Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Does Factions need engagement incentives?

  1. #21
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by roder View Post
    Well, its not always hard turtling (basically just not moving), its more often soft turtling, which is essentially just shuffling around units but around the same vicinity, like Aleo said, moving forward then backwards or sideways. Re-shuffling your formation is always present in every game, but I've played some games where we just shuffled for 5 minutes before any action occurred lol You can understand how some players would find that frustrating, non-engagement is a bit boring too.
    In my general strategy I have units that act (active breakers, SMs that benefit from activating their ability etc) and units that react (raider vs warrior, warrior vs RoA, etc). The same counts for my enemy. So sometimes the starting position is suboptimal when units that act a closest to enemy reacting units, so I start repositioning then, sometimes this includes approach and sometimes not (depends on how much space my opponent allows me to have).

    There are probably 3 stages of approach skill development - first you just all attack and lose to better positions, then you start turtling to win against all attacks but lose to good players, in the end you figure out to control your approach speed depending on situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by roder View Post
    Scroll of Wills, Shield of Strand, Pilgrim's Horn
    No random incentives please, that will only make it all worse than it is.
    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

  2. #22
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by netnazgul View Post
    No random incentives please, that will only make it all worse than it is.
    Always fearful of RNG That one has been bloody-flailed too many times! Well, it doesn't have to be random, it could be very well fixed for each map, tailored to the particularities of the terrain. For instance, open maps could have a couple of "outpost tiles" in the middle that give ARM bonus etc.

    Another nasty idea to promote engaging is making all tiles in the original deployment zones "WP-draining". So, if you rest while standing on those (or just move within that zone), you lose 1WP at the end of your turn.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  3. #23
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Why the hell would giving ARM bonus negate turtling? It will only amplify it for a person who got the bonus
    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

  4. #24
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    Another nasty idea to promote engaging is making all tiles in the original deployment zones "WP-draining". So, if you rest while standing on those (or just move within that zone), you lose 1WP at the end of your turn.
    Yeah, you approach you opponent and lock him in his deployment zone, so he is either forced to stay in it losing WP or forced to attack you exposing his units. You stay turtling both ways. Well done


    To sum up - most of the aforementioned decisions result from not being able to beat the game usual way. But this doesn't mean the game isn't beatable, most of the times it means you hadn't enough vigor to beat it. Still you try to fix the thing you don't fully understand, introducing questionable kludges that will most likely make it even worse for yourself cause they don't actually fix the problem (the actual problem being your own approach to the game, not the mechanics).
    Last edited by netnazgul; 12-05-2013 at 06:07 AM. Reason: additional thoughts and bragging
    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

  5.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #25
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Interesting suggestions. Map incentives and terrain have been a frequent suggestion.

    Some thoughts:
    1. I don't like the idea of randomly spawning incentives or map objective placements. This too easily favors 1 side or the other if it spawns near one of the players. There's no easy or simply way to control this.

    2. People have before suggested map modifiers (like bonus armor or special terrain). Granted, this is a tough suggestion as well. It's not going to be easy to balance and it does deviate from the very minimal current design of movement and combat. Part of the issue with map objectives in general is, it could end up just being a race. Whoever started first and gets to tile X first pretty much wins the game.

    In general map objectives change the flow of the game so that it becomes less about the fight (and positioning) and more about claiming territory (if it becomes important enough to matter).

    This is pretty much why this continues to stump me. Haven't thought up a way to curb extreme behaviors from combat itself. At least not in a situation where we can have build matchups that require 1 player to turtle.
    Last edited by raven2134; 12-05-2013 at 08:28 AM.

  6. #26
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by netnazgul View Post
    Why the hell would giving ARM bonus negate turtling? It will only amplify it for a person who got the bonus
    ARM bonus will be given to units standing in the bonus tiles that can be found in the middle of map, not in/near the deployment zones. Turtling --if I am not mistaken-- is defined as waiting in the back on your zone, or in a corner...

    Quote Originally Posted by netnazgul View Post
    Yeah, you approach you opponent and lock him in his deployment zone, so he is either forced to stay in it losing WP or forced to attack you exposing his units. You stay turtling both ways.
    You're getting this all wrong. Firstly, attacking or using a special ability should not count as "waiting"; so, you wont be WP-drained if you start crunching that offending enemy unit that comes up to lock you in. Secondly, even without that "rule", it'd gladly concede 1-2WP to draining to kill a silly warrior that comes hit my shieldbangers. Thirdly, how exactly could you lock an opponent in his zone? Units are carefully deployed and move one at a time, so every unit can "escape" their zone. It's just that the deployment meta will need to be revisited; now it's just "keep a 7 tile gap" and/or "pick a corner if you wanna frustrate opponent and play a longer match".

