Elemental – polishing for Alpha 0 » Forum Post by Frogboy

Denryu

Join Date 07/2006

+93

Another thing to consider - in MoM the channeler could often cast powerful and decisive spells during Tactical Combat, whether he was physically present or not. How can you not have at least a tactical option in a game like this - I assume auto resolve is going to remove the capability of the channeler to cast during combat, or if not how would a channeler cast spells during an autoresolve battle?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tridus

Join Date 03/2008

+110

Quoting Denryu,

reply 1

Another thing to consider - in MoM the channeler could often cast powerful and decisive spells during Tactical Combat, whether he was physically present or not. How can you not have at least a tactical option in a game like this - I assume auto resolve is going to remove the capability of the channeler to cast during combat, or if not how would a channeler cast spells during an autoresolve battle?

Presumably the AI channelers will be able to cast spells as well. That means the AI will have some way to determine when to use spells. In auto-resolve, the AI is controlling your side too, so it'd use spells just like the computer.

If auto-resolve really just runs the battle normally (only without the graphics), it's not really a huge problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Denryu

Join Date 07/2006

+93

Assuming you are only allowed to cast a certain amount of magic as a channeler per turn, it would suck if auto-resolve burned your points on an insignificant battle leaving your tank empty for a more important one (in the same turn)...

Successfully updated karma reason!

That actually opens up a big can of worms, though. We already know some spells will cost essense, which is supposed to be finite. And I'd certainly not want the AI to cast these spells without my express direction.

But I suppose for that there could also be a spellcast setting. Neverwinter Nights has pretty decent controls for this. You can set the AI into "Overkill" spellcast mode where they'll just fling anything at anything. Then it scales down to more conservative casting and to manual only.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 16

It's an interesting idea. Perhaps rather than a specific auto-resolve result it would just give you a general approximation of what you can expect. Like the TW tactical result summarizes as "Decisive Victory", or "Close battle" and things like that. So you initiate combat, and it gives you a hint of what you can expect, and then if it's a Close Battle you can auto or try to squeeze the most out of it with manual.

That way it's not exactly two bites at the apple, just more information to help you decide which you want. TW has the basic slider, but it's a very generic combat power reading that doesn't take everything into account. Though something like that would also work.

I like this a LOT.

Sammual

Successfully updated karma reason!

Another thing to consider - in MoM the channeler could often cast powerful and decisive spells during Tactical Combat, whether he was physically present or not. How can you not have at least a tactical option in a game like this - I assume auto resolve is going to remove the capability of the channeler to cast during combat, or if not how would a channeler cast spells during an autoresolve battle?

Not to beat a dying horse, but again, look at Dominions. You could specify what spells to cast during the battle. There was synergy if you lined up your troops correctly and cast certain spells and set up your orders correctly. Auto-resolve does NOT have to mean zero control of the battle.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tridus

Join Date 03/2008

+110

This is just one of the problems with auto-resolve. If it loses a fight it could have won because it won't use your spells, people will complain. If it wins a fight by using spells, people will complain. If it wins a fight by using essence, people will really complain (probably with some justification in that case).

Successfully updated karma reason!

RonLugge

Join Date 05/2004

+50

Quoting Tridus,

reply 7

This is just one of the problems with auto-resolve. If it loses a fight it could have won because it won't use your spells, people will complain. If it wins a fight by using spells, people will complain. If it wins a fight by using essence, people will really complain (probably with some justification in that case).

Again, bingo. If we don't control when important strategic resources (essence) is used, the player is goign to be very, veyr angry. And with good reason -- win or loose.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Philocthetes

Join Date 10/2003

+153

Quoting Ron Lugge,

reply 8

... Again, bingo. If we don't control when important strategic resources (essence) is used, the player is goign to be very, veyr angry. And with good reason -- win or loose.

Auto-resolve questions aside, I think it might be a good idea to limit essence-using spells to the main map and have only mana used in tactical combat. (Of course that would be a moot point if essence use is limited entirely to imbueing places, people, and things--an idea I like even better.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Tridus

Join Date 03/2008

+110

Quoting GW Swicord,

reply 9

Auto-resolve questions aside, I think it might be a good idea to limit essence-using spells to the main map and have only mana used in tactical combat. (Of course that would be a moot point if essence use is limited entirely to imbueing places, people, and things--an idea I like even better.)

