Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Initial Deployment (+ firepit-map, Texas hold'em, Stalemate and double-or-nothing!)

  1. #21
    Junior Member Korrigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2
    Hi Aleonymous, thanks for your feedback, it's always good to share new ideas.
    You pin-pointed the fact that right now they got their own schedules and ideas for the game, and even if they will listen, it's unlikely that these ideas could be put in the game any time soon, except if there was a general demand from the community.

    Now, I think we will have more maps appear on a regular basis, there will be plenty of them created for the simgle mode.

    For your other options, what could be expected would be a "spicing up" of the competitions, like adding alternative deployment modes, restrictions on troops, etc, for some competitions or events. Adding it at the base of the game would be to much of a change.

    The stalemate issue is still a very unlikely occurence to me. the only way to avoid this from my experience would be to add a "sudden kill" mode activating when only two caracters remain, like random flaming arrows falling from the sky to avoid players being static. The unlikeliness of two archers at same life level finishing a game is still uncommon enough to not raise the nessecity of this kind of tweak, which would create a lot of coding anyway.

    Finally, I think there is no interrest in a stalemate concept as some players would use it to disguise losses by asking their enemies to stalemate (happens in many games, some people can go as far as bribing for this, and it is very annoying). "Hey, I got 60+ victory chain, can we just stalemate? you lose nothing and I'll give you a -insert tradable random in-game valuable here-".

  2. #22
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    My thoughts on most topics touched in this thread:

    Maps - I want more as well and fortunately we will get more sooner or later. I bet they want people to fight outside of strand as well and we don't have maps for that yet.
    Deployment/Teamselection - I dislike everything that seperates the player base. Currently it is hard to find matches on powers beyond 6. Imagine if you have 5 modes additional to the power to chose, it'd be a nightmare.
    Double or Nothing - Has nothing to do with the basics of the game. If you really like the concept you can always run a custom tournament via friends match system and double-or-nothing the points in the tournament system there. Apart from that it is (imo) to alien to the general concept of renown, as the players fame, earned honestly by knocking out people (not by doing cheeky gambling tricks).
    Hit&Run - I'm happy normal units can't do this. You'd have more actions to do in every turn and it would remove a lot of the interesting decisions of moving out of formation to strike vs moving to a well protected spot. I hope that there will be a unit in the future which can perform some form of hit&run (maybe attack before moving OR after moving, not both per turn). Thematically it would fit the centaur announced for saga 2 (or 3?). Also you can currently kite opponents with archers with using wp and obstacles for some time (which is a good thing imo).

  3. #23
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Well met, Korrigan!

    Quote Originally Posted by Korrigan View Post
    You pin-pointed the fact that right now they got their own schedules and ideas for the game, and even if they will listen, it's unlikely that these ideas could be put in the game any time soon, except if there was a general demand from the community.
    I understand that when changes initially suggested via player feedback (e.g. forum, beta) makes it to a future version/build of TBSF, that will be because there was a general demand for them. And not because some weird guy pointed it out! I guess that our role here, is, as you say, to provide feedback and insights onto game perspectives. In any case, I'm not sure if Stoic would prefer a relatively small following of hardcore fans (e.g. the Kickstarter Backers) or a larger following of more mainstream/casual gamers (like myself). It's who you target!

    Quote Originally Posted by Korrigan View Post
    The stalemate issue is still a very unlikely occurrence to me. the only way to avoid this from my experience would be to add a "sudden kill" mode activating when only two characters remain, like random flaming arrows falling from the sky to avoid players being static. The unlikeliness of two archers at same life level finishing a game is still uncommon enough to not raise the necessity of this kind of tweak, which would create a lot of coding anyway.
    Don't know about the "sudden kill" stage you're proposing, but I generally agree that there should be some extrapolated form of "pillage-mode", adapted for a one-on-one battle with almost equal probability of win/defeat (its easy when options are narrowed to a few moves), in order to alleviate stalemates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korrigan View Post
    Finally, I think there is no interest in a stalemate concept as some players would use it to disguise losses by asking their enemies to stalemate (happens in many games, some people can go as far as bribing for this, and it is very annoying). "Hey, I got 60+ victory chain, can we just stalemate? you lose nothing and I'll give you a -insert tradable random in-game valuable here-".
    Yes, I'm confident that these issues, loosely related to "TBSF economy", have to be tackled in a firm and consistent manner. Nevertheless, true-stalemates can be algorithmically identified, so its easy to filter out such "draw arrangements". The competitiveness in multiplayer games plays a major role in their longevity and following, so I'm sure that Stoic are trying to keep things fair and challenging, at the same time, for a wide range of gamers.

