather win and lose games because of strategy, tactics, thinking-depth and positioning.

    I know this isn't Chess. This seems like a great game to me, holding much promise. This is only my personal opinion.
    Agreed. I love the art, I love the non-P2W freemium model, I love the gameplay. The randomness is honestly my only complaint. And I don't think "It allows for dramatic comebacks which are fun" is a valid explanation. The POINT of dramatic comebacks is that they require great skill or big mistakes or something. The best dramatic comebacks come from someone making a really big mistake and then using their great skill to come back. That's why they're dramatic. If you can get a major comeback solely through really extreme luck, it's just an unfortunate comeback.

    I really really hope they remove the randomness. Or, I dunno, have an alternate no-randomness server. Units should do 1 str damage with no chance to miss if their str is lower than enemy armor.. ... and maybe adding extra damage in such a case should cost 2 exertion instead of 1. Probably not. Using so much exertion SHOULD get you good rewards.

    Bloody Flail could do 3 str damage followed by 1 armor damage (+1 for adjacent allies). This would keep the thrashers' intimidation role and threat even at low HP, so they would still be killed first, but they wouldn't be random. And they would still get hilariously murdered if they flailed at that shieldbasher upgrade who can deal 2 armor counter damage per hit.

    I'm really curious as to how well those changes would work.
    Last edited by Bracket; 02-28-2013 at 04:01 PM. Reason: tweaking thoughts

  2. #62
    3s/1a(+1 for adjacent) is kinda strong. If I was removing randomness from the thrasher (which I don't think is a good idea, but just as a thought exercise) I would start it doing 3 hits, alternating str and arm (so 1s, 1a, 1s) and then add more hits in the pattern for more adjacent allies (so with two allies he would do 1s/1a/1s/1a/1s)

    That has a nice symmetry with the warmaster (2s1a on solo targets, more with good positioning - in the thrashers case it would be ally positioning, in the WM's case enemy)

  3. #63
    Junior Member Bracket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4
    Yeah okay I like that idea better. I talked briefly with Tirean and so now I'm wondering what effect your idea would have upon Thrasherspam teams.

    They would still get roflstomped by Shieldmaster + Archer combos, sure.

  4. #64
    Backer Conundrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Bracket View Post
    The POINT of dramatic comebacks is that they require great skill or big mistakes or something. The best dramatic comebacks come from someone making a really big mistake and then using their great skill to come back. That's why they're dramatic. If you can get a major comeback solely through really extreme luck, it's just an unfortunate comeback.
    As a thought exercise, it wouldn't be a problem if someone lost because they left themselves open to a Warhawk's Tempest, right? They make a mistake in judgement and/or positioning, leave the Warhawk alive and give him a path to hit their units where it hurts. Or for a less extreme and potentially more similar example, a Warmaster's special ability - the WM is maimed, the person leaves all their units adjacent to each other, the WM moves in and capitalises on the poor planning / decision making. Comeback acquired, all good, right?

    Now replace the WM with a Thrasher. The player has let the Thrasher win, they've failed to block the Thrasher from getting to their vulnerable units. The thrasher moves in and Bloody Flails, capitalising on the poor planning/decision making. The difference here is that the Thrasher *might not* affect the comeback, based on how well he rolls. But if he rolls well, it can hurt. There's an element of risk, but the Thrasher is also easier to maneuver, so there should be some tradeoff in exchange for being easier to get into position.

    Personally, I'm sticking to my "mitigate the randomness" mantra. They can't take advantage of good rolls against you if you don't let them.

  5. #65
    Junior Member Dhramund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3
    QFT
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    Personally, I'm sticking to my "mitigate the randomness" mantra. They can't take advantage of good rolls against you if you don't let them.
    I am new to this game as well, but I just don't understand all of the people complaining about the amount of randomness in the game. Unless I am missing something, there are only two things. Attacking the STR of a unit that has more armor than your attack STR, and the Thrasher's ability. I think that both are good for the game. I agree with the statements of the Thrasher being a wildcard, along with he can be dangerous even if left with low strength. That is just something you have to account for when you are playing. I will often give the other player the turn-advantage to drop a thrasher that is threatening vital units. I stopped playing him since I don't like his randomness, just my preference. I might start playing him again, I do like his psychological effect on my opponent.

