I'm willing to add some more stuff to the game, but there's so much going on in it that it'd be difficult to squeeze in. The game is already something like 10 times more complex than I had originally planned.
New player class abilities: No
New elite class abilities: Maybe, if they're good/interesting enough
New level elements (height, terrain, etc.): Probably not
New level goals: Maybe
New level objects (different kinds of walls or pits, etc.): Maybe
Keep this in mind.
Strat Tech (Turn/class based strategy game)
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
D'oh! New build of the game has derped the victory conditions. The level doesn't end properly when you destroy all the enemies now.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Whoops! Fixed that.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Map completion is fixed, but now the Flare zone doesn't seem to be properly granting it's damage bonus =P.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Fixed that. Too many issues with changing the code, probably got to give that a rest for now.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Amusing anecdote - this game looks sooo much better on a modern 1080p screen. I've compared the image on an old CRT monitor and a new LCD screen. On the CRT, the Wraith looks like a sort of oval blob of teal color. On the LCD, I can actually make out sprite details enough to realize that it's a female character =P.
I would recommend making the sprites a bit larger for visibility, but I don't think you could get away with that without increasing the overall resolution of the image.
On very small resolutions (I think my CRT is running 1024x768 =/?), it is actually difficult to fit the entire game in a single window.
Now that I can properly appreciate the details of the sprites, they pleasantly remind me of Guardian Legend.
I would recommend making the sprites a bit larger for visibility, but I don't think you could get away with that without increasing the overall resolution of the image.
On very small resolutions (I think my CRT is running 1024x768 =/?), it is actually difficult to fit the entire game in a single window.
Now that I can properly appreciate the details of the sprites, they pleasantly remind me of Guardian Legend.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
You can thank Samurai Fox for the character art.
If you press F11 you can maximize the browser window, this gets rid of the top/bottom bars and allows you to see the entire game on a 1024x768 monitor.
Another solution I may come up with is a link to open the game into a seperate popup window.
If you press F11 you can maximize the browser window, this gets rid of the top/bottom bars and allows you to see the entire game on a 1024x768 monitor.
Another solution I may come up with is a link to open the game into a seperate popup window.
Last edited by Udderdude on Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Thanks, that's a helpful tip. I would make a note of it in the game's instructions for future players that might have a similar problem. Not that there would be many people playing at such a low resolution these days, but you never know =P.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Ok, after a break to prevent further code explosion, I've got some more ideas! These ideas are a bit more broad in scope, so just consider this rambling and take from it what you will.
For better or worse, this is an extremely offensively oriented game. The game strongly rewards playing extremely aggressively and simply annihilating enemies before they have a change to gimp you with the game's numerous status gank penalties. Well, it seems like that to me anyway. Maybe that's just my playstyle <_<... >_>.
This is not necessarily bad - it lends the game a quicker pace and keeps the player actively engaged. The downside is that dealing damage is often the best option in any strategic scenario, making status effects and defense less relevant.
As I see it, there are three general schools of thought regarding aggression in TBS games.
The first is the aggressive style of game like you've demonstrated here. In this style of game, almost all of the damage is done by attacks initiated during the player's turn. Alternatively, the AI offense might be extremely powerful, so you must finish units off or suffer heavy damage. The best strategy is to defeat the enemy before it attacks, because allowing the AI to attack typically does not benefit the player. Advance Wars is an example of this kind of game (but defense isn't irrelevant either).
The second balances aggression. You can attack aggressively and do a lot of damage, but not so much that you can typically wipe out all threats in one go. Fortunately, games of this type feature a strong counterattacking mechanic so that the player can retaliate and inflict damage effectively even during the enemy player's turn. Defense is typically good enough that is a valid strategy to park a high defense/evasion unit in a high traffic area to draw aggro and counter attack several aggressors for lots of damage. Fire Emblem and Tactics Ogre are examples of this.
The third is a game where defense is extremely strong, or where attacking is heavily penalized. Games of this style typically have map objectives that must be captured to win, forcing the player to overcome strongly-defended fortresses. The player is strongly encouraged to fortify a position, often defensive terrain, and provoke the AI into attacking. Then the player can efficiently clean up weakened units. When pushing into enemy territory, the player must often have a numerical advantage or first bait out the defenders. Civilization is an example of this style of game.
I'm not going to say that any one style is superior, but I will mention that I find games that allow you to manipulate the AI's actions to your benefit to be deeper and more engaging in the long run. In your game, I feel that there is rarely any benefit to leaving an AI alive, expect perhaps to Control/Clone it later. Even if an AI survives, strong status effects make manipulating the AI somewhat trivial, because almost all of the status effects (Banish, Grasp, Chains, and Stun) render the debuffed unit effectively useless (when used properly). At most, the AI can be allowed to advance toward you to save some AP from moving, but then you forfeit the first strike ability to status gank the enemy before it does the same to you, and you've also lost an opportunity to attack for a turn. Attacking every turn is strongly encouraged in this game, because few classes can effectively deal damage out of turn (or set up damage for later). Not attacking every turn amounts to wasting time and damage.
I don't have any obvious ideas about how to alter this metagame, or if it should even be changed at all, but I think we could discuss this in greater detail if you find this point interesting.
Moving on, I would like to raise an issue with the game's use of statistics at the moment. Currently, the game is a very "low numbers" game. Units are handled in the ones. This is good because it makes determining the outcome of damage simple. However, I feel that it has the significant disadvantage of making damage very granular. Allow me to explain what I mean by that.
In a scale where you inflict 1, 2, or 3 damage, increasing damage by even one point effectively doubles damage for a unit dealing 1 damage per attack. A unit that does 2 damage is now inflicting double the damage output of a unit that does 1 damage. A unit that does 4, quadruple. Bonuses have a very powerful, "swingy" effect.
Now consider a system where you inflict 10, 12 or 15 damage. Adding a damage bonus of one increases damage output in a much more subtle manner, only a 10% damage increase to a unit inflicting 10 damage a turn. This allows the developer to provide a broader range of bonuses. You can grant a minor bonus of +1 damage, or a major bonus of +5 or +10, matching the proportional increase of damage in a single digit system.
Basically what I'm saying is that, with numbers that are too small, bonuses are all or nothing - huge or not existing. With a midsized number system, perhaps ranging up to a 100 or so, damage modifiers can be more diverse.
My next point regards defense. I don't think that defense is very effectively utilized in the game at the moment.
- There is the aforementioned point that sitting still and defending rarely benefits the player. The benefits of a defensive class in this game are dubious.
- For an already marginal stat, a good half the classes in the game effectively ignore defense entirely. Even if you do happen to have defense, it's actual benefit is really only half of what's stated.
- No classes have any inherent defense, defense is only gained from buffs. It doesn't especially matter which of your units gets damaged, provided that it doesn't die outright. The Priest can heal any unit equally efficiently, because damage mitigation rarely differs between classes. 5 Damage to the Spark and 5 Damage to the Wraith is ultimately the same thing. Only the Warrior and Breaker can mitigate damage, and that is only half the time.