    I'm wondering what they have in mind for TBSF, for the not-so-distant future when there'll be a lot of people with full 18-power-teams, and still a lot of renown to spend...

  4. #24
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    Deployment/Team-selection - I dislike everything that seperates the player base. Currently it is hard to find matches on powers beyond 6. Imagine if you have 5 modes additional to the power to chose, it'd be a nightmare.
    You're right, that is a very important to keep in mind. For instance, I'm living in Greece and I mostly play in the late evenings, so it's just european opponents for me. The peak hours, where the MM finds matches in 5-10 seconds, are weekend mornings when its late evening in the USA (Friday & Saturday). Otherwise, thank god there's the chat to kill some time!

    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    Double or Nothing - Has nothing to do with the basics of the game. If you really like the concept you can always run a custom tournament via friends match system and double-or-nothing the points in the tournament system there. Apart from that it is (imo) to alien to the general concept of renown, as the players fame, earned honestly by knocking out people (not by doing cheeky gambling tricks).
    I'm finally sure that there's not a lot of chancy gamers in TBSF . My "double-or-nothing" suggestion has got a -3 score, from an equal number of comments/responses (the rest were neutral or n/a). I guess its the fusion of chess-logicality with "Winter is Coming"-honor that forbids even thinking of that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    Hit&Run - I'm happy normal units can't do this. You'd have more actions to do in every turn and it would remove a lot of the interesting decisions of moving out of formation to strike vs moving to a well protected spot. I hope that there will be a unit in the future which can perform some form of hit&run (maybe attack before moving OR after moving, not both per turn). Thematically it would fit the centaur announced for saga 2 (or 3?). Also you can currently kite opponents with archers with using wp and obstacles for some time (which is a good thing imo).
    The vibes I'm getting from this thread (not from you specifically, Leartes!) is that there's a general mistrust and skepticism about any change leading to a more open gameplay, a gameplay with more available options. I'm not sure why is that. I understand that the simpler/easier answer (by Stoic) to dismiss a suggestiong would be something like "let it be, its fine as it is, why bother?", but I'm guessing that the gamers' denial is mostly due to a threat-of-the-unknown. It's not like you're gonna lose your precious ELO-advantage, or something. You adapted all through the betas and the updates, you're gonna adapt again. Actually, there's a lot of anthropological studies directly relating intelligence with adaptability.

    Anyway, I'm getting off-track and itchy, so I'll just cool-off and take a stroll in Strand. I'd love to see such hit-n-run units, like the Centaur!

  5. #25
    Member Leartes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Aachen - Germany
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    The vibes I'm getting from this thread (not from you specifically, Leartes!) is that there's a general mistrust and skepticism about any change leading to a more open gameplay, a gameplay with more available options. I'm not sure why is that. I understand that the simpler/easier answer (by Stoic) to dismiss a suggestiong would be something like "let it be, its fine as it is, why bother?", but I'm guessing that the gamers' denial is mostly due to a threat-of-the-unknown. It's not like you're gonna lose your precious ELO-advantage, or something. You adapted all through the betas and the updates, you're gonna adapt again. Actually, there's a lot of anthropological studies directly relating intelligence with adaptability.
    Imo there is a fine balance line in games like TBS. Every decision is about evaluating pros and cons. Moves that deal good damage and leave you in a strong defensive position are bound to be imbalanced.
    Additionally, I think TBS has a huge amount of move-options. This is due to the lack of zone-of-control. It is really hard to properly defend your units and all moves are about interesting decision between safety, threat, set-up for other units and damage. Stuff like "break and move 2 steps afterwards" on a raider would be crazy imbalanced as you can just a) move back in a defensive shieldwall formation or b) move out of the way for the warrior charging in next turn. You'd have to change every unit and most abilities to work with something like that. And the game is too far (and too good) to do such huge changes now. Especially, since it is unsure if the changes improve anything. I'm sceptical that a game with this kind of move+attack options would be very defensive with a alot of stalemate situations where no one wants to move.

