Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

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

  1.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #41
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Guys, I think it's better not to label and idea as "awful" or "bad" or even "good"

    The point is too discuss and brainstorm. To see what the possibilities are. The greatest asset to innovation is a crazy idea. The pitfall to that is how to make a crazy idea practical, but that's what we're here to discuss. Maybe as some people I've chatted with have pointed out, the subject of the thread isn't actually a problem to the game, but that doesn't mean there's any harm to discuss possibilities.

    If we narrow our vision and stop thinking creatively, then the game definitely won't be able to improve. In respect to whether this is a problem, well that's something we should carefully reflect on and evaluate. Do possible suggestions/solutions create more problems than they solve? If they do, then the current game probably doesn't have so much an issue on this.

    Let's try to provide alternative suggestions we think might be better if we don't agree with something said, or reason out well why exactly a suggestion won't work . That will serve everyone well.

  2. #42
    Clearly I was to harsh at first and very hyperbolic without trying to explain why I didn't agree with a "reverse" shieldwall. Let's just think about this scenario. Let's imagine we have a group of these "reverse" shieldwall units, and you know the more enemies that attack you, the "stronger" your units get. What are you going to do? I would just bunch my units together, and dare for you to attack me. Engaging against that, what do I do? Do I have to send in my units one at a time? That would clearly mean sending that unit to it's death. Do I send them all in at once? If I do I am only going to make the enemy stronger by doing so. In the end, the only thing I could do is use multiple version of that same unit itself, or resort to cheap shots with archers and warriors. This is why a "reverse" shieldwall doesn't work. You're only going to make the game more confusing to the newer players and frustrating towards the older players and it still doesn't solve the problem of preventing turtling because the best way to use such units is to put them close to each other and wait until your opponent is dumb enough to attack you.

    In fact, I disagree with a lot of the ideas that I am reading in this thread because they just make the game more volatile or don't actually solve the problem of turtling itself, sometimes even make it worse. Having units with additional stats in the beginning just unfairly reward things like Warrior/archer first and make people play defensively until the "strong" period is over. If we go overboard with additional stats at the start then the game would turn into something where it is determined by who attacks first and with most power. If units gradually get stronger as the game goes on you're just going to wait until you're units are at their strongest and then attack. I know stuff like this seems appealing at first, but when they become available then they don't actually add to the depth of the game but instead pidgeonhole you into using the best option available to you. Also such mechanics would frustrate newer players just due to the sheer volatility of it.

    If we really want to get to the heart of the problem, we have to ask why do people turtle? Certainly the reason has been touched on that it is easier to do. But there are a couple of things that people miss. First of all, back to the chess analogy. First of all in chess, you're forced to move, and, second you're not forced to move a specific unit in a specific turn order. Plus there are pieces in chess that can basically move across the entire board while movement in the banner saga is much more restricted. I know there are a lot more differences, but these really stand out to me as to point out why people turtle in tbs. As roder pointed, a unit standing by itself is an easy target for getting picked off, which is not necessarily true for chess because the areas that pieces control in chess are much larger. This means as a player I usually want to wait till every unit is set in place first before I attack. If I mess up, with turn order advantage it is incredibly easy for my opponent to make up for not attacking first with attacking more often. It's just much easier to have a set formation, and wait for you opponent to attack into you, hence why there is so much turtling. If attacking first was so great, why is stuff like warrior/archer first not more popular? Once I see someone has a warrior first, I immediately play passive and just wait until I can attack when it is advantageous to me, ie turtle. Admittedly, this is why I believe the RM is the strongest unit in the game because you can close the gap without worrying about getting attacked unless it is on your terms.

    If you want my opinion, I would just make it so attacking first would give you 1 wp. That doesn't sound like a lot, but 1 wp makes a huge difference in terms of making up for turn order or positioning advantage that you're going to eventually lose once the ball gets rolling. It also wouldn't make the game too volatile as it is easy to predict and account for. Other than that, I would really restrict the area that you can set units from the start. Why are people allowed to put all their units in a corner? That's just really silly to me. I've also toyed around with the idea of giving people 1-3 wp to work with from the start, but I'm curious to see how the 1 wp for first hit works out first.