  6. #66
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    I think there have been great arguments for why the Thrasher's randomness is good, and great arguments for why it's bad. In reality, does a thrasher hitting for 4 extra strength during a single turn win a match? No. But are there moments when it feels like it does? Yes. Likely early game mistakes or play that led to a close end-game played a more significant role than a single lucky 4 STR hit.

    Also, consider that 4 STR is much more useful in the very final turns of the game than in the initial turns. If I ran my Thrasher straight up to you on turn 1 when your team had full health and hit for 4 STR damage would you feel like you lost the match? You probably would not. But when I do the same thing when there are only a couple maimed units left it feels absurdly overpowered. To me, that's the beauty of a Thrasher.

    At times the Thrasher can certainly be a annoying unit. But so can Warhawks... and Skystrikers... and Provokers. I think one of the reasons the Thrasher gets so much hate is that he is an easy out for why you lost a match. In games where I've made many mistakes, it's still easy to blame that Thrasher that came up and got a great hit in the end-game against me which turned the tides to my opponent's favor. It's not nearly as easy to blame the Rain of Arrows I walked into.
    Last edited by Slimsy Platypus; 02-28-2013 at 05:34 PM.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Conundrum View Post
    As a thought exercise, it wouldn't be a problem if someone lost because they left themselves open to a Warhawk's Tempest, right? They make a mistake in judgement and/or positioning, leave the Warhawk alive and give him a path to hit their units where it hurts. Or for a less extreme and potentially more similar example, a Warmaster's special ability - the WM is maimed, the person leaves all their units adjacent to each other, the WM moves in and capitalises on the poor planning / decision making. Comeback acquired, all good, right?

    Now replace the WM with a Thrasher. The player has let the Thrasher win, they've failed to block the Thrasher from getting to their vulnerable units. The thrasher moves in and Bloody Flails, capitalising on the poor planning/decision making. The difference here is that the Thrasher *might not* affect the comeback, based on how well he rolls. But if he rolls well, it can hurt. There's an element of risk, but the Thrasher is also easier to maneuver, so there should be some tradeoff in exchange for being easier to get into position.

    Personally, I'm sticking to my "mitigate the randomness" mantra. They can't take advantage of good rolls against you if you don't let them.
    Perhaps, the difference is that the warhawk is a certainty. The thrashers has a) far more positions to manouver to b) far more uncertainty, according to that other thread there are about 5 different cases that need to be accounted for with the thrasher.

    Finally I've never had a comeback with the warhawk, my opponents may have seen it that way but I've always been planning on creating that gap and wrecking them. I have given up substantial early game advantage to secure that opportunity. i.e not a comeback.

    A come back is when the 1 str thrasher 4 hits through 12 armour to kill the varl that was about to win the game. Yes both sides could have played better (not made mistakes) to avoid this situation, but ultimately the server is deciding the fate of this game.

    A thrasher gives up nothing in the early game to be effective in the late game.

    However
    a) Stoic have shown no inclination to change these random factors, they have their reasons.
    b) this argument has gone round again and again, as I said earlier it is a philosophical one.
    c) The game is the way it is at the moment.


    TL : DR same old stuff, I cant be bothered with this anymore.

  8. #68
    I don't know. Whenever I think I'm losing, I'll take risks I otherwise wouldn't to see if I can turn it around. I'm sure this is irritating to those who believe the game is essentially deterministic (as I did when I started) and even more for those who think that it should be (as the folks keeping this thread going do).

    Despite my team's rocking a Thrasher, my attempts at a turn-around usually involve an archer at the extreme of her exertion, not a Bloody Flail. Besides, late-game, my Thrasher (if he's still alive) rarely has a good ally or two to stand next to. When I'm playing for a lucky die-roll, I'll probably put him to work breaking armor to improve my archer's chance to hit, especially if his life is at risk (as it usually is ) and he has more than one WP left -- better to burn it asap, not one a time.

  9. #69
    Agreed, my big risks are always those 70% to hit with 3 willpower riding on it archer shots, I rarely if ever use flail.

  10. #70
    After a long intense match, I have one archer left with 7 armor and 3 hp left. My opponent also has one archer, but he only has 4 armor and 1 hp. My turn first, I take the shot for a 90% chance to hit and I miss. My opponent has a 40% chance to hit and he uses the last two of his horns and he kills my archer to win the game, ending my win streak of 4 games. This is not mentioning the other times where he hit ridiculous attacks in one instance as low as 30%.