  6. #26
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    Imo there is a fine balance line in games like TBS. Every decision is about evaluating pros and cons. Moves that deal good damage and leave you in a strong defensive position are bound to be imbalanced.
    I totally I agree. As I see it, they've implemented & fine-tuned the game mechanics around three simple principles: (1) Move+Act or Act-only, (2) Damage = STR-ARM , AB=Fixed, (3) WP+EX. In and of themselves, these principles are well robust, and as you say, the game is totally balanced with all "special" moves built around them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    Additionally, I think TBS has a huge amount of move-options. This is due to the lack of zone-of-control. It is really hard to properly defend your units and all moves are about interesting decision between safety, threat, set-up for other units and damage. Stuff like "break and move 2 steps afterwards" on a raider would be crazy imbalanced as you can just a) move back in a defensive shieldwall formation or b) move out of the way for the warrior charging in next turn. You'd have to change every unit and most abilities to work with something like that. And the game is too far (and too good) to do such huge changes now. Especially, since it is unsure if the changes improve anything.
    Again, you're right. A lot of things would need revisiting and re-thinking, and "the game is too far (and too good) to do such huge changes now".

    Quote Originally Posted by Leartes View Post
    I'm skeptical that a game with this kind of move+attack options would be very defensive with a alot of stalemate situations where no one wants to move.
    Well, one this regard, I'll disagree. I think that combat "to the death" should be much more defensive than a reckless charge that just tilts this particular battle to your side. For instance, I find it distracting that most (good) matches leave you with one character standing, and at low health. I'd like a game where, under proper-handling, it is possible to keep the majority of your team alive (a "Flee" button?). Moreover, as Stoic puts it for the single-player game, TBS is about getting deeply involved with ("really caring for") your characters. As an anecdote, when I was about to play my first battle, and didn't know how the game worked, I was really worried that units that die in a battle are gone for good, and you're left with who survived, or had to "buy" fresh ones! When I saw what happens, I just said "ah, ok, so my WH died but he took a couple of archers with him, fair-trade".

  7. #27
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Hi Korrigan and Aleonymous . Thank you very much for posting! Even with the public launch of the game, the community I think is still humble and we can use every friendly and constructive voice and contributer we can get .

    Now, I and I think Stoic hasn't jumped into this thread because of some overlaps this thread has had with older topics and suggestions that have been brought up in beta, and in the past few weeks. It can and will often happen that moderators, community managers, and especially the developers, wait and see how the community discuss things and whether "it handles itself" (members who've been part of previous discussions chime in and summarize/guide the discussion in light of the past one).

    Be sure though, that the threads people start and discussions happening are being read and considered. Personally, I don't think there's a thread (except netnazgul's life work -and some fan fiction that I really want to read) that I haven't given a very thorough go-over.

    All the topics in this thread have actually been discussed before, and of course, additional and new feedback is always welcome. In fact, I think the thread has turned into a lively discussion and brainstorm. I hope the rating hasn't given you the wrong impression. I think in this case, it's because the topic is not a new one.

    Again, thank you for giving feedback about the game, and taking the time to respond very thoroughly. Right now, Stoic is focused on bringing all the essentials/fundamentals for Factions into the fold, so they can get even more done on the single player game. Because of this, they are focusing on features that are of greater necessity.

    They are however planning other exciting features and things for Factions down the line.

    Hopefully, the other community members can direct you to past threads (I should do this but erm...I'm busy on short vacation -excuses I know...). That said, I hope you find a good spot in our community, cos even if the discussion hasn't quite been affirmative on the suggestions, it's been quite polite and still friendly (which is notable in general for game forums anywhere).