    If that is no enough, well... I wish you gl hf the next time you meet a skilled player with a Yth/Butters-type build
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  7. #27
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Part of the issue with map objectives in general is, it could end up just being a race. Whoever started first and gets to tile X first pretty much wins the game.
    For me, it's a question of how many people are offended by the two aspects of the battle: (a) That subtle 1 stat-point that can make that huuuuuuuuge difference or (b) Fundamental mechanics like turtling, turn-advantage etc. The case (a) applies only rarely, e.g. for "that unforgettable K_B vs. Tirean match". Case (b) applies much more often and can deter new players.

    Now you'll say "baby steps" and you'll be right Well, we're just trying to propose some things that could improve the game experience for everybody. I am afraid that tearing off some bad parts is to be expected, sometimes, no?

    Let's take a lesson from the past. An apt example. How many of you were for/against the Pillage mode, when first proposed? How many of you are for/against it now?
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  8. #28
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    ARM bonus will be given to units standing in the bonus tiles that can be found in the middle of map, not in/near the deployment zones. Turtling --if I am not mistaken-- is defined as waiting in the back on your zone, or in a corner...
    In more common means turtling can be just a slow movement, so I'm not that wrong

    Makind deployment zones draining WP will reverse the issue in a way that you're disfavoured to move back while your opponent is able to run there. Also it's a kludge and non-obvious in terms of lore and UI.
    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

  9.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #29
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I think Pillage example is different.

    A bad map feature system could make things worse. It doesn't stop emphasizing an extreme, which is the issue.

    So both teams need to move...

    Case A
    Team 1 gets there, then turtles. Not gg.

    Case B
    Opponent that requires defensive approach to combat gets there first. Also not gg.

    Stacking advantages is not the solution I think we need. Even-ing the playing field is what we're looking for, and that is indeed what Pillage from it's very being, was. It could not stack an advantage. I would say, it flipped the table when it was upside-down, making it right.

  10. #30
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    Turtling only seems to happen (from my experience) at lower power levels and from newer players. The only time I've seen it occur in highly competitive play with experienced players is to defend against raidmasters as typically approaching a stone wall makes it more difficult to mitigate the potential moves the raidmaster has.

    I would hate to see additional bonuses from tiles. My personal preference would be to keep the depth of the combat in the tactics and not adjust it towards interpreting how to best take advantage of bonuses that will add to the quantity of things new players have to remember.

    If you don't want people to turtle give them a good move that puts them in a questionable position. That is the fun of Factions. If you run towards someone with 2 stone walls don't be surprised when they don't make holes in their formation and pass turns. I'm not entirely convinced right now that turtling is a real issue rather than an annoyance. During the vigrid tournament there want a single instance of turtling, and I think that is a prime example of competitive play with experienced players.

  11. #31
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    Sure it might not make sense for tile bonuses to appear on current maps that weren't designed for them, but for future maps, if a map had a defined center, it would make sense to be something there.

    May not realize that there are already many random factors in maps already. Getting top or bottom of a map not only gives first-turn advantage, but also other differences. Mead Hall itself is an asymmetrical map, bottom side has two corner obstacles and a much larger one in the bottom right corner as opposed to a smaller one in the top left corner. Same-side battles and opposite-side battles on Great Hall are also very different. But trying to figure out which side your opponent spawned on is part of the exciting unknown when playing the map.

    If all maps were just open fields and both teams just had a straight path to each other, you may say that it focuses on pure combat, but why couldn't combat also include taking positional advantage of the terrain of battle. Many historic battles have been won just by controlling a hill or small height advantage. Imagine if there was a hill map where the hill is only accessible from a few paths. That might be interesting.

    Yeah the on-map items might be too far-fetched, but I am not opposed to more structural obstacles and terrain properties like fire, slowing, traps, armor-dissolving, maybe even so far as (but will be too OP) healing properties.
    Last edited by roder; 12-05-2013 at 12:15 PM.

  12. #32
    Junior Member Esth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    29
    Yeah, the only thing this thread has convinced me of, is how bad most of these solutions would be for the game. The best I can come up with is some sort of chess-like repitition rule and even that seems difficult to implement fairly. Or perhaps actually removing the edge rows from the map over time? ugh.

  13. #33
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by netnazgul View Post
    In more common means turtling can be just a slow movement, so I'm not that wrong

    Makind deployment zones draining WP will reverse the issue in a way that you're disfavoured to move back while your opponent is able to run there. Also it's a kludge and non-obvious in terms of lore and UI.
    Hello again Factions Community. I think you could gradually "Shrink the map" with "crushing crowds of onlookers". In other words, the fact the fight breaks out draws enough people that the people in back are pushing the frontline spectators closer to danger while Viking honor prevents you from attacking or hiding behind them.

    Another thought: Chess doesn't allow you to pass; what if units couldnt rest if they had full WP?

    During Vigrid, while there wasn't full on turtling there was some times when my opponent held back long enough to annoy me that my "first strikes" became losing moves. I would welcome some kind of aggression rewarding mechanic.