    Earlier in this thread, I complained of a system that relies on luck, but after reading some of the responses, I decided to hold back on my complaints and give the game another go and did pretty well for myself. However, this sort of random gameplay is simply inexcusable for a strategy game. I outplayed my opponent, played the odds and still lost.

    At the end of the game, my opponent gave me some helpful advice:

    "You shouldn't attack armor so much, just go for health."

    This mindset that banks on luck to win games does NOT belong in a strategy game that hopes in anyway to be competitive.

  11. #71
    Backer Morgenstern72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    40
    JustaLackey, I agree completely. I think there should be a willpower restriction if you have a chance to miss. Like max willpower 3 for 90%, max 2 for 80%, max 1 for 50-70% and nothing from 10-40%.

  12. #72
    Junior Member djangoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    I personally hope they move the balance more towards chess and being able to do simple math, and strongly away from random chance. I like to gamble, but not every game should be gambles... especially tactical/strategy games.

  13. #73
    Superbacker trisenk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by JustaLackey View Post
    However, this sort of random gameplay is simply inexcusable for a strategy game.
    So what's your proposition of handling situations like that? What should happen when strength is lower than armor?

    Quote Originally Posted by JustaLackey View Post
    At the end of the game, my opponent gave me some helpful advice:

    "You shouldn't attack armor so much, just go for health."
    It's hard to judge anything by just this quote. Maybe instead of using BB's run-through ability to instakill or severely maim an archer, you attacked her armor, leaving her with full health to attack next round? An extreme example, but I just wanted to illustrate an idea. I see many situations when he is very right.

    On the other hand, it's not feasible to base your strategy on on 30-40% hits, because (by definition) you will miss more that hit, and you'll quickly run out of willpower. And if someone tries and gives his units tons of WP and 3EX, there won't be enough points for ARM and STR.

    Also, and I don't want to sound derisive, but I can hardly call a two maimed archer standoff outplaying your opponent

  14. #74
    Junior Member djangoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    trisenk most well played games seem to be, and please correct me beta players if I'm wrong, down to 1v1 or 1v2 very wounded units. Also seems to skew towards archers or raiders surviving the longest. (yes there are exceptions, we're only discussing the average well played game)

    Right now whomever gets the lucky shots win in this scenario.

  15. #75
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    I rarely take chance-to-miss shots. The only times I take them are when it's absolutely necessary or I can spare a missed turn. When it's absolutely necessary, it means I was likely outplayed or outbuilt. in the case that I can spare a missed turn, I'm looking to push an advantage a little further. If it comes down to both of us taking %chancetomiss shots, I consider that a close and a GG. I've played 600+ matches, and I'll tell you, even the 90% is not a safe shot. 1/10 has to happen sometime. It's not "random chance deciding the game" it's "i was outplayed and now random chance is a factor." Conundrum was saying earlier "it's about mitigating the randomness", +1 to that. Random chance does not in any way reduce the strategic elements of the game, and in fact adds a factor that makes the outcomes of matches less deterministic (ie. if you are outbuilt or outclassed, you still have a chance to win with smart play and measured risks).
    Last edited by sweetjer; 03-01-2013 at 10:54 PM.

  16. #76
    Senior Member Wordplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    94
    Perhaps, the difference is that the warhawk is a certainty. The thrashers has a) far more positions to manouver to b) far more uncertainty, according to that other thread there are about 5 different cases that need to be accounted for with the thrasher.

    Finally I've never had a comeback with the warhawk, my opponents may have seen it that way but I've always been planning on creating that gap and wrecking them. I have given up substantial early game advantage to secure that opportunity. i.e not a comeback.
    It's no different for us thrasher players. I think about every probability when I commit a thrasher. It takes considerable effort and planning to put a unit into a position where a BF can kill it. I may be rolling the dice, but I've usually stacked them in my favour by putting my opponent in a position where whatever the roll, it's good for me, and bad for them.

    It's true that there are more probabilities to consider. That's true for the thrasher user as well as the thrasher's opponents. Those probabilities still have to be tracked, if you're going to be effective.