- Offensively, the AI so rarely has a defense bonus that the difference between Physical and Magic attacks is largely academic. The only time it is likely to matter is if you are using the Weaken debuff to create negative defense.
- As an extension of the above point, debuffs to defense benefit only half of your classes.
- By comparison, the Warlock's Curse power is much more useful, because it outright decreases the damage output of a unit against any target, regardless of it's damage type.
To make defense more broadly relevant, I would advise the following changes:
- Make defense universal. It reduces damage from all attacks, not just physical ones. Similarly, a defense penalty increases all sources of damage. Few classes have defense anyway, so this makes the classes that do have it more worthwhile.
- Give some classes inherent defense. This makes them better at taking attacks than other classes, because the Priest can heal them more efficiently. Additionally, this provides more meaning to powers that debuff defense, like Expose. Balance the increased survivability with slightly fewer hitpoints, so that overall lifespan is similar.
Having played this game for a bit now, I have a better idea about the classes and how they compare to each other. Here's the breakdown.
Warrior: ~3-6 DPT. Good synergy with Wraith, who grants up to +4 DPT to this class with Weaken. It does decent damage and is very tough, but beyond that, it's pretty average. I don't feel that it's role as a purely defensive unit is especially useful, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Berserker: ~6-12 DPT. Extremely powerful primary damage dealer, one of the strongest classes in the game. the "downsides" to it's powers aren't really penalties at all, because a defense penalty rarely matters, and damaging itself actually makes the unit even more powerful because it has a large hp cap and can simply drain all the HP back - gaining AP for even more destructive attacks while doing do. the only real downside is that it takes some hoops to proc Craze, and it has a limited attack range. Amazing synergies make this unit even more powerful. The Wizard and Breaker can both inflict friendly fire to this unit (with Mine and Force respectively), popping the Craze bonus and also damaging the Berserker so it can generate more APs. It mitigates damage well with Avoid (which, incidentally, is better than pure defense because you can dodge magical attacks), and is immune to some status effects.
Overall, it's one of the strongest, toughest, and most active classes with few actual weaknesses. Is it too powerful? Maybe. If I were to limit this class' power somhow, I would probably start by capping the number of times that Consume can be used - otherwise it can generate almost limitless AP to create damage bonuses. Perhaps 2 or 4 times per turn? I would make Reckless increase the damage that the Berserker takes from all sources (or else make defense penalties apply to magic damage too).
Breaker: ~5-9 DPT. The other big bad damage dealer. Outwardly not as crazy as the Berserker with it's AP generation and damage buffs, the Breaker becomes brutal because it multiattacks the most of any class, making it the most efficient class in the game at utilizing buffs. Even after the Force nerf, it can still attack up to 7 times a turn, with up to 3 bonus damage on each attack (Weaken, Flare, and Empower). That's a burst of up to 21 damage right there. It can't do that every turn, but is still has the potential to be the most damaging unit in the game over the short term. DPT is lower than the Berserker, but spike damage is much higher. Defiance is an amazing power. It can be used every turn and either grants an extra attack or adds defense when it's relevant. Force is an amazing power, because it counts as an attack, has no action cap, and synergizes with the Berserker. Stun is the best debuff in the game. It can't be dispelled, and makes the effected unit completely useless. You can even continue damaging a stunned unit, unlike a Banished or Chained one. the only drawback, again, is attack range.
Excellent synergy with most classes. Wraith and Spark provide damage buffs that the Breaker utilizes extremely efficiently, Breaker's Force attack damages the Berserker (which is good), Wizards can friendly fire Breakers to pop them down to Defiance's extra attack threshold. Warriors benefit well from Weaken, which the Breaker also wants. Even setting that aside, any class can set up a flank with a Breaker to allow full use of Force for extra damage.
Copy paste from Berserker: Overall, it's one of the strongest, toughest, and most active classes with few actual weaknesses. Is it too powerful? Maybe. I might consider capping Force's attacks.
For better or worse, this is an extremely offensively oriented game. The game strongly rewards playing extremely aggressively and simply annihilating enemies before they have a change to gimp you with the game's numerous status gank penalties. Well, it seems like that to me anyway. Maybe that's just my playstyle <_<... >_>.
This is not necessarily bad - it lends the game a quicker pace and keeps the player actively engaged. The downside is that dealing damage is often the best option in any strategic scenario, making status effects and defense less relevant.
As I see it, there are three general schools of thought regarding aggression in TBS games.
The first is the aggressive style of game like you've demonstrated here. In this style of game, almost all of the damage is done by attacks initiated during the player's turn. Alternatively, the AI offense might be extremely powerful, so you must finish units off or suffer heavy damage. The best strategy is to defeat the enemy before it attacks, because allowing the AI to attack typically does not benefit the player. Advance Wars is an example of this kind of game (but defense isn't irrelevant either).
The second balances aggression. You can attack aggressively and do a lot of damage, but not so much that you can typically wipe out all threats in one go. Fortunately, games of this type feature a strong counterattacking mechanic so that the player can retaliate and inflict damage effectively even during the enemy player's turn. Defense is typically good enough that is a valid strategy to park a high defense/evasion unit in a high traffic area to draw aggro and counter attack several aggressors for lots of damage. Fire Emblem and Tactics Ogre are examples of this.
The third is a game where defense is extremely strong, or where attacking is heavily penalized. Games of this style typically have map objectives that must be captured to win, forcing the player to overcome strongly-defended fortresses. The player is strongly encouraged to fortify a position, often defensive terrain, and provoke the AI into attacking. Then the player can efficiently clean up weakened units. When pushing into enemy territory, the player must often have a numerical advantage or first bait out the defenders. Civilization is an example of this style of game.
I'm not going to say that any one style is superior, but I will mention that I find games that allow you to manipulate the AI's actions to your benefit to be deeper and more engaging in the long run. In your game, I feel that there is rarely any benefit to leaving an AI alive, expect perhaps to Control/Clone it later. Even if an AI survives, strong status effects make manipulating the AI somewhat trivial, because almost all of the status effects (Banish, Grasp, Chains, and Stun) render the debuffed unit effectively useless (when used properly). At most, the AI can be allowed to advance toward you to save some AP from moving, but then you forfeit the first strike ability to status gank the enemy before it does the same to you, and you've also lost an opportunity to attack for a turn. Attacking every turn is strongly encouraged in this game, because few classes can effectively deal damage out of turn (or set up damage for later). Not attacking every turn amounts to wasting time and damage.
I don't have any obvious ideas about how to alter this metagame, or if it should even be changed at all, but I think we could discuss this in greater detail if you find this point interesting.
Moving on, I would like to raise an issue with the game's use of statistics at the moment. Currently, the game is a very "low numbers" game. Units are handled in the ones. This is good because it makes determining the outcome of damage simple. However, I feel that it has the significant disadvantage of making damage very granular. Allow me to explain what I mean by that.
In a scale where you inflict 1, 2, or 3 damage, increasing damage by even one point effectively doubles damage for a unit dealing 1 damage per attack. A unit that does 2 damage is now inflicting double the damage output of a unit that does 1 damage. A unit that does 4, quadruple. Bonuses have a very powerful, "swingy" effect.