    Thanks again!
    Last edited by raven2134; 03-28-2013 at 11:34 AM.

  8. #28
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Well met, raven2134.

    I admit that I didn't thoroughly go through all the previous posts/threads on the topics I initially addressed or were raised by fellow vikings. Was it written somewhere before that "I acknowledge..." check-box during registration ? Its something that I was planning to do, but well, forums are like discussions: they start-off somewhere but can end-out in entirely different subjects.

    I do hope TBSF does well and stays a "live" game for as long as possible. Really, I think that MP/online games should take more deeply into account the players' feedback and wishes, compared to the SP ones, in order to keep attracting the masses in the long-term. I understand that TBSF is an offspring of TBS, and in this manner it can't deviate too much from it. TBS is a SP game, human-vs-PC, so all these mechanics can work just fine with the PC's AI etc. But, even when/if the Saga trilogy is done, the MP version (TSBF, or what it will evolve in) can still be alive and thrilling. Adaptability. That's the reason why I keep "pressing" the lines.

  9.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #29
    Art Director Arnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    319
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    Greetings fellow vikings! This is my first post in this forum and it (basically) concerns initial deployment. Its a little long, so please abide.

    Admittedly, the chess-originating idea of two opposing parties with a no-man's-land between them is an excellent choice for generally balanced matches. However, the more-than-chess nature of the game (i.e. unequal units) along with the actual deployment-mode can generate a number of awkward situations like: the fire-pit map (no introductions needed!), or like battles where defensive-teams are stacked in a corner holding their ground and just waiting for the opponent to break-lines (and pay for it). Yes, situations like these can lead to interesting matches, but also to a lot of frustration. So, in order to further enrich this experience and add an extra level of "flavor" to the game, I have the following questions/suggestions/points (please excuse re-issues!).

    [0] Who acts first? Am I missing something, or is it unknown (until too late) which team will act first? The acting-order for each team is clearly the one displayed (left-to-right) in the banners when the match-finder concludes, but who will act first? Its a pain to have your WH propped for a charging-tempest and have him staggering after finding out that the opponent had the same idea, and got to act first!

    [1] More-maps please! Open up more maps and make them more varied and interesting, with obstacles, hazards (coals, ice, water, swamps) etc. Symmetries are, of course, welcome, helping to keep things fair for both parties. I'll not talk more on this because there's a dedicated "Request" thread elsewhere.

    [2] Alternative deployment-modes:
    --[2a] Unit-by-unit: Each faction places one unit, which is revealed to the opponent, who then places his own unit, and-so-on until all units are placed.
    --[2b] Varls-revealed: Those big giants are tough to miss in an opposing party, and are typically placed up front. So, each faction first places his varls which are then revealed to the opponent, and then each faction secretly deploys its archers and raiders.
    --[2c] Re-arrangement stage: An intermediate stage (after the deployment) where the two parties can have a small number of re-arrangement moves (rules?), secretly or openly. Something like "castling" in chess.
    --[2d] Open-space: Free-up the entire map for deployment, in any of the above modes (or the original one), and see what happens!

    [3] Texas hold'em: Give the option of a small number of changes (secret or open) to each teams' build, after the opponent is chosen (prior to the deployment). For instance, each team is allowed to swap 1-2 units from his barracks or swap 1-2 units in the active-build ordering.

    [4] Stalemate: One (somewhat relevant) point about the endgame. Picture this (based on a true story): both opponents are left with one bowmaster each, at the same ARM+STR+WP+EX and say 14-15 tiles apart. Each BM can make a "falcon-hit" that directly kills the opponent, but, she's too far away... Each BM has to move a little closer to be ready for the kill in the next-move, but, doing-so will give the advantage on the opponent's next turn (exertion-move + falcon-hit) to finish the match. Both players realize this and chat about it; stalemate. So what is my suggestion? Implement an "offer-draw" option. I understand that this is not in the "spirit" of TBSF, and the renown-bonus is a marginal +2 for the winner in such situations, but hey: Would you move if you were me? I eventually did. And died. Twas a good match though!