    Anyway, sorry for being a bit rude in my earlier post. If you took it personally, just know that I disagreed with the idea, not you. I just wanted to show I do put a lot of thoughts in why I agree or disagree, and it's more than just "oh it's different and I don't like things that are different". Besides, I got scolded by raven so........

  3. #43
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    i didnt take it personal, we're talking aobut a game, that would be absurd haha i have come to accept that we both disagree on many things, it just so happens that I think I'm right in our discussions :P but regarding reverse stonewall, there are many surround effects already in the game, such as shieldwall, thrasher's ability. and it doesnt seem to be overpowered in any regard. there are ranged units in the game, that would chip away at these reverse-stonewall units without them getting their bonus, and if they run in to benefit from their surround ability, well they are surrounding their unit with enemy units, it will not last long, especially until an entire team order when you can use it again. so it doesnt seem so cut-and-dry how you'd just win with these units, you'd have to strategically position them into the enemy team without them dying/getting maimed.

  4. #44
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    I will agree with raven that turtling is not such a big issue, really. After all these discussions, I've come to realize that only way to address this issue is by introducing new abilities. This post is gonna be in this direction; no more proposing weird new game mechanics

    Raiders' Shieldwall and Archers' Puncture are two very good examples of (passive) abilities that we can build from. The Shieldwall gives ARM bonus to clustered allies and Puncture gives an STR bonus to attacks against broken units. On the other hand, Warriors' Heavy-Impact is an AoE (Area of Effect) ability and Shieldbangers' Return-the-Favour is an ability that harms offending enemies. Breaking these core abilities apart, and using their "parts" to imagine other abilities, we have
    • Raiders: Positional abilities --> Bonus stats when surrounded by allies, or by enemies, or when going solo.
    • Archers: Scaling abilities --> Bonus stats with respect to the target's, or your own, ARM/STR/WP stats (and their starting values)
    • Warriors: AoE abilities --> Damages multiple enemies or aid multiple allies
    • Shieldbangers: Retaliation abilities --> Penalizes enemies from attacking you


    Current abilities -- As you can see, some units' active-abilities fall into a different base-class (e.g. SnB is AoE, Malice & BR are fundamentally positional), some abilities combine features (e.g. RT is both positional and AoE, RoA is both positional & scaling) while others fall on completely new grounds (e.g. FA tweaks turn-order; Malice does that too, in a sense).

    New abilities -- We've already had the promise of the Grudgewielder class, whose ability scales with the amount of damage he has taken. There's also Thread-the-Needle, that is a hybrid Positional/Scaling/AoE ability. Wardog's & Champion's ability ain't known but there's fair evidence that suggests that the former is offensive (probably synergizing with HI --> AoE) while the latter affects turn-queue.

    New classes -- We have the Landsmen who can move through allies and the Spearmen who have increased ranged (both strongly positional abilities). Especially the Hunter can be a real help against turtlers. You move your big warrior in for that big hit, then come up behind (and through him) with the Hunter and give that warrior one more go, before he's neutralized.

    Now, what can new things can we build from those paradigms? I won't start extensively brainstorming (again, ), but I will just hint at a AoE/positional ability that can potentially help against turtling. It is called "Cast Fear" and it could have either of these effects (you choose):
    1. Send the attacked unit back in turn-queue (or just miss his turn out of fear)
    2. Cause all enemies in its AoE to move back (or at random directions -- ok, perhaps not, you RNG haters! ).
    3. Damage WP, for a single unit or adjacent ones or in a AoE.
    Last edited by Aleonymous; 12-17-2013 at 07:29 AM. Reason: Modified new/proposed ability
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  5.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #45
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Wasn't scolding anyone in particular KD Haha. I was responding to some chatters also who we're a bit anxious about the thread.

    I have to point out to order Thrasher was overpowered which is what prompted the changes to bloody flail. Same with all melee 4 raider setups, which is why we got team limits because shield wall stacking bonuses were too strong. So in General, a reverse shield wall has to be carefully considered in a stacking environment/scenario, just as KD is pointing out. However, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to have 1 unit type that could behave along those lines, if stacking is an issue, it could always be a varl.