Now consider a system where you inflict 10, 12 or 15 damage. Adding a damage bonus of one increases damage output in a much more subtle manner, only a 10% damage increase to a unit inflicting 10 damage a turn. This allows the developer to provide a broader range of bonuses. You can grant a minor bonus of +1 damage, or a major bonus of +5 or +10, matching the proportional increase of damage in a single digit system.
Basically what I'm saying is that, with numbers that are too small, bonuses are all or nothing - huge or not existing. With a midsized number system, perhaps ranging up to a 100 or so, damage modifiers can be more diverse.
My next point regards defense. I don't think that defense is very effectively utilized in the game at the moment.
- There is the aforementioned point that sitting still and defending rarely benefits the player. The benefits of a defensive class in this game are dubious.
- For an already marginal stat, a good half the classes in the game effectively ignore defense entirely. Even if you do happen to have defense, it's actual benefit is really only half of what's stated.
- No classes have any inherent defense, defense is only gained from buffs. It doesn't especially matter which of your units gets damaged, provided that it doesn't die outright. The Priest can heal any unit equally efficiently, because damage mitigation rarely differs between classes. 5 Damage to the Spark and 5 Damage to the Wraith is ultimately the same thing. Only the Warrior and Breaker can mitigate damage, and that is only half the time.
- Offensively, the AI so rarely has a defense bonus that the difference between Physical and Magic attacks is largely academic. The only time it is likely to matter is if you are using the Weaken debuff to create negative defense.
- As an extension of the above point, debuffs to defense benefit only half of your classes.
- By comparison, the Warlock's Curse power is much more useful, because it outright decreases the damage output of a unit against any target, regardless of it's damage type.
To make defense more broadly relevant, I would advise the following changes:
- Make defense universal. It reduces damage from all attacks, not just physical ones. Similarly, a defense penalty increases all sources of damage. Few classes have defense anyway, so this makes the classes that do have it more worthwhile.
- Give some classes inherent defense. This makes them better at taking attacks than other classes, because the Priest can heal them more efficiently. Additionally, this provides more meaning to powers that debuff defense, like Expose. Balance the increased survivability with slightly fewer hitpoints, so that overall lifespan is similar.
Having played this game for a bit now, I have a better idea about the classes and how they compare to each other. Here's the breakdown.
Warrior: ~3-6 DPT. Good synergy with Wraith, who grants up to +4 DPT to this class with Weaken. It does decent damage and is very tough, but beyond that, it's pretty average. I don't feel that it's role as a purely defensive unit is especially useful, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Berserker: ~6-12 DPT. Extremely powerful primary damage dealer, one of the strongest classes in the game. the "downsides" to it's powers aren't really penalties at all, because a defense penalty rarely matters, and damaging itself actually makes the unit even more powerful because it has a large hp cap and can simply drain all the HP back - gaining AP for even more destructive attacks while doing do. the only real downside is that it takes some hoops to proc Craze, and it has a limited attack range. Amazing synergies make this unit even more powerful. The Wizard and Breaker can both inflict friendly fire to this unit (with Mine and Force respectively), popping the Craze bonus and also damaging the Berserker so it can generate more APs. It mitigates damage well with Avoid (which, incidentally, is better than pure defense because you can dodge magical attacks), and is immune to some status effects.
Overall, it's one of the strongest, toughest, and most active classes with few actual weaknesses. Is it too powerful? Maybe. If I were to limit this class' power somhow, I would probably start by capping the number of times that Consume can be used - otherwise it can generate almost limitless AP to create damage bonuses. Perhaps 2 or 4 times per turn? I would make Reckless increase the damage that the Berserker takes from all sources (or else make defense penalties apply to magic damage too).
Breaker: ~5-9 DPT. The other big bad damage dealer. Outwardly not as crazy as the Berserker with it's AP generation and damage buffs, the Breaker becomes brutal because it multiattacks the most of any class, making it the most efficient class in the game at utilizing buffs. Even after the Force nerf, it can still attack up to 7 times a turn, with up to 3 bonus damage on each attack (Weaken, Flare, and Empower). That's a burst of up to 21 damage right there. It can't do that every turn, but is still has the potential to be the most damaging unit in the game over the short term. DPT is lower than the Berserker, but spike damage is much higher. Defiance is an amazing power. It can be used every turn and either grants an extra attack or adds defense when it's relevant. Force is an amazing power, because it counts as an attack, has no action cap, and synergizes with the Berserker. Stun is the best debuff in the game. It can't be dispelled, and makes the effected unit completely useless. You can even continue damaging a stunned unit, unlike a Banished or Chained one. the only drawback, again, is attack range.
Excellent synergy with most classes. Wraith and Spark provide damage buffs that the Breaker utilizes extremely efficiently, Breaker's Force attack damages the Berserker (which is good), Wizards can friendly fire Breakers to pop them down to Defiance's extra attack threshold. Warriors benefit well from Weaken, which the Breaker also wants. Even setting that aside, any class can set up a flank with a Breaker to allow full use of Force for extra damage.
Copy paste from Berserker: Overall, it's one of the strongest, toughest, and most active classes with few actual weaknesses. Is it too powerful? Maybe. I might consider capping Force's attacks.
Last edited by Blackbird on Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Spectre: ~4-7 DPT. A decent unit with strong debuffs. It's mobility is extremely high (perhaps too extreme in that, with the right enemy placement, it can cross the map in a fraction of the actions that it would take another class to do so). Damage output is decent, but Expose is extremely inefficient damage and Evil is a more difficult damage bonus to effectively utilize than most others.
Disarm makes some units effectively useless, like the Berserker. Silence makes most other units almost useless, especially the Warrior, Priest, and Stealer.
Expose feels like a very underpowered ability in general to me. You almost never get the opportunity to remove defense penalties. It would be a lot more broadly useful if it simply applied a defense penalty.
As a rogue/assassin-like class, I kind of feel like it should get a damage bonus for flanking enemies with an ally, to make it's damage more on par with other damage dealing classes.
Of course, you would have to be careful not to buff it's damage output too much, or it'll run away like the Berserker =P. Not sure if you wanted the unit to be a pure damage dealer with good debuffs or more of a debuffing specific unit with decent damage as a secondary role.
I might limit the "shadow warp" range of this unit somewhat so that it's mobility is still high, just not insane.
Not a whole lot of synergy with other classes, but that's okay because this unit's combination of exceptional mobility, debuffs, and decent damage output make it useful.
Warlock: ~4-6 DPT. I kind of feel like this is the least useful unit in the game. Sure, it's got Grasp, which effectively renders melee units useless, but there are plenty other classes with more debilitating debuffs and better party synergy. By the same token, Curse looks great on paper when you realize that it halves the damage output of most classes and makes other classes deal 0 damage, but then you realize that most other debuffs just make units outright useless. It's got some minor healing ability, which isn't all that great because the Priest is alot more efficient at it. Most of all, it has no real synergy with other classes. It can only damage one unit at a time and doesn't do anything really unique - in short, it feels like just another semi-decent damage dealer with some debuffs. If I could pick units, I would pick a Wraith, Spectre, or Wizard over a Warlock every time because they actually fill unique rolls.