    [5] Double-or-nothing: Finally, what would you say to an "offer double-or-nothing" button? For instance, this could be invoked once or twice (only) during anytime in the game and it would double the renown-value of the remaining-kills (or add a fixed bonus or something). Declining would mean forfeiting the match.

    Thanks for abiding to the end of the post! I'm looking forward to your feedback.
    Thanks for the input/ideas here!

    0) Who acts first?: You will not know unless you know the map. Each map has one side always go first. When you see that you're in the upper left of the Wall Map you know you'll for first...if you know the game. But we did not give a player a well marked note as to who is going first. In the future when there are more maps it'll be even harder to understand who's going first. In light of this assemble your team conservatively ready to either attack or defend.

    1) More maps!: Yes we agree! More maps will find their way into Factions as we develop more for the Saga. Stay tuned...

    2) Alternate Deployment modes: We looked into all these modes pre beta and decided on the one we're using now. We like how each team assembles their formation and then the fog of war is lifted because it forces players to come up with formations that are good defensively and offensively without knowing where there enemy is. Now the "open space" where you can deploy anywhere on the map is pretty cool and I'd love to someday get that in for a specific map to see what people think!

    3) Texas Hold 'em: We toyed with this idea for a bit, but really liked the idea of players assembling a team that is well rounded and then fighting whatever is in their way. This system stream lines getting into a match, which is always a concern, and makes the pre-match unit choosing more important. Knowing who I'm going into battle against often changes the way I deploy my units. I'd be kinda bummed if I saw a different build suddenly in front of me. Also players would get into the habit of "hiding" their 2 favorite units until the match making any strategy for deployment pretty pointless.

    4) Stalemate: Good, good point here. To be honest we had this as high priority on the schedule to fix, but since then no one's really brought it up as a concern so we've put other things ahead of it. We shall continue to monitor...

    5) Double or nothing: Sorry, If I understand correctly you're saying that either player could offer 'double or nothing' and then the winner gets double the kills and the loser gets nothing for kills? But if the other player doesn't want this then they forfeit? Is this correct? I love the idea of betting on renown somehow, but not sure this is the way I'd do it...explore some more ideas!

    Thanks for the post and sorry it's taken so long to reply. Since we've shipped we've been awfully busy so sometimes I just lurk for a while to read what other players are thinking.

  10. #30
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Hello Arnie. Thanks for your response. I'm sure your time-table is really cramped with the TBS1-production, so the full-length reply was kind of unexpected!

    All clear about points [0] & [1] (First-to-Act & Maps).

    Concerning points [2] & [4] (Deployment-modes & Stalemate): They've been thoroughly assessed and I feel well covered. Since I've not been around too long, I haven't quite followed their evolution (alpha/beta etc). Nevertheless, you confirmed my guess that a lot of consideration has been put into them and, so, the final design is surely a product of feedback, fine-tuning etc (and not some strategic "decision").

    Concerning point [3] (Texas Hold'em), further down the post, a more conventional approach to it was proposed: In the Proving Grounds (PGs), each player is defining a series of 9 units (instead of 6) in a predefined order. Now, at match-maker, after the opponent is chosen (i.e. when the "Valhalla Horn" is heard), each player has 30sec to click/check the 6-out-of-9 units he's going to use (+ a "Done" button). All 9 units of each opponent are visible to the other at this stage. Lets say (for simplicity) that the predefined order from the PGs cannot be altered here, e.g. if someone likes varls-first and archers-last, he/she'll have to lay this out carefully in the PGs. Of course, the type-restrictions apply. So, after each opponent has selected the 6/9 units (and clicked "Done"), the units and their order is finally revealed to the other, prior to initial-deployment, as presently done. That seems rather simple to implement (imo!), while also adding some versatility to the team builds. But, as previously said, first-things-first: more content (units,maps etc) will keep our minds busy in the game and away from such "subtle" aspects (and rambling in the forums!).