    Aleo, best to recall saga abilities will not carry over into factions as is. Going to be some major balance and possibly revamping to get the saga abilities multiplayer balanced.

    I like your new ability idea, something that makes an enemy target move randomly. Seems like a really nice thing to mess with enemy formations and counter turtling .

  6. #46
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    saga abilities will not carry over into factions as is. Going to be some major balance and possibly revamping to get the saga abilities multiplayer balanced.
    Indeed. Rook seems fairly OP by all standards. The prime characteristic is the hybrid melee/ranged attack but, on the "UP" side, his ability seems to be melee-only... Having ranged Mark-the-Prey would be just too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    I like your new ability idea, something that makes an enemy target move randomly. Seems like a really nice thing to mess with enemy formations and counter turtling.
    Glad you like it (), because I can already feel RNG haters (yes, you, netnazgul ) coming up at me. Seriously now, it sounds difficult to implement such an ability. Especially when the units are clustered. Only solution is if this "damage" is like HI, i.e. spreads to the adjacent units. So, firstly the outermost ones move and then the inner ones.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  7.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #47
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    I think maybe it should be single target, not Aoe.

    Maybe to balance things it should make a random enemy move. If it needs even more give and take, maybe it could cause 1 unit on both teams to move randomly.

    Or maybe it could even be like a teleporter trap. A unit which walks over a tile or stays on a certain area gets moved to another designated place.

  8. #48
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Continuing on this "novel abilities that incentivize engagement" track...

    Thinking about presently available "solutions" against turtled opponents, by far the most useful is SnB. The main ingredients of this ability are (1) range & (2) AoE. So, I think that another ability in this spirit could help the situation.

    Moreover, what really screws up the synergies of a carefully turtled formation is (1) positioning & (2) turn-order. Concerning positioning, the archetype example is Ramming that huge SB from the vanguard into the back lines, exposing those soft archers behind him. That's why I suggested this random-move ability. Now, concerning turn-order, we've discussed in the past the possibility of an anti-WL unit, that screws up enemy turn-queue (e.g. to move a breaker after damagers). That was deemed quite nasty. Another ability that indirectly toys with enemy turns is PK/Malice. Based on those two observations, I suggested this ability that just makes an enemy unit skip a turn, or allow him only to move but not to attack.

    Finally, inspired from other games like XCOM, we could implement this fear/panic effect with an RNG-controlled response that does either of the three: (1) skip turn entirely, (2) attack a random unit, ally or enemy, in his range, (3) move randomly. In this way, there is the risk that the targeted unit ends up doing a good move, e.g. attacking the enemy or moving in a location that blocks something etc.
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  9. #49
    Junior Member Esth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    29
    Lets try to keep random effects to a minimum, outcome should be dictated by skill not luck

  10. #50
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    1. Send the attacked unit back in turn-queue (or just miss his turn out of fear)
    2. Damage WP, for a single unit or adjacent ones or in a AoE.
    Ooooo I like your first suggestion, sort of like a reverse Forge Ahead (:P lol why dont we just have antithesis of each units ability ,reverse stonewall, reverse rain of arrows (instead it drops a gift for you , reverse tempest (insteads hugs everyone around him). Lol but on real note, I think we should definitely have more support units. Like buffs, either by target or placing temporary buff on tile (which unit can be pushed off of) or just passive buffs (like shieldwall). Would allow for more synergy/combos.

    I also like your 3rd suggestion, something that attacks enemy WP is really cool idea, especially if it was like a backbiter-esque but it took WP instead

  11.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #51
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Could make it a trap then. It teleports a unit to a specific location. Traps have that effect of being skill based but with a random factor, because it's the player that decides how to use it, but its the opponent who has to fall for it.

  12. #52
    Backer gaelvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    161
    How about something like "Malice" but, instead of drawing the attacker to the unit using the ability, another target can be chosen.
    For cards and art prints, visit my Celtic Art Print Gallery: http://ian-herriott.artistwebsites.com/
    "Like" me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Celti...51218704893987
    And view all of my Banner Saga Crest Designs on tumblr: http://gaelvin.tumblr.com

  13. #53
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    Haha that is why skystriker is my 2nd favorite unit, the mind games are the most fun part! 1st fav unit is Strongarm though, just a beast with stats and how can you not love bashing someone with your shield and send him flying

    yeah im not sure about random location though haha maybe if they are feared, they just are sent running back to their original square xD not normal walking animation though, must have arms flailing up at their sides lol

  14. #54
    Junior Member Esth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    29
    This is a good point. Unpredictability due to hidden information is generally far more interesting than RNG.