Well, if the only thing essence is used for is imbues, doesn't that kind of remove the idea of a strong combat channeler woh keeps that essence to use in combat? Or would just *having* essence boost your combat magic, even if it doesn't consume it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not to beat a dying horse, but again, look at Dominions. You could specify what spells to cast during the battle.

This. It would be pretty idiotic to have a such a vital finite resource not be able to be controlled by the player. If it was like that, that would just be bad design.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Wintersong,

reply 24

Quoting Werewindlefr, reply 20Please include shades of grey, neutral factions, and Order of the Stick-like paladins/goblins, with their "alignment" being twisted around and hard to read (for those who don't know OotS, Goblins are often peaceful while Paladins commit attrocities in the name of good).

Are you sure you are talking of Order of the Stick? Maybe talking Goblins? Not that Order of the Stick doesn't have stick up somewhere paladins.

I'm positive. Redcloak's motives are to promote goblins to being less than Xp-on-legs so that the goblin civilization can live peacefully. And this is the kind of "non-black and white" morality that I would like to see in this game. Basically something less stereotypical, and if possibly, really surprising.

Successfully updated karma reason!

duh

Successfully updated karma reason!

Huh? Did you completely misunderstand my post?

You missed the first word in my post.

I was agreeing with you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Annatar11,

reply 25

Yes, I know, I've experienced the same things. But I would fault that on TW's auto-resolve. In essense what I'm saying is to run the actual auto-resolve simulation, and then instead of displaying the actual numbers, just display the general outcome. That way, there's no surprise for the player like you described, if it shows "Decisive" but you end up losing half of your army. If it shows "Decisive" you know that you pretty much obliterated them, but you don't know what you lost - only that it's not a lot. But it could be a few of your rarest and most powerful units, or it can be more of your weaker ones.

Then, you can either slug it out in tactical, or settle with the auto-resolve and then it will show you the exact statistics.

Oh. I like that very much. I'd be happy with that.

Quoting Denryu,

reply 1

Another thing to consider - in MoM the channeler could often cast powerful and decisive spells during Tactical Combat, whether he was physically present or not. How can you not have at least a tactical option in a game like this - I assume auto resolve is going to remove the capability of the channeler to cast during combat, or if not how would a channeler cast spells during an autoresolve battle?

It isn't much harder to deal with Auto-Casting than Auto-Combat (it might even be easier). It would be very simple to allow players to set a limit for how much mana can be used in a battle, and even which spells to allow or forbid from casting. The AI would then use those criteria to decide which spells, if any, to cast. I'd be surprised if many in-battle spells would require essence, but if there are then it needs a "DO NOT USE MY ESSENCE" button (probably on by default).

Quoting Tridus,

reply 10

Well, if the only thing essence is used for is imbues, doesn't that kind of remove the idea of a strong combat channeler woh keeps that essence to use in combat? Or would just *having* essence boost your combat magic, even if it doesn't consume it?

My impression is that having the essence boosts your channeler's strength (not just combat magic - his overall durability and power).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Philocthetes

Join Date 10/2003

+153

Quoting Tridus,

reply 10

... Well, if the only thing essence is used for is imbues, doesn't that kind of remove the idea of a strong combat channeler woh keeps that essence to use in combat? Or would just *having* essence boost your combat magic, even if it doesn't consume it?

The latter's closer to how I'm imagining essence the moment--essence as a sort of stat that determines how much mana you can channel at once and maybe also affects your physical combat stats.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wasn't it always described as basically you can use your essense to get lots of populated cities and things of that nature at the cost of your personal power, or keep it all and have a weaker overall empire but remain a strong individual channeler?

So yeah, that seems to fit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

This is why auto-resolve is gay.

In a game with tactical combat, people whine about how auto-resolve will suck. To make it not suck, you make it complicated. Then the people, that don't want tactical combat to begin, with complain about how it's too complicated to use the auto resolve. Then you make it simple by taking all the complicated stuff out, and they bitch about how it uses a spell, or doesn't use a spell, or loses too many troops. Basically, everyone whines regardless and you can't win.

Meanwhile, someone else makes a game with no tactical combat that does horribly gay shit, like killing high level units off at 99% odds, and everything is right with the world.

Think about it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

woah, you ok psychoak? I'm not used to hearing such harsh words from you.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Wintersong

Join Date 07/2006

+235

gay as in happy?