    Finally, concerning point [5] (Double-or-nothing). I'm kind of relieved that your response is not (so) negative, because the idea was not so well received in this thread . In view the general feedback, I subsequently proposed a more "win/win" implementation of this renown-gambling, closer to the no-penalty spirit of TBSF (Com[pli]ment: I especially like the fact that renown is mostly given by kills+underdog+extras, and in a lesser extent by winner/loser. Let ranking-obsessed players have that!). So, picture this: During such a "double-or-nothing" offer, and according to accept/decline & match-outcome, the challenger eventually gets {double,normal,normal}-renown when the defender:{accepts & loses, accepts & wins, declines}, respectively. The renown bonus is either for the remaining kills only, or just a +bonus at the end. In this way, no one gets to lose any renown (from what they'd normally earn) while smart-gamblers and good-estimators get the better of it. Most importantly, nothing happens if the defender declines! This "offer" could be activated only once, and perhaps after the battle is a little bit advanced (e.g. after 2-3 rounds). I understand the possible-fears about renown-inflation in favor of stronger/more-experienced opponents, but, shouldn't that be wholly taken care of by careful-design of the match-maker? I mean that, if MM works like it should, I think that entry-level players would like the idea of winning some more renown, while the experienced-players (that probably don't generally care about renown) will just see this as an extra flavor to taunt their friends/opponents. Additionally, this feature could spice-up the tournaments, provided that a "renown-earned" ranking is added in the Hall-of-Valor: from what I'm getting, since tourney-matches are few, and top-players' performance is marginally-close, this could give the extra edge!
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 03-29-2013 at 03:19 AM. Reason: Colors for better text-readability

  11. #31
    Seems to me that if "double or nothing" is to work, then you should get zero renown (like friend match) if the defender accepts and wins, double if they accept and lose, and normal if they decline. Then it becomes a gamble.

    Otherwise, there is literally no reason not to propose it. You have nothing to lose, even if they refuse. So it just becomes a renown mine with an occasional payout.

  12. #32
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by d2r View Post
    Seems to me that if "double or nothing" is to work, then you should get zero renown (like friend match) if the defender accepts and wins, double if they accept and lose, and normal if they decline. Then it becomes a gamble. Otherwise, there is literally no reason not to propose it. You have nothing to lose, even if they refuse. So it just becomes a renown mine with an occasional payout.
    Hello d2r. That was my initial proposal, but it received quite a tongue-lashing, so I opted for a less penalizing approach, the "renown mine" as you put it.

    If we'd like to keep the amount of "renown earned by kills" constant in each game (i.e. 6+6 rank1 units, means 11 renown max. to be divided among the players: typically +6 to the winner and max +5 to the loser), then the "double-or-nothing" could be implemented as follows: The winner gets ALL the renown from the subsequent kills of both players, and the loser gets NONE. In this way, there's no inflation, and the stakes are more "balanced" (higher at the beginning when the battle is still open, and lower near the endgame, when things are mostly decided).

  13. #33
    The winner gets ALL the renown from the subsequent kills of both players, and the loser gets NONE. In this way, there's no inflation, and the stakes are more "balanced" (higher at the beginning when the battle is still open, and lower near the endgame, when things are mostly decided).
    I haven't read your earlier walls o' text, Aleonymous, but I like the sound of this idea (which, just to be clear, does not involve an actual doubling). It wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my wishlist for the game and I don't think I would ever use it, but it probably wouldn't break anything. Then again, the game is fast-paced and you could throw your opponent off-guard by spamming them with mid-game offers.

  14. #34
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I haven't read your earlier walls o' text, Aleonymous
    you're right Frank, they do seem intimidating to take from up-front!

    Quote Originally Posted by franknarf View Post
    I like the sound of this idea (which, just to be clear, does not involve an actual doubling). It wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my wishlist for the game and I don't think I would ever use it, but it probably wouldn't break anything. Then again, the game is fast-paced and you could throw your opponent off-guard by spamming them with mid-game offers.
    That's the spirit, and the other about spicing up the Tourneys. I think I read somewhere that Stoic will implement a "Renown-Earned" ranking in Hall-of-Valor (all-time? current-tourney?)

  15. #35
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Regarding that idea, would anyone actually refuse? I think that's the issue. If there is no downside, then people will always accept. If a rational player should always accept and this feature will then always be on, isn't it equivalent to buffing the winner's renown bonus?

    I think a betting mechanic is cool. But we need to flesh the idea out more. I would say, that rather than bet the game's renown, renown can be spent and then this can be multiplied by a factor if you win, and this is available for both players.

    Ex. At turn 20 the game asks both players to make bets. You can bet 10 renown and the winner has this multiplied by 1.5. Placing a bet always costs 1 renown. If you lose (so as not to make the outcome of the match moot, you get your placement back). In effect you spent 1 renown to wager.

    Besides this though, I think we would also need to give some thought how to avoid exploiting any suggested betting mechanic.

    Any other betting ideas? What if we could bet on who kills who. That I think is fun and crazy. You get +2 renown if you guess right before the match,
    Last edited by raven2134; 03-30-2013 at 04:44 AM.

  16. #36
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Placing bets is rather irrelevant to the lore here. Say "Hey, my ugly opponent, let's make a deal for this - winner gets more fame and booze than he usually gets for a win and loser's grace and courage in battle will be forgotten! I don't know how can we achieve this, but I think we can persuade fellow habitants of Strand to pretend that."

    Sounds weird
    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

  17. #37
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134
    (1) I would say, that rather than bet the game's renown, renown can be spent and then this can be multiplied by a factor if you win, and this is available for both players. Ex. At turn 20 the game asks both players to make bets. You can bet 10 renown and the winner has this multiplied by 1.5. Placing a bet always costs 1 renown. If you lose (so as not to make the outcome of the match moot, you get your placement back). In effect you spent 1 renown to wager.

    (2) What if we could bet on who kills who. That I think is fun and crazy. You get +2 renown if you guess right before the match.
    You first thought is interesting. Setting renown-bets, at some fixed point(s) in the game. The first player sets the renown he's willing to gamble (+1R for betting), e.g. some fixed prices values 5,10,20. If the second player accepts the bet, he must place the same amount in the pot (without spending the 1R). If the first player passes the betting, the second one has his turn to bet, with the above rules inverted. At the end of the match, the winner gets all the renown in the pot. If one player declines the bet or no-one challenges, the match goes on normally.

    You second idea does give a wild spin to the match, but seems tricky to implement...

    In overall, I think that it's important to keep the renown-inflation low. As for "protecting" players from being fooled-out of their renown, well, vikings are grown-ups and should be responsible for their actions! Perhaps if each-player's track-record (elo, win/loss etc) is clearly-shown, it can forestall foolish betting.

    Quote Originally Posted by netnazgul View Post
    Placing bets is rather irrelevant to the lore here. Say "Hey, my ugly opponent, let's make a deal for this - winner gets more fame and booze than he usually gets for a win and loser's grace and courage in battle will be forgotten!"
    Netnazgul has got a firm point there. Renown is the "coin" staked & exchanged in the gambling process, but in doing so it kinda feels... weird! If only there was some "material possession" that could be earned and gambled... Perhaps, a prisoner-of-war? Winner getting to "capture" one of his enemies units?
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 03-30-2013 at 09:56 AM.

  18. #38
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Maybe you can take prisoners . Each player picks the other player's unit. Whoever wins gets the other guy's character? haha I'm just spitballing here.

  19. #39
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Maybe you can take prisoners . Each player picks the other player's unit. Whoever wins gets the other guy's character?
    That'll be crazy! Imagine losing your favorite unit! Perhaps TBSF could later implement battles-for-rescue, e.g. storming/challenging the barracks of an opponent etc. Wild!

    Another deal would be to allow betting somehow related to the kills of your team's units. You would be allowed to bet Renown up to the kills of your least-deadly units (e.g. if you have units with 4|56|79|12|3|124 kills, then you can bet up to 3 renown).

  20. #40
    [totally off-topic:] Speaking of taking enemy units, let's have a Crazyhouse mode!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 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
  •