    There's the once in a blue moon type of comeback you mention, where yes, it is effectively the servers that decide the winner. I admit, it's happened to me (I outline the story below). In my experience, these comebacks are very rare. Usually, if you're in a position to be killed by a thrasher, your opponent was working hard to put you there. After all, that's why they're often partnered with high strength Warriors - to create those openings for BF.

    I admit, I have won a last stand with a lucky Bloody Flail. I have to say, I had made some pretty bad mistakes, and had to play like a daemon to get to the point where I even had a chance to win. My opponent had some kind of Shieldbanger class with 5 armour 3 strength, my thrasher had 3 armour and 5 strength, no WP. I had just got one WP in the horn from killing a Skystriker. I ran my thrasher over the coals in the Great Hall to BF my opponent's Shieldbanger. This was before BF had a miss chance on the last hit. By using BF, I was guaranteeing my Thrasher would have no armour for the next hit, so the Shieldbanger type would kill him if it survived (lots of WP in the horn, no way for my thrasher to penetrate its armour).

    I'd played poorly to be put into a position where all I had was a maimed archer (SS?) and thrasher, but I played very well to get back in the game (think they killed 3 units between them). It was a really fun moment, and the alternative would have been to jockey for position around the great hall for 20mins.


    @JustaLackey: Was that match against me by any chance? Sometime in the last couple of weeks? I remember a match where my opponent's last unit was an archer. I think I had 3 units left. My crippled archer had a lucky escape as you describe, and then I took a cheeky % miss chance of my own, using spare willpower from the horn, and got a lucky hit.

    I then advised my opponent something along the lines of 'You shouldn't attack armour so much, go for health'.

    If that's the match I'm thinking of, I agree, it was very unlucky of you not to get the archer, and very lucky that the other archer got the kill.

    If it wasn't that match, and it wasn't you, my apologies. I would be interested either way, if you can remember.

  17. #77
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by sweetjer View Post
    I rarely take chance-to-miss shots. The only times I take them are when it's absolutely necessary or I can spare a missed turn. When it's absolutely necessary, it means I was likely outplayed or outbuilt. in the case that I can spare a missed turn, I'm looking to push an advantage a little further. If it comes down to both of us taking %chancetomiss shots, I consider that a close and a GG. I've played 600+ matches, and I'll tell you, even the 90% is not a safe shot. 1/10 has to happen sometime. It's not "random chance deciding the game" it's "i was outplayed and now random chance is a factor." Conundrum was saying earlier "it's about mitigating the randomness", +1 to that. Random chance does not in any way reduce the strategic elements of the game, and in fact adds a factor that makes the outcomes of matches less deterministic (ie. if you are outbuilt or outclassed, you still have a chance to win with smart play and measured risks).
    As somebody've said in forum chat AFAIR, "Random chance miss is a good excuse of playing badly"
    If you don't know where to put it - put it in the pillage

    Steelhammer Tribune issues collected here
    Some of my Factions games can be observed here
    Also possible streaming at http://www.twitch.tv/netnazgul

  18. #78
    Junior Member eduran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by trisenk View Post
    So what's your proposition of handling situations like that? What should happen when strength is lower than armor?
    What about willpower boosting chance to hit instead of damage in that situation?
    Example:
    unit with 2 strength attacks unit with 3 armor --> 90% chance to do 1 damage
    use 1 point of WP --> 100% to do 1 damage
    use 2 points of WP --> 100% change to do 2 damage

  19. #79
    Backer Morgenstern72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by eduran View Post
    What about willpower boosting chance to hit instead of damage in that situation?
    Example:
    unit with 2 strength attacks unit with 3 armor --> 90% chance to do 1 damage
    use 1 point of WP --> 100% to do 1 damage
    use 2 points of WP --> 100% change to do 2 damage
    The problem is, that an opponent does not have to choose WP and then plays only with luck. It's unsatisfying to win or loose because of luck in this kind of game.

  20. #80
    Junior Member eduran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    21
    Agreed, chance will still play a role, but the effect will be smaller. A 1+3 damage shot from an archer has a higher chance to be game deciding than a one damage shot. My suggestions is meant to be a compromise. Something that is probably easy to implement, does not upend the game's current balance too much and reduces the impact random chance has.
    Last edited by eduran; 03-02-2013 at 07:20 AM.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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
  •