Tactical designed for those who will use it and autoresolve designed for those who will use it. No crossing ideas except when real improvements can be done.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting psychoak,

reply 18

This is why auto-resolve is gay.

In a game with tactical combat, people whine about how auto-resolve will suck. To make it not suck, you make it complicated. Then the people, that don't want tactical combat to begin, with complain about how it's too complicated to use the auto resolve. Then you make it simple by taking all the complicated stuff out, and they bitch about how it uses a spell, or doesn't use a spell, or loses too many troops. Basically, everyone whines regardless and you can't win.

Meanwhile, someone else makes a game with no tactical combat that does horribly gay shit, like killing high level units off at 99% odds, and everything is right with the world.

Think about it.

Wow, this post is so full of fail. Starting with the use of gay like a drunk 19 year old douchey frat boy, continuing with the rant about how doomed tactical combat is, then saying at least it's not gay shit like auto-resolve. Then backs up his stellar arguments with "think about it", which is again the drunk frat boy equivalent of "Am I right? Am I right? Yea, damn right I'm right."

+1

Successfully updated karma reason!

Denryu

Join Date 07/2006

+93

Quoting ckessel,

reply 21

Quoting psychoak,
reply 18
This is why auto-resolve is gay.

In a game with tactical combat, people whine about how auto-resolve will suck. To make it not suck, you make it complicated. Then the people, that don't want tactical combat to begin, with complain about how it's too complicated to use the auto resolve. Then you make it simple by taking all the complicated stuff out, and they bitch about how it uses a spell, or doesn't use a spell, or loses too many troops. Basically, everyone whines regardless and you can't win.

Meanwhile, someone else makes a game with no tactical combat that does horribly gay shit, like killing high level units off at 99% odds, and everything is right with the world.

Think about it.

Wow, this post is so full of fail. Starting with the use of gay like a drunk 19 year old douchey frat boy, continuing with the rant about how doomed tactical combat is, then saying at least it's not gay shit like auto-resolve. Then backs up his stellar arguments with "think about it", which is again the drunk frat boy equivalent of "Am I right? Am I right? Yea, damn right I'm right."

Yes, your post is full of fail. To start with, about half about what you bitch about psychoak saying he didn't even say.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah, although I think psychoak's word choice and temperament in that post is rather poor (ckessel's description in that respect is pretty good ), I actually agree with his actual point completely.

All he's saying is this. You put in Tactical Combat - people complain about not liking tactical combat. So you add auto-resolve. Then people complain about auto-resolve sucking - it overvalues/devalues units and doesn't use spells intelligently. So they make auto-resolve more complicated and give you some indirect control over it via scripting or constraints - then they say it's too complicated, it takes too much time and they don't want to spend time on battles.

Then someone comes along with a game without tactical combat, but with the exact same simple auto-resolve and they love it.

There is no way around it, and to me it's even worse than the normal "you can't please everyone" problem. In this case, there are just some people you can't please at all, no matter what you do. And the problem isn't with the game mechanics or features, it's in people's heads.

Successfully updated karma reason!

About the autoresolve, can there be a middle ground between useless and so horribly convulated that you're better off fighting every battle manually?
A 'stance' setting (defensive/aggressive) and a 'use magic' switch is more than enough for autoresolve. Most people are perfectly fine with TW autoresolve, which does not provide any kind of control at all after all. Well just my 2c.

Successfully updated karma reason!

psychoak

Join Date 07/2007

+225

Wow, this post is so full of fail. Starting with the use of gay like a drunk 19 year old douchey frat boy, continuing with the rant about how doomed tactical combat is, then saying at least it's not gay shit like auto-resolve. Then backs up his stellar arguments with "think about it", which is again the drunk frat boy equivalent of "Am I right? Am I right? Yea, damn right I'm right."

Denryu wins. My response is thus; Moo.

Seriously, learn to read, even a frat brat can do that.

After you do that, read back through the recent posts regarding how auto-resolve is handled versus tactical combat. If you can't figure it out then, go find a 19 year old frat brat to tutor you.

woah, you ok psychoak? I'm not used to hearing such harsh words from you.

Huh? That was... sarcasm? Please?

My reputation is in shards, I'll never recover from this terrible slander.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Elemental &ndash; polishing for Alpha 0

Elemental – polishing for Alpha 0

Elemental – polishing for Alpha 0