  15. #55
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Esth View Post
    Lets try to keep random effects to a minimum, outcome should be dictated by skill not luck
    When an ability has RNG that is properly tuned (i.e. it can go either way), then there is skill in assessing whether it's worth using it or not. Like with Bloody Flail.

    Quote Originally Posted by roder View Post
    I think we should definitely have more support units
    The landsmen are supposed to be support units. Warden is a WP-backpack and the Hunter is... more special! Still wondering if STR- or ARM-healing abilities will ever make it to Factions/Saga.

    Quote Originally Posted by raven2134 View Post
    Traps have that effect of being skill based but with a random factor, because it's the player that decides how to use it, but its the opponent who has to fall for it.
    Gambling... I like RNG, so how could I dislike that?

    Quote Originally Posted by gaelvin View Post
    How about something like "Malice" but, instead of drawing the attacker to the unit using the ability, another target can be chosen.
    Hmmm, you mean that the "Maliced" unit would not attack the "Malicer" but instead head for another tile or another unit (ally or enemy)? Interesting...
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  16. #56
    Backer gaelvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    Hmmm, you mean that the "Maliced" unit would not attack the "Malicer" but instead head for another tile or another unit (ally or enemy)? Interesting...
    That's the idea... I would think it would be a target of your (the "Malicer's") choosing. So, for instance, you could direct an enemy unit at one of your own units which has a high ARM, so that the STR hit would be minimal, and prevent that enemy unit from targeting one of your more vulnerable units.
    For cards and art prints, visit my Celtic Art Print Gallery: http://ian-herriott.artistwebsites.com/
    "Like" me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Celti...51218704893987
    And view all of my Banner Saga Crest Designs on tumblr: http://gaelvin.tumblr.com

  17. #57
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    Quote Originally Posted by gaelvin View Post
    That's the idea... I would think it would be a target of your (the "Malicer's") choosing. So, for instance, you could direct an enemy unit at one of your own units which has a high ARM, so that the STR hit would be minimal, and prevent that enemy unit from targeting one of your more vulnerable units.
    The problem with this is to find a nice "lore" reason behind such an action If this ability makes the "maliced" unit attack the closest unit (ally or enemy), it could be thought as a frenzy/panic response...
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  18. #58
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    The problem with this is to find a nice "lore" reason behind such an action
    the Provoker's day job is ventriloquist perfect. i think Malicer might be too powerful, like directing attack on BtP SM, or RM under stonewall, and i think the best commonplace scenario would be making them kill off your maimed units xD

    Maybe not directing attacks, but trying to scare off attacks. Like a unit that picks an ally to shield and take the blow if they are attacked, or a unit that picks an ally and counterattacks if the unit is attacked (the attack still goes through though).

    Love how this thread turned into a unit suggestion thread like Create-a-unit type threads though

  19. #59
    Just a quick thought maybe something like if your unit has not mover forward each round you lose Wp until you have moved forward then effect goes away.
    and remember you want to get to Valhalla hahahahah only a coward hides in a corner and loses his will has the enemy charges at them....

  20. #60
    Junior Member Sloul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    5
    Another possibility would be to throw a pack of 4 to 6 AI in the middle of the map, one half would be tagged red and the other one tagged blue.
    Either you decide to turtle and the other player will probably rally his AI allies, and so, get a few more units fighting for him (but not controlled by him). Or you jump in taking the risk to loose some ''turtle'' advantage.

    But I can one con for players deciding to support their AI allies, it would be the potential loss of HP, ARM but most probably WP spent in the skirmish. Though they will gain WP back with deaths, but maybe not as much as total they lost.
    Still, I think it would be one way to do it.

    Another thing is that, in the end, maybe it will tend to be a bit less based on skill, and a bit more on luck, since players can't control AI (also might be a bit more challenging for Skystrikers).

Page 3 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
  •