Disarm makes some units effectively useless, like the Berserker. Silence makes most other units almost useless, especially the Warrior, Priest, and Stealer.
Expose feels like a very underpowered ability in general to me. You almost never get the opportunity to remove defense penalties. It would be a lot more broadly useful if it simply applied a defense penalty.
As a rogue/assassin-like class, I kind of feel like it should get a damage bonus for flanking enemies with an ally, to make it's damage more on par with other damage dealing classes.
Of course, you would have to be careful not to buff it's damage output too much, or it'll run away like the Berserker =P. Not sure if you wanted the unit to be a pure damage dealer with good debuffs or more of a debuffing specific unit with decent damage as a secondary role.
I might limit the "shadow warp" range of this unit somewhat so that it's mobility is still high, just not insane.
Not a whole lot of synergy with other classes, but that's okay because this unit's combination of exceptional mobility, debuffs, and decent damage output make it useful.
Warlock: ~4-6 DPT. I kind of feel like this is the least useful unit in the game. Sure, it's got Grasp, which effectively renders melee units useless, but there are plenty other classes with more debilitating debuffs and better party synergy. By the same token, Curse looks great on paper when you realize that it halves the damage output of most classes and makes other classes deal 0 damage, but then you realize that most other debuffs just make units outright useless. It's got some minor healing ability, which isn't all that great because the Priest is alot more efficient at it. Most of all, it has no real synergy with other classes. It can only damage one unit at a time and doesn't do anything really unique - in short, it feels like just another semi-decent damage dealer with some debuffs. If I could pick units, I would pick a Wraith, Spectre, or Wizard over a Warlock every time because they actually fill unique rolls.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
This is a lot to take in, but I wanted to mention that the magical equivalent of defense is the Absorb ability on the Wizard. It can be purged by another Wizard, but then defense can also be removed by the Spectre. A possible solution to this is to swap Absorb with another unit, so the counter for the "Magic defense" ability isn't on the same class.
Perhaps Absorb could simply be made to soak up more magic damage, also.
If you really think the game is still a damage fest, it's likely better that I increase overall HP values a bit more.
Perhaps Absorb could simply be made to soak up more magic damage, also.
If you really think the game is still a damage fest, it's likely better that I increase overall HP values a bit more.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
> Basically what I'm saying is that, with numbers that are too small, bonuses are all or nothing - huge or not existing. With a midsized number system, perhaps ranging up to a 100 or so, damage modifiers can be more diverse.
I know what you're saying, but I doubt I would add a lot of varying levels of attack/damage buffs even if I did that.
> - There is the aforementioned point that sitting still and defending rarely benefits the player. The benefits of a defensive class in this game are dubious.
The warrior just needs to be close in order to defend or protect, you don't need to sit still. Not sure what you mean by this.
> For an already marginal stat, a good half the classes in the game effectively ignore defense entirely. Even if you do happen to have defense, it's actual benefit is really only half of what's stated.
Yes, it's a magic-heavy game. Unfortnately it's far too late to try and convert one of the classes to physical damage.
> No classes have any inherent defense, defense is only gained from buffs. It doesn't especially matter which of your units gets damaged, provided that it doesn't die outright. The Priest can heal any unit equally efficiently, because damage mitigation rarely differs between classes. 5 Damage to the Spark and 5 Damage to the Wraith is ultimately the same thing.
I didn't want to start adding inherent armor values because it would become too much about hard counters.
> Only the Warrior and Breaker can mitigate damage, and that is only half the time.
The Warrior's defense buff can hit a bunch of guys at once if you position it right, so I don't think this point is true.
> Offensively, the AI so rarely has a defense bonus that the difference between Physical and Magic attacks is largely academic. The only time it is likely to matter is if you are using the Weaken debuff to create negative defense.
This is really due to a lack of warriors on the AI side more than anything.
> As an extension of the above point, debuffs to defense benefit only half of your classes.
As I mentioned in the previous post, Absorb only benefits half the classes as well, but I wouldn't call that useless either.
> By comparison, the Warlock's Curse power is much more useful, because it outright decreases the damage output of a unit against any target, regardless of it's damage type.
Yes, curse is powerful.
> Make defense universal. It reduces damage from all attacks, not just physical ones. Similarly, a defense penalty increases all sources of damage. Few classes have defense anyway, so this makes the classes that do have it more worthwhile.
As I mentioned in the previous post, Absorb is the magic equivalent. If defense effects both phys and magical damage, a unit with default defense and a magic shield with no Wizard around would be nigh invunerable. Not very fun to deal with.
> Give some classes inherent defense. This makes them better at taking attacks than other classes, because the Priest can heal them more efficiently. Additionally, this provides more meaning to powers that debuff defense, like Expose. Balance the increased survivability with slightly fewer hitpoints, so that overall lifespan is similar.
If the classes have inerent defense, how would you remove it? Expose only removes defense buffs, it doesn't lower it. Do you mean the classes with inherent defense would start with a defense buff already active for 12 turns or something? I wouldn't be entirely against giving the warrior a "Head start" defense buff.
> Warrior: ~3-6 DPT. Good synergy with Wraith, who grants up to +4 DPT to this class with Weaken. It does decent damage and is very tough, but beyond that, it's pretty average. I don't feel that it's role as a purely defensive unit is especially useful, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Incite is amazing at drawing away enemy fire, not sure why you didn't mention that.
> Berserker: woah consume is way too powerful
I think the best way to deal with this situation is make consume only restore life. Also, Avoid will only work on physical attacks.
> Breaker: holy crap force is godmode in a can
I agree, I'm going to double the energy cost of Force.
> Spectre: ~4-7 DPT. A decent unit with strong debuffs. It's mobility is extremely high (perhaps too extreme in that, with the right enemy placement, it can cross the map in a fraction of the actions that it would take another class to do so). I might limit the "shadow warp" range of this unit somewhat so that it's mobility is still high, just not insane.
I reduced the range of teleport.
> Expose feels like a very underpowered ability in general to me. You almost never get the opportunity to remove defense penalties. It would be a lot more broadly useful if it simply applied a defense penalty.
It's mostly there for the removal of defense. It's very expensive because it allows you to throw melee units at the now defenseless unit. As mentioned previously, the lack of defense bonuses is really due to a lack of AI warrior units.
> Evil is a more difficult damage bonus to effectively utilize than most others.
I don't see a problem with that. If used effectively, it's ludicrously powerful. A spectre/wraith combo should have you #$%!ing your pants.
> As a rogue/assassin-like class, I kind of feel like it should get a damage bonus for flanking enemies with an ally, to make it's damage more on par with other damage dealing classes.
I'm not sure I want to add facing attacks. It would be somewhat pointless since the Specrte can teleport behind your units anyway. And if you try to have your back against a wall, a Breaker is going to start using force anyway.
> Warlock: woahomg no synergy and feels useless/redundant
I agree and I've felt for awhile the Warlock really needs something more. Not sure what, though. For now I'm going to lower the energy cost of Transfer to 1, so you can use it more. Also keep in mind Transfer benefits from buffs like Bless, so you can get 6 healing for 2 energy if you attack twice. Not bad :P
Seeing as you can't get Priests out of gateways, it makes her the only other class that can provide a viable level of multiple target healing, which I think makes her more useful.
I know what you're saying, but I doubt I would add a lot of varying levels of attack/damage buffs even if I did that.
> - There is the aforementioned point that sitting still and defending rarely benefits the player. The benefits of a defensive class in this game are dubious.
The warrior just needs to be close in order to defend or protect, you don't need to sit still. Not sure what you mean by this.
> For an already marginal stat, a good half the classes in the game effectively ignore defense entirely. Even if you do happen to have defense, it's actual benefit is really only half of what's stated.
Yes, it's a magic-heavy game. Unfortnately it's far too late to try and convert one of the classes to physical damage.
> No classes have any inherent defense, defense is only gained from buffs. It doesn't especially matter which of your units gets damaged, provided that it doesn't die outright. The Priest can heal any unit equally efficiently, because damage mitigation rarely differs between classes. 5 Damage to the Spark and 5 Damage to the Wraith is ultimately the same thing.
I didn't want to start adding inherent armor values because it would become too much about hard counters.
> Only the Warrior and Breaker can mitigate damage, and that is only half the time.
The Warrior's defense buff can hit a bunch of guys at once if you position it right, so I don't think this point is true.
> Offensively, the AI so rarely has a defense bonus that the difference between Physical and Magic attacks is largely academic. The only time it is likely to matter is if you are using the Weaken debuff to create negative defense.
This is really due to a lack of warriors on the AI side more than anything.
> As an extension of the above point, debuffs to defense benefit only half of your classes.
As I mentioned in the previous post, Absorb only benefits half the classes as well, but I wouldn't call that useless either.
> By comparison, the Warlock's Curse power is much more useful, because it outright decreases the damage output of a unit against any target, regardless of it's damage type.
Yes, curse is powerful.
> Make defense universal. It reduces damage from all attacks, not just physical ones. Similarly, a defense penalty increases all sources of damage. Few classes have defense anyway, so this makes the classes that do have it more worthwhile.
As I mentioned in the previous post, Absorb is the magic equivalent. If defense effects both phys and magical damage, a unit with default defense and a magic shield with no Wizard around would be nigh invunerable. Not very fun to deal with.
> Give some classes inherent defense. This makes them better at taking attacks than other classes, because the Priest can heal them more efficiently. Additionally, this provides more meaning to powers that debuff defense, like Expose. Balance the increased survivability with slightly fewer hitpoints, so that overall lifespan is similar.
If the classes have inerent defense, how would you remove it? Expose only removes defense buffs, it doesn't lower it. Do you mean the classes with inherent defense would start with a defense buff already active for 12 turns or something? I wouldn't be entirely against giving the warrior a "Head start" defense buff.
> Warrior: ~3-6 DPT. Good synergy with Wraith, who grants up to +4 DPT to this class with Weaken. It does decent damage and is very tough, but beyond that, it's pretty average. I don't feel that it's role as a purely defensive unit is especially useful, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Incite is amazing at drawing away enemy fire, not sure why you didn't mention that.
> Berserker: woah consume is way too powerful
I think the best way to deal with this situation is make consume only restore life. Also, Avoid will only work on physical attacks.
> Breaker: holy crap force is godmode in a can
I agree, I'm going to double the energy cost of Force.
> Spectre: ~4-7 DPT. A decent unit with strong debuffs. It's mobility is extremely high (perhaps too extreme in that, with the right enemy placement, it can cross the map in a fraction of the actions that it would take another class to do so). I might limit the "shadow warp" range of this unit somewhat so that it's mobility is still high, just not insane.
I reduced the range of teleport.
> Expose feels like a very underpowered ability in general to me. You almost never get the opportunity to remove defense penalties. It would be a lot more broadly useful if it simply applied a defense penalty.
It's mostly there for the removal of defense. It's very expensive because it allows you to throw melee units at the now defenseless unit. As mentioned previously, the lack of defense bonuses is really due to a lack of AI warrior units.
> Evil is a more difficult damage bonus to effectively utilize than most others.
I don't see a problem with that. If used effectively, it's ludicrously powerful. A spectre/wraith combo should have you #$%!ing your pants.
> As a rogue/assassin-like class, I kind of feel like it should get a damage bonus for flanking enemies with an ally, to make it's damage more on par with other damage dealing classes.
I'm not sure I want to add facing attacks. It would be somewhat pointless since the Specrte can teleport behind your units anyway. And if you try to have your back against a wall, a Breaker is going to start using force anyway.
> Warlock: woahomg no synergy and feels useless/redundant
I agree and I've felt for awhile the Warlock really needs something more. Not sure what, though. For now I'm going to lower the energy cost of Transfer to 1, so you can use it more. Also keep in mind Transfer benefits from buffs like Bless, so you can get 6 healing for 2 energy if you attack twice. Not bad :P
Seeing as you can't get Priests out of gateways, it makes her the only other class that can provide a viable level of multiple target healing, which I think makes her more useful.
-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
I only play tbs games that your brother has approved, Udderdude. (Well, that's not quite true. I've put 100+ hours into the Disgaea games.) So I'll have to wait for the review on Tactical Insights.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
He's working on this game with me. So obviously he approves .. lol
Anyway, here's a video showing off the AI improvements in the next version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVnVLJl-oLE
Anyway, here's a video showing off the AI improvements in the next version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVnVLJl-oLE
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Ouch, AI is giving quite the beatdown there, haha =).
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
It's actually still slightly bugged (Spectre is not phasing at the end)
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
I had a brainstorm concerning the UI design of this game. It occurs to me that the player's control of the unit's abilities/powers might be more intuitive if he had a dedicated control bar. The bar would sit at the bottom center of the screen (where the tooltips used to appear), as a series of 8 buttons, corresponding to keys 1-8 on the keyboard. Each button would have a unique icon representative of that unit's special abilities.
I see three advantages from this extra work. One, adding some icons gives you some dedicated space to clutter- I mean, beautify your game with some nice artwork. Second, the arrangement of a skill bar with actions corresponding to the numbers on the keyboard is instantly intuitive to players familiar with a number of popular role playing games/MMOs (WoW being a particularly prominent example). The third advantage is that the skills are moved away from the unit, eliminating the possibility of accidentally clicking on an ability when a player intended to click a tile for movement.
I know that you already have shortcuts on the numpad, but it would be nice to use the main keyboard's number sequence too, because not all notebooks have a useful keypad.
You could combine the gauge for Super and the button to use Super into a single icon to save UI space. When super is filling, the icon would display 12/120 (for example). Perhaps even an actual gauge that visually fills, I'm not even sure a discrete number is necessary for super. Then when the gauge is full, the icon changes and says "Super Ready" or something and can be pressed to activate the Super. It would also be nice if mousing over the Super icon displayed more detail about what each of the Super powers do.
I would set up a keyboard shortcut for end turn. Enter is already used for dialog confirmation... maybe use space for dialog confirmation and use enter for end turn? Or perhaps leave enter as is and use the backspace for end turn? Hmmm...
Actually, I might set up keyboard shortcuts for all the buttons that appear at the base of the screen (help, retry, etc.). Making one letter of the word underlined and using that letter as the hotkey provides intuitive, simple feedback to the player.
I might make the turn log and minimap buttons extremely small, or replace them with graphic icons, since I rarely use these features personally.
Does the game need a max turns count? I don't really think it's necessary in the current implementation of the game. Even on the hardest settings, the turn cap is so high that it rarely endangers my game. If you feel a turn cap is important, I would make this turn cap very strict so that it imposes a real challenge to the player. If it's not important, then I would eliminate it entirely.
If you leave it the same or opt for the latter, I would eliminate the max turns notification to save UI space. You could make a dialog warning if a player is about to run out of turns, but with the current cap of 45 turns, such a dialog would probably appear rarely. So I don't think there is a need to have this info take up dedicated UI space. Alternatively, mouse over current turns to see max turns.
In a similar vein, do you feel that the game needs a time limit on the turns? Personally, I don't feel like this adds anything to the game. The appeal of turn-based strategy, to me, is the careful planning and execution of moves. Thoughtful, considered movements. Adding a timer to rush that mentality seems contrary to the advantages of the genre to me. I would like to hear your opinion regarding this.
I think if we slimmed the UI down to just the most essential information, then we could incorporate that skill bar and not enlarge the menu bar very much, if at all, and thus keep as much of the playing field viewable as possible while making ability usage even more intuitive.
I see three advantages from this extra work. One, adding some icons gives you some dedicated space to clutter- I mean, beautify your game with some nice artwork. Second, the arrangement of a skill bar with actions corresponding to the numbers on the keyboard is instantly intuitive to players familiar with a number of popular role playing games/MMOs (WoW being a particularly prominent example). The third advantage is that the skills are moved away from the unit, eliminating the possibility of accidentally clicking on an ability when a player intended to click a tile for movement.
I know that you already have shortcuts on the numpad, but it would be nice to use the main keyboard's number sequence too, because not all notebooks have a useful keypad.
You could combine the gauge for Super and the button to use Super into a single icon to save UI space. When super is filling, the icon would display 12/120 (for example). Perhaps even an actual gauge that visually fills, I'm not even sure a discrete number is necessary for super. Then when the gauge is full, the icon changes and says "Super Ready" or something and can be pressed to activate the Super. It would also be nice if mousing over the Super icon displayed more detail about what each of the Super powers do.
I would set up a keyboard shortcut for end turn. Enter is already used for dialog confirmation... maybe use space for dialog confirmation and use enter for end turn? Or perhaps leave enter as is and use the backspace for end turn? Hmmm...
Actually, I might set up keyboard shortcuts for all the buttons that appear at the base of the screen (help, retry, etc.). Making one letter of the word underlined and using that letter as the hotkey provides intuitive, simple feedback to the player.
I might make the turn log and minimap buttons extremely small, or replace them with graphic icons, since I rarely use these features personally.
Does the game need a max turns count? I don't really think it's necessary in the current implementation of the game. Even on the hardest settings, the turn cap is so high that it rarely endangers my game. If you feel a turn cap is important, I would make this turn cap very strict so that it imposes a real challenge to the player. If it's not important, then I would eliminate it entirely.
If you leave it the same or opt for the latter, I would eliminate the max turns notification to save UI space. You could make a dialog warning if a player is about to run out of turns, but with the current cap of 45 turns, such a dialog would probably appear rarely. So I don't think there is a need to have this info take up dedicated UI space. Alternatively, mouse over current turns to see max turns.
In a similar vein, do you feel that the game needs a time limit on the turns? Personally, I don't feel like this adds anything to the game. The appeal of turn-based strategy, to me, is the careful planning and execution of moves. Thoughtful, considered movements. Adding a timer to rush that mentality seems contrary to the advantages of the genre to me. I would like to hear your opinion regarding this.
I think if we slimmed the UI down to just the most essential information, then we could incorporate that skill bar and not enlarge the menu bar very much, if at all, and thus keep as much of the playing field viewable as possible while making ability usage even more intuitive.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
A WoW-like interface would certainly be different and interesting, however there's the issue of making display icons for 70+ abilities.
If the Command Bar is just "Parked" in a corner of the screen, it might make things too difficult for clickers, and people would be forced to learn shortcuts. It would also have to go away when no units or selected, otherwise it would be a pain.
I do realize it's too easy to hit an ability when clicking around with the ability bar popping up. Maybe an option to choose parked or under unit would be the best option.
The turn limits have not been tuned yet and may be removed from the tutorial levels. In the real levels, turn limits will definitely matter on harder skill levels.
If the Command Bar is just "Parked" in a corner of the screen, it might make things too difficult for clickers, and people would be forced to learn shortcuts. It would also have to go away when no units or selected, otherwise it would be a pain.
I do realize it's too easy to hit an ability when clicking around with the ability bar popping up. Maybe an option to choose parked or under unit would be the best option.
The turn limits have not been tuned yet and may be removed from the tutorial levels. In the real levels, turn limits will definitely matter on harder skill levels.
-
Krimzon Kitzune
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:31 pm
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Finally done, weapons and all. What's left are the animations now, but that may come in a little while. Udder, e-mail's sent. Go check it as soon as you can.
".... that would be rubbish."
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Cool. I've just updated the test version with a bunch of new levels, a zillion changes and etc. There's two new elite classes, the Defender and Archer.
The screen grid is now 24x24 so it should fit in most browser windows w/o having to scroll.
Even more big changes are on the horizon (More classes?!)
The screen grid is now 24x24 so it should fit in most browser windows w/o having to scroll.
Even more big changes are on the horizon (More classes?!)
-
Krimzon Kitzune
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:31 pm
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
AND THE PLOT THICKENS! (DUN DUN DUUUUUUN)
TO BE CONTINUED!
TO BE CONTINUED!
".... that would be rubbish."
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Lol, Lv. 9999 playtester. Random trivia: The "HM" in my name stands for Hard Mode. You can probably guess why, haha.
Anyway, looks like the game has had a major update. Give me a bit to play through the changes.
First impression: If you are going to have Expert mode display a warning dialog to the player, then the text box needs to be in red and it needs to ask the player "If they really want to die." It's tradition
.
Anyway, looks like the game has had a major update. Give me a bit to play through the changes.
First impression: If you are going to have Expert mode display a warning dialog to the player, then the text box needs to be in red and it needs to ask the player "If they really want to die." It's tradition
.Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
I may add that. I considered adding a scare message along the lines of "If you thought FFT, Disgaea or Tactics Ogre were actually challenging, turn back now before you get hurt" >_>
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Hmmm... I wonder what the hardest strategy game I've played is. Tactics Ogre can be pretty ballbusting if you play it in an OCD manner like me and never let your units be incapacitated =P. Advance Campaign in Advance Wars 1 has to rank up there. Some maps are nicknamed "suicide speedruns" because your force is so outnumbered that it's more of a matter of using them effectively as decoys to capture the HQ... straight up victory is more or less impossible =P.
Some of the Fire Emblem games are very difficult on harder settings, too.
Anyway, feedback:
On the Force tooltip: It's worded a little oddly. Phased and Banished targets can't be targeted by anything, so it's odd to mention that Force cannot target them specifically.
The Craze tooltip implies that only damage caused by enemies procs the Enrage damage buff, but friendly fire still procs Enrage just like before. Intentional? If any damage can provoke Enrage, then I might remove the mention of enemy specific damage as a subtle hint to the player.
Berserker changes seemed good. Consume was really hax and created all kinds of abuses. Shout seems like a more subtle power that has a similar role without being overpowering. I like how this power functions. However, the range of the power functions differently from most other powers with a Range of 2. Consider the power Victory that has range 2. It has a diamond-shaped area of attack. However, Shout has a square-shaped area of attack - it counts squares two spaces diagonally as within "Range 2" in this case. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's just not necessarily intuitive because the area of attack is different from similar powers.
The changes to the UI are useful. Several powers are more explicit in their functions, and relevant game mechanics are generally described in greater detail.
I think the changes to the Lock and Wraith are good - a simple power swap gives a useful offensive debuff to each class, giving each a role. I'll miss having most of the powerful debuffs all on one class, but at the same time, it also frees up some of the Wraith's APs to use on it's other useful buffs.
I noticed that mousing over a unit and viewing it's statistics also displays it's allegiance. Allies are "Friends" and the AIs are "Enemies". Suggestion: Make Controlled units into "Frenemies".
In a few test games, I noticed that the AI seemed to ignore Clones. This seems like an oversight, because Clones can typically be destroyed in one attack.
Not sure how I feel about reduced cost mines. They were already the most effective way to attack multiple targets at the same time. I don't think it makes the Wizard overly effective, though, as enemies rarely clump up, and it's still attack limited because the AI will never pop a mine on it's own accord.
Spotted another odd AI behavior. If you completely entrap an AI melee class in Mines, it doesn't know what to do about it. It sits there effectively immobilized (albliet at a much greater cost than just dropping a Banish, haha). Not sure if anything needs to be done about this. Mines expire after 4 turns anyway, so I don't think it's game-breaking.
I was deeply disappointed that Clones and Controlled units count as allies for all purposes in every situation... except Map 9's victory condition =(. So disappointed when I couldn't clear this map in 1 Turn by moving in a few of my units and filling in the rest of the 5 units needed with allied dummies. Y u troll me with fake allies ;_;.
Reinforcement placement in Map 11 is bugged - both the player and the enemy reinforcements all deploy in the same tile. There will be a stack of up to 4 units all occupying the same square. You can still move them out, but it's kind of awkward.
I love the additional effect that Bless has now. That extra move is extremely useful on some maps where you need to cover a lot of ground quickly. I might even go so far as to grant the unit one free move - buffs to mobility are underutilized in this game. Come to think of it, so are penalties to mobility, like tiles that cost extra moves to cross. Then again, maybe that's getting a bit too D&D 4E... hmmm =/.
Some of the Fire Emblem games are very difficult on harder settings, too.
Anyway, feedback:
On the Force tooltip: It's worded a little oddly. Phased and Banished targets can't be targeted by anything, so it's odd to mention that Force cannot target them specifically.
The Craze tooltip implies that only damage caused by enemies procs the Enrage damage buff, but friendly fire still procs Enrage just like before. Intentional? If any damage can provoke Enrage, then I might remove the mention of enemy specific damage as a subtle hint to the player.
Berserker changes seemed good. Consume was really hax and created all kinds of abuses. Shout seems like a more subtle power that has a similar role without being overpowering. I like how this power functions. However, the range of the power functions differently from most other powers with a Range of 2. Consider the power Victory that has range 2. It has a diamond-shaped area of attack. However, Shout has a square-shaped area of attack - it counts squares two spaces diagonally as within "Range 2" in this case. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's just not necessarily intuitive because the area of attack is different from similar powers.
The changes to the UI are useful. Several powers are more explicit in their functions, and relevant game mechanics are generally described in greater detail.
I think the changes to the Lock and Wraith are good - a simple power swap gives a useful offensive debuff to each class, giving each a role. I'll miss having most of the powerful debuffs all on one class, but at the same time, it also frees up some of the Wraith's APs to use on it's other useful buffs.
I noticed that mousing over a unit and viewing it's statistics also displays it's allegiance. Allies are "Friends" and the AIs are "Enemies". Suggestion: Make Controlled units into "Frenemies"
.In a few test games, I noticed that the AI seemed to ignore Clones. This seems like an oversight, because Clones can typically be destroyed in one attack.
Not sure how I feel about reduced cost mines. They were already the most effective way to attack multiple targets at the same time. I don't think it makes the Wizard overly effective, though, as enemies rarely clump up, and it's still attack limited because the AI will never pop a mine on it's own accord.
Spotted another odd AI behavior. If you completely entrap an AI melee class in Mines, it doesn't know what to do about it. It sits there effectively immobilized (albliet at a much greater cost than just dropping a Banish, haha). Not sure if anything needs to be done about this. Mines expire after 4 turns anyway, so I don't think it's game-breaking.
I was deeply disappointed that Clones and Controlled units count as allies for all purposes in every situation... except Map 9's victory condition =(. So disappointed when I couldn't clear this map in 1 Turn by moving in a few of my units and filling in the rest of the 5 units needed with allied dummies. Y u troll me with fake allies ;_;.
Reinforcement placement in Map 11 is bugged - both the player and the enemy reinforcements all deploy in the same tile. There will be a stack of up to 4 units all occupying the same square. You can still move them out, but it's kind of awkward.
I love the additional effect that Bless has now. That extra move is extremely useful on some maps where you need to cover a lot of ground quickly. I might even go so far as to grant the unit one free move - buffs to mobility are underutilized in this game. Come to think of it, so are penalties to mobility, like tiles that cost extra moves to cross. Then again, maybe that's getting a bit too D&D 4E... hmmm =/.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
It means targets that are being forced against. I'll try to word it better.Blackbird wrote:On the Force tooltip: It's worded a little oddly. Phased and Banished targets can't be targeted by anything, so it's odd to mention that Force cannot target them specifically.
I'm going to fix this so only enemy damage triggers it.Blackbird wrote:The Craze tooltip implies that only damage caused by enemies procs the Enrage damage buff, but friendly fire still procs Enrage just like before. Intentional? If any damage can provoke Enrage, then I might remove the mention of enemy specific damage as a subtle hint to the player.
All of the "Area effect" abilities use a square, so it's not that different.Blackbird wrote:Berserker changes seemed good. Consume was really hax and created all kinds of abuses. Shout seems like a more subtle power that has a similar role without being overpowering. I like how this power functions. However, the range of the power functions differently from most other powers with a Range of 2. Consider the power Victory that has range 2. It has a diamond-shaped area of attack. However, Shout has a square-shaped area of attack - it counts squares two spaces diagonally as within "Range 2" in this case. Not necessarily a bad thing, it's just not necessarily intuitive because the area of attack is different from similar powers.