  14. #34
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Kletian999 View Post
    Chess doesn't allow you to pass; what if units couldnt rest if they had full WP?
    This is interesting, but as netnazgul says, its kind of difficult to implement. For instance, what would happen if the timer ran-out and you hadn't moved? The unit would move in a random tile? What would be lore behind that?

    I think that the only "safe" way to give incentives is via unit-abilities. Presently, SW and RT and perhaps the only two abilities that are directly related to engaging or, more generally speaking, moving upwards. So, as someone suggested, units that gain bonus to their attack if they move first are good ideas.

    I remember some discussions about a "shadow-walker" ability, that a unit becomes invisible and moves to a tile hidden to the enemy. The unit remains hidden until his next turn or until discovered (e.g. if an enemy gets into a range of 1-2-3 tiles of him, or if hit by something -- e.g. RoA/SnB). How would such an ability fit here?
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  15. #35
    Superbacker StandSure's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    141
    Just a thought - Rook's ability (maybe universal for hunters?) is great incentive to engage. (Basically marks an enemy and causes all units in range to attack the marked unit.) Most likely, though, this is too OP for Factions, and will not be implemented that way, I would guess.
    Let the Sleeping Dog Lie!

    See my album of Banner Saga crests here. Many thanks to everyone who displays my work!

  16. #36
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post

    I think that the only "safe" way to give incentives is via unit-abilities. Presently, SW and RT and perhaps the only two abilities that are directly related to engaging or, more generally speaking, moving upwards. So, as someone suggested, units that gain bonus to their attack if they move first are good ideas.
    I agree, there should be more pro-engagement abilities. The common incentive to engage right now is whoever has less archers, should engage because they'll get chipped more and more the longer they delay lol thats why I use 3 archers, the longer the game is drawn out, the higher chance I'm going to win in the end (because the more rounds that pass, the more rounds of armor-breaking that have passed).

    So there should be some units that have pro-engagement abilities that fall into 2 categories:

    1) Units that have very strong potential right out the gate, but wavers as the game goes on. This incentivizes the player to attack right away to use the full potential of the early-game unit, before it weakens.

    -the warrior is sort of an example of this, because you want to use him before he gets maimed, but because of that reason people sometimes avoid engagement with warriors and leave them in the far back until they gain turn advantage
    -a unit that gains +stats the more allies and/or enemies around it
    -a unit ability involving high movement and reach

    2) Units that have very weak power at the start, but grows in potential as the game goes longer. This incentivizes the other player to attack right away while you have a weaker unit, before it grows in strength.

    -archer's passive ability is sort of an example, but we know because of their ranged break potential, they are also good early/mid-game.
    -unit that starts with 0 willpower and cannot perform their strong ability, and must rest to gain WP, trying to collect enough before the engagement begins
    -unit that gains +stats the more kills they get, or the more allies and/or enemies that die
    Last edited by roder; 12-11-2013 at 08:37 PM.

  17. #37
    Superbacker StandSure's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by roder View Post
    -a unit that gains +stats the more allies and/or enemies around it
    I like this idea in particular, kind of an offensive Shieldwall. It seems to especially fit well in the discussion if the bonus is by enemies, though, as an allies bonus might just encourage more passive, turtle play.
    For some reason I am thinking of the Berserker - maybe he can fly into a rage attack if he is adjacent to at least 2 enemies. It could even be a passive, like Shieldwall...maybe literally a similar armor bonus, but when flanked by enemies, called "Battlefield Awareness" or something like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by roder View Post
    -archer's passive ability is sort of an example, but we know because of their ranged break potential, they are also good early/mid-game.
    -unit that starts with 0 willpower and cannot perform their strong ability, and must rest to gain WP, trying to collect enough before the engagement begins
    -unit that gains +stats the more kills they get, or the more allies and/or enemies that die
    Anything that starts out weak and gains strength would discourage engagement, I think. You would want to hold back until you could use full strength.
    Let the Sleeping Dog Lie!

    See my album of Banner Saga crests here. Many thanks to everyone who displays my work!

  18.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #38
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Reverse shield wall sounds good yea.

  19. #39
    A unit that gets stronger the more enemies that surround it.....yeah let's just think about that for a second.... Imagine a SB that got stronger the more enemies that surrounded it, imagine any warrior that got stronger the more enemies that surrounded it. Needless to say that is an awful idea.

  20. #40
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by KamikazeDurrrp View Post
    A unit that gets stronger the more enemies that surround it.....yeah let's just think about that for a second.... Imagine a SB that got stronger the more enemies that surrounded it, imagine any warrior that got stronger the more enemies that surrounded it. Needless to say that is an awful idea.
    yeah actually all you need to do is imagine it a little further, if you're surrounded by 4 enemy units, how long will that unit last. furthermore, your analogy really doesn't make sense, because its like saying, imagine a SB/Warrior (the strongest units in the game) with runthrough, stonewall or bird of prey, how OP, right? no, those abilities individually aren't overpowered, you'd need to balance the unit, thats why archers have less stats overall because of their ranged ability. you just need to think a little more into it

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •