Only partially . And to prove my point ... After reconsidering various reactions on the retreat fee, I'm willing to negotiate and let the players decide. The main idea of the retreat fee was actually not to punish the players, but to prevent them from restarting a scenario several times until the battlefield setup is convenient (some of the enemy classes are determined randomly at the scenario start). I'm sure most of you guys have played a few D&D titles in the past. If you are anything like me, you have rerolled the dices during character creation again and again, until the stupid dices have finally shown the maximum possible value. This might be fun at first, but becomes rather tedious once you create further characters. This comparison is obviously not perfect, and I can't deny that a retreat fee has several disadvantages as well. So without further ado, is there anyone voting for a small retreat fee? Edited Note: To half answer my own question ... In the meantime I'll check whether there is a simple way to make a scenario setup deterministic once a campaign has started, but random for each separate playthrough. Probably not a trivial task, though. Edited Note 2: It was a trivial task. So this reason is gone as an 'excuse' for a retreat fee. Maybe we should really get rid of it.
I always preferred point systems like White Wolf's over those silly random stat dicerolls (A)D&D uses by default, so there Determinism: Pretty sure you know this, but just in case that not: you'll want a random seed (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed). No idea how that works programming-wise, though.
The obvious answer is sometimes the most difficult one to see. Yes, a random seed generated at the campaign start will do the trick. All classes within a scenario will be then determined based on a scenario-specific variation of this campaign seed (e.g scenario seed = campaign seed + scenario id). Otherwise all scenarios get the same classes. Thanks for pointing me into the right direction . Edited Note: Works like a charm. Completely independent of the 'Retreat fee' problem, this seems to me like a better design choice. If you fail and retry a scenario, you face the same starting classes like before (all spawning classes are still completely random as it should be). But once you start a new campaign, you have another combination of preset classes on the battlefield.
Based on all previous considerations, I would suggest the following solution now: a) We remove the retreat fee. b) Collected chests will not be granted in case of a retreat (as it is now). c) Whenever you select a scenario from the map (some of) the starting classes will be still determined randomly, so there is more diversity. (Note: Actually it is not completely random, but randomly chosen from a scenario specific enemy table with spawn probabilities for each class. This way I can make sure that you don't face 20 mages in scenario 1, for example) d) If you make use of the Replay button, you always get the same scenario setup like before. I think it would be nice to be able to retry the very same setup, if you have failed during your first try. How about that?
Amen to all 4, sounds excellent. Especially c) and d) : a lot of work under the hood many players won't even notice (if you don't know each scenario has its own spawn table, you cannot appreciate it ) . As for b) : Something to consider (for a future update?): add a few lines of dialogue that explain the mechanics ingame the first time it comes up; or even add a short (story-only?) scenario early on that makes you retreat automatically. E.g. "Let's beat it outta here, doubletime! Rogue X, get away from that chest, now! Move it!" . If you beat a hasty retreat it makes sense that you have to leave stuff (aka loot) behind on the battlefield. Sidenote: Do you still get items from killed enemies, like in Kingturn? If yes, keeping those even in case of retreat would be reasonable: you just picked that bow up and slung it over your shoulder, no need to drop it during retreat.
That was exactly my thought process. So enemies still drop items, and you can keep them after a retreat. In a similar way it seems plausible that units don't find the time to secure treasure chest content (too much load, opening or dragging the chest, or whatnot). For the sake of simplicity and consistency, all treasure chest content is denied in case of a retreat (including silver). I think it would be too confusing otherwise. Whenever you tap on the Retreat button, the following confirmation dialog pops up: "You will lose all collected chests." "You will keep all XP, items, and silver looted from opponents." "Do you really want to retreat?" Initially there was additional text concerning the amount of the retreat fee. But I have the feeling we won't need that any more . While it can be easily undone, I have implemented a) to d) in the meantime for testing purposes. Looking good.
wow this thread really blew up over the last few days. just caught up with all the previous posts, and i can't wait for this to be ready!! as for the last question, i like the no chests if retreating, but I'm unsure if you should get the same enemy configurations upon retrying, knowing which enemies you'll run into (exactly) you'll know which of your heroes to bring to easily dismantle their strengths. this might make even the hardest of the levels, way easier than if you go in blind. i think (at least from knighturn) that just knowing the battlefield and chest locations was enough to start to plan a new strategy for the next attempt. if you know that there will be 3 archers, one mage, and two paladins, and you know exactly where everything else is too, then there will be no surprises.
That's a valid point, of course. A possible solution to address this problem would be to: - randomize the scenario setup after a Retreat (to prevent start / explore / retreat / restart) - use the same scenario setup in case of a Defeat or Victory (to enable players to face the same setup again and do better next time, e.g winning the scenario or achieving a better rating) The drawback would be obviously, that the player can retreat until he has a convenient scenario setup. I guess there isn't a 'perfect solution' to this problem, at least I don't see it. So the best design choice would probably be the solution with the least drawbacks. Which one that is, is debatable, of course. It should be noted, though, that all enemy spawns after the initial setup are always random (class spawn table with probabilities).
Maybe I'm late to the party but I like the retreat penalty idea (maybe -5% prior money/experience +50% money/experience earned that round); winning the battle should be rewarding and not equvilant to retreating. There's the resource management compulsion so having a plum to compel victory push versus just bailing out if tough could be beneficial to my motivation. Even if the enemy composition changes each trial, it's still plausible someone could restart until they get a preferred outcome. Are treasure chest contents randomized? If so, that would also push people to win versus retreat because there'd be no telling if some epic content would repeat on another trial. If not then it'd be easier to shrug it off and dive in the next go. Also, I'd like when the player loses a battle (player defeat, not retreat) that they not only lose their spoils from that round but also a fraction (maybe 10-25%) of their prior gold. This approach is customary for many RPGs and could help lend some gravity to avoiding defeat methodically gearing up before battle.
I agree with you undead. Maybe if when you lose you only lose like you said (10-25%) but if you retreat you lose 75%? I think it would incentivise at least an effort towards the fight. Maybe if you stick around for a whoopin then you would at least be somewhat rewarded for your valiant efforts (keep XP, loot, lose 10-25% gold) <---I think that's fair. But if you retreat then you lose everything you grabbed and most of the gold. Me personally I would rather die in a battle than retreat. I want to see my whoopin all the way through and learn from it (unless it's real life, I'm hardheaded...) I think either way you go someone will have the patience to retreat and redo whatever level they want. You can't please everyone but pleasing the masses is the main goal. Whatever you finally decide Niels is what we will run with and enjoy. If not we will overthrow the DICTATOR as we are prone to do around TA Forums
i like undeadcows idea of losing a portion of your total gold for retreating, not just what you have earned so far during that outing, because that is way more likely for people to think twice about running/ abusing the retreat option.
Victory / Defeat / Retreat Let's take a step back for a moment, and have a look at what we are actually trying to accomplish: 1) Winning a scenario should be more rewarding than retreating or losing I don't see a problem here: - You keep all the loot and experience - You get a scenario reward (silver or item) - You unlock further scenarios and make progress in the story (this alone should be incentive enough already, otherwise there is something wrong with the game). 2) The player shouldn't get stuck at any time in the game Let's suppose you were at a point in the game where only one (story) scenario is left, and this scenario must be won in order to unlock the remaining scenarios. Let's further assume that the player has problems beating this scenario. To avoid a dead-end situation, there are basically two options now: a) Either there is always an (easier) alternative scenario available, for example a repeatable scenario b) Or it is possible to improve your status quo by just playing the only available scenario without being able to beat it While a) might be sufficient already, I can imagine that having b) as well (at least to some degree) would be less frustrating for the players. Let's not forget that Kingturn was considered a quite challenging game by the majorityof players already. For this reason I wouldn't feel very comfortable, if a player lost more than his scenario accomplishments in case of a defeat. While losing everything in case of a defeat is an additional hardship compared to Kingturn, I still think it is a reasonable one, though. Because the player has a choice: If it is a close call, he can take the risk and strive for glory (winning the scenario or losing everything), or just let go and be satisfied with the things he has accomplished. So from my point of view the only remaining question is how much players should be 'punished' in case of a retreat (not at all, a little bit, or severely). I'm really split about this. On the one hand, I have introduced a small fee for retreating in the beginning, because I wanted to prevent the abuse of retreat. On the other hand, there are quite a lot of additional hardships already: - New defeat rule - Money is much more scarce in Tactics Maiden than in Kingturn. - There is no more bonus damage for higher level units against lower level units (higher attributes combined with more available skill points should already give enough advantage versus lower level units, imho)
As a further note to my previous post: The latest trend in game design is to avoid 'punishing' systems whenever possible. So maybe we should just flip the logic: Instead of 'punishing' retreats, maybe there is a simple away to award people if they don't retreat? For instance an extra amount of gold once a scenario is beaten. '100 silver bonus for never retreating from scenario xyz' I can't prevent players from having a glimpse at a scenario, because the player can simply reload a save game from before entering the scenario. But once the player wants to keep progress he has made before a retreat, the system will notice, of course.
Ultimately I trust that. The focus on choice is important. Niebau has definitely proven himself as a game designed, but because the discussion amuses me... Couldn't the mid-game difficult slider mediate any impasses? If the penalty was only tied to funds but allowed (partial or whole) experience gain in retreat then that could still serve the same purpose of allowing advancement (level up) but discouraging escape (by money drain). Playing the devil's advocate, couldn't even this unintentional skew game balance implementing a system that could distort the native difficult? While accessible keeping more experience/gold in retreat could also be counterproductive when after a few retreats like it or not you become over-powered... then the battle is won not by skill/tactics but by "grinding"/force. That's an over-exaggeration, I know there are systems in place to prevent that. Maybe an adjustable retreat penalty option could be effective in suiting different tastes? Severly? Muhahaha, seriously... for the reasons above.
Agreed. This was my own reasoning as well when I've introduced the retreat fee in the first place. Nevertheless, I can understand that some people feel uncomfortable about the idea of a retreat fee. This is also a psychological problem, I guess. "In Kingturn I could retreat for free. Now I have to pay a fee. 5 stars if you remove the retreat fee." Edited Note: Maybe I should introduce 'Retreat' tokens that have to be bought for real cash. That would either solve the problem or make me rich. Just kidding, of course.
You should have seen the very first implementation of the retreat fee then. If the player didn't have enough silver, retreating was simply refused by the system. The idea was to prevent players from spending all their money before entering a scenario, in case they just want to farm XP.
Improved AI Here is a small demonstration of the AI improvements made in Tactics Maiden. A few bandits taking care of a Mage and a Knight: - The Mage is silenced with the skill 'Shut Up'. - The other bandits don't bother with the 'helpless' mage who can't use any skills for 1 turn. - They systematically reduce the Knight's armor by using the (overhauled) 'Rend Armor' skill instead. - The last bandit finishes off the knight and tries to nick some gold from the player (bad luck in this case). Notes: - The chance for silencing depends on various factors, mainly the bandit's skill power (Pow) and the invested skill points in 'Shut Up'. - If 'Shut Up' had failed, the other bandits would have tried again, respectively would have finished off the mage first. Subscribe to the TouchArcade YouTube channel