They should be attacking clones but not using debuffs on them. Will check that out.Blackbird wrote:In a few test games, I noticed that the AI seemed to ignore Clones. This seems like an oversight, because Clones can typically be destroyed in one attack.
Edit: Right now they're attacking clones if they can, but won't move towards them specifically. You can test this on Level 7 on Advanced if you clone the Wizard in the lower right corner. The Spark will cast mortar and blow up the clone!
The AI is programmed to destroy a mine if there are 1 or fewer friends near it and 1 or more enemies near it. You can test this in level 6 on Advanced by dropping a mine near your units. The Wraith will blow it up.Blackbird wrote:Not sure how I feel about reduced cost mines. They were already the most effective way to attack multiple targets at the same time. I don't think it makes the Wizard overly effective, though, as enemies rarely clump up, and it's still attack limited because the AI will never pop a mine on it's own accord.
I lowered the cost because it still costs another 2 energy to blow them up with an attack.
I'm not sure I need to add special case AI code just to handle this situation. lolBlackbird wrote:Spotted another odd AI behavior. If you completely entrap an AI melee class in Mines, it doesn't know what to do about it. It sits there effectively immobilized (albliet at a much greater cost than just dropping a Banish, haha). Not sure if anything needs to be done about this. Mines expire after 4 turns anyway, so I don't think it's game-breaking.
Sorry, they should never have counted and I've tried fixing every instance of that. lolBlackbird wrote:I was deeply disappointed that Clones and Controlled units count as allies for all purposes in every situation... except Map 9's victory condition =(. So disappointed when I couldn't clear this map in 1 Turn by moving in a few of my units and filling in the rest of the 5 units needed with allied dummies. Y u troll me with fake allies ;_;.
Fixed.Blackbird wrote:Reinforcement placement in Map 11 is bugged - both the player and the enemy reinforcements all deploy in the same tile. There will be a stack of up to 4 units all occupying the same square. You can still move them out, but it's kind of awkward.
The next version will have more mobility buffs. The Wizard portal also gives more mobility.Blackbird wrote:I love the additional effect that Bless has now. That extra move is extremely useful on some maps where you need to cover a lot of ground quickly. I might even go so far as to grant the unit one free move - buffs to mobility are underutilized in this game. Come to think of it, so are penalties to mobility, like tiles that cost extra moves to cross. Then again, maybe that's getting a bit too D&D 4E... hmmm =/.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
I added in weapon sprites from Samurai Fox. This is the last for this update, probably going to have another one ready in a week or so.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Weapon animations look neat. Craze appears to be fixed now.
If I might ask a favor, could you unlock all the maps by default, at least until you release the final build of the game? It would be helpful to me to quickly playtest the later levels of the game if I didn't have to replay through all the earlier levels every time the build is updated.
If I might ask a favor, could you unlock all the maps by default, at least until you release the final build of the game? It would be helpful to me to quickly playtest the later levels of the game if I didn't have to replay through all the earlier levels every time the build is updated.
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
The next release won't reset the maps. Sorry about that. I did it because I separated the level progression based on skill mode. Ex. if you beat all the levels on Beginner, you still have levels in the other skill modes locked.
-
Krimzon Kitzune
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:31 pm
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Knight and Sorcerer are done. Hope you got the e-mail, Udder.
".... that would be rubbish."
Re: Strat (Turn/class based strategy game)
Big plans for the next update: The elite classes are going to be useable by the player in normal maps (not just the 'play as the elites' map), given another ability so they have 5 instead of 4, and I'm adding two new classes, the Knight and Sorcerer. All of this is already done, just gotta balance it and bugtest etc. Then make some new levels. Matt is also making an entirely new set of tutorial levels to replace the crappy ones I made .. lol :P
Knight is a melee unit that has some fairly unique abilities
Redirect - Causes 25% of healing on an enemy unit to heal the Knight instead for 2 turns.
Killing - Does 10% of an enemy unit's life as damage, and removes two uses of the Move ability from the Knight for this turn. The damage done cannot be migitated in any way, and will not break Sleep or Chains. Only useable once per turn.
Ghost - Summons a Ghost, which can act independently. Ghosts can only move and attack, but are immune to disarm. Dissapears after 2 turns.
Reap - Enemy unit loses 2 maximum life, and the Knight gains 2 maximum life, for 2 turns. Only useable once per turn.
Duel - Challenges an enemy Melee or Tank unit to a duel. The Knight can only target the enemy, and the enemy can only target the Knight. Lasts for 2 turns.
Sorcerer is a defensive magic unit. The only one in the game and the most unique in terms of abilities. Don't throw spells around too recklessly with her around.
Mirror - The next special magic attack made against targeted friendly unit is reflected. Lasts 2 turns.
Petrify - Turns an enemy to stone for 2 turns. While turned to stone, enemy gains 2 defense and cannot recieve healing. Only useable once per turn.
Vortex - Creates a Depletion field under an enemy unit, and reduces their energy by 1. Enemy unit must be standing on an empty square.
Convert - Converts a minor (Dark red) negative status effect on a friendly unit into a positive (Dark green) status effect. Works on Attack, Defense, Energy, and Healing reducing status effects.
Feedback - Marks a magic using enemy unit. Every time that enemy uses a special ability, it takes 1 damage.
Holy crap, that's a lot of classes! D:
Knight is a melee unit that has some fairly unique abilities
Redirect - Causes 25% of healing on an enemy unit to heal the Knight instead for 2 turns.
Killing - Does 10% of an enemy unit's life as damage, and removes two uses of the Move ability from the Knight for this turn. The damage done cannot be migitated in any way, and will not break Sleep or Chains. Only useable once per turn.
Ghost - Summons a Ghost, which can act independently. Ghosts can only move and attack, but are immune to disarm. Dissapears after 2 turns.
Reap - Enemy unit loses 2 maximum life, and the Knight gains 2 maximum life, for 2 turns. Only useable once per turn.
Duel - Challenges an enemy Melee or Tank unit to a duel. The Knight can only target the enemy, and the enemy can only target the Knight. Lasts for 2 turns.
Sorcerer is a defensive magic unit. The only one in the game and the most unique in terms of abilities. Don't throw spells around too recklessly with her around.
Mirror - The next special magic attack made against targeted friendly unit is reflected. Lasts 2 turns.
Petrify - Turns an enemy to stone for 2 turns. While turned to stone, enemy gains 2 defense and cannot recieve healing. Only useable once per turn.
Vortex - Creates a Depletion field under an enemy unit, and reduces their energy by 1. Enemy unit must be standing on an empty square.
Convert - Converts a minor (Dark red) negative status effect on a friendly unit into a positive (Dark green) status effect. Works on Attack, Defense, Energy, and Healing reducing status effects.
Feedback - Marks a magic using enemy unit. Every time that enemy uses a special ability, it takes 1 damage.
Holy crap, that's a lot of classes! D: