|
|
Post by sgbeal on Dec 23, 2013 17:15:48 GMT -5
Questions regarding cheating Ratkin...
a) Why can their bowmen shoot bows at range 1 while my PCs are told "target too close" for any sort of ranged attacks aimed at targets 1 square away?
b) It seems to me that the Ratkin swordmen often act as if they have 7 AP, whereas the info popups say they have 6. i can't count how many times i've seen them move 3 and then attack twice (which implies 7+ AP). (Okay, that's not really a question, more of a frustrating point.)
c) How come PCs set off traps and Ratkin/monsters don't?
|
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Dec 23, 2013 18:11:09 GMT -5
(a) That is currently the rules for enemies. We are continuing to work on AI improvements, its an on-going project  (b) Any time an enemy attacks, they use 1 AP, regardless of weapons. Their speed of attack is balanced by their total number of AP. (c) This has come up a few times on the forum, and its been an interesting and lively discussion. The Ratkin set the traps, know the trap-sign, and know how to dodge them. This line of thinking doesn't explain spiders or other beasts that act the same way. We are continue to work on the AI, and will see where this one lands in the longterm. |
|
|
|
Post by sgbeal on Dec 24, 2013 13:47:48 GMT -5
It seems odd to me (as a software developer) to have two different combat systems in play - the one the PCs use and the one the monsters use. Why not make them use the same AP mechanism (including per-weapon AP costs) as PCs? The current mechanism is, from a player's perspective, quite unpredictable because we (as players) expect the Rules of the Universe to apply to all in that universe, and not just the PCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hosh on Dec 24, 2013 15:13:16 GMT -5
It seems odd to me (as a software developer) to have two different combat systems in play - the one the PCs use and the one the monsters use. Why not make them use the same AP mechanism (including per-weapon AP costs) as PCs? The current mechanism is, from a player's perspective, quite unpredictable because we (as players) expect the Rules of the Universe to apply to all in that universe, and not just the PCs. It does seem odd to me as a software developer as well, though at the same time, older D&D rulesets do things like this. I also remember working on the code for old MUDs that have different combat systems for PCs than for NPCs. Having the same complexity of mechanics for NPCs means leveling up the AI. As for the player expectations though ... I think that depends on the experience you are seeking. Strategies and tactics ultimately, is not the exercise in Rules of Universe That Makes Sense. Strategy is the art of making decisions in face of uncertainty, and that includes weird and unexpected things. The software mindset might be about correctness, but strategy is not. Strategic thinking, after all, is all about the unfair advantages :-D One unfair advantage the player has in HoS: defects and limitations in pathfinding that makes the game easier. Which you need to exploit in higher difficulty levels. My point is not all players have that expectation, though it is fair to say that many players do. |
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Dec 24, 2013 23:54:26 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback! In terms of the AP system, we could get the exact same result by increasing their AP cost from one, and then increasing their total turn AP. For (1) simplicity of authoring and checking balancing, this way is easier and (2) it actually gives you a very clear picture of how dangerous a monster can be. However, some of that AP you are seeing is Move-Only, so there is uncertainly feeding in there.
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Dec 29, 2013 21:14:52 GMT -5
I fail to understand the point in complaining about this. They are after all just a bunch of dirty rats. Ohh you dirty rat, you killed my brother, ohh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 30, 2013 0:48:01 GMT -5
I fail to understand the point in complaining about this. They are after all just a bunch of dirty rats. Ohh you dirty rat, you killed my brother, ohh! A fair response -- the monsters will never play by the same rules as the player in our games -- as a software engineer and game designer, I understand the complexities of balance and difficulty scales. |
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Dec 30, 2013 9:15:47 GMT -5
My previous post was more of a joke than an actual complaint. Every game I have ever played seems to let the enemy cheat. Does it bug me? Yah at times it does, but they wouldn't be bad guys if they were obeying the rules themselves. It's also more satisfying knowing I beat the cheating enemies. As usual you have made an amazing game and there aren't enough good words to describe it and say thanks. Have a great new year and keep up the great work your doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 30, 2013 11:54:49 GMT -5
The enemies in Heroes of Steel play by a very specific set of rules -- they have the same attributes, values, scalers and other factors as the player.
Monsters in HoS have Move Points (like a player's move buff) and they have Action Points. The monsters have Talents (like the player) that cost AP.
Monsters have fixed numbers of HP and a maximum number of SP to spend per turn.
To keep the game fun and the challenges with the AI consistently increasing in the game's 4 major episodes, some special rules were established.
We did this AFTER building the entire NPC / Monster engine to follow EXACTLY the same rules as the player. And you know what? It was NOT good!
By giving the monsters a modified set of strictly enforced rules, we were able to deliver a balanced experience with less exploitable conditions and a more balance combat cycle.
The archers are a great example. I'll leave the consideration to the reader -- but ask yourself ... would it be more FUN for the average player if the enemy missile troops kited your barbarian each turn?
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsheep on Dec 30, 2013 12:25:13 GMT -5
AHH! Do not tell me the details! Your taking the fun out of the magic! Just keep doing what your doing because I LOVE THIS GAME!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sgbeal on Dec 30, 2013 12:53:52 GMT -5
The archers are a great example. I'll leave the consideration to the reader -- but ask yourself ... would it be more FUN for the average player if the enemy missile troops kited your barbarian each turn? If the archers required 2 AP per attack like normal human beings, instead of the current 1 AP/attack, i don't see that as being a problem except for the sheer number of archers - my Cleric was regularly pelted by 7-8 arrows per turn in some battles. She was having to heal herself twice and swallow a potion to survive at times (making it useful as nothing but a self-healing pin cushion). Maybe the problem isn't that of the (PC) system allowing 3 attacks/turn for archers, but the that the number of Ratkin archers is too high? Obviously, i haven't play-tested the other mechanism - i'm just speculating/intuiting here. i don't think i've ever played, e.g., a tabletop tactics game or RPG where two teams use different rules for such basic mechanics as moving and attacking. Sidebar: If they could not fire from range 1, PCs would have an additional tactic to use against them. In one of the first scenes, the Warrior cries out something like, "they've got archers! Rush them!" the implication being that closing in will somehow hinder their attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 30, 2013 14:09:51 GMT -5
The archers are a great example. I'll leave the consideration to the reader -- but ask yourself ... would it be more FUN for the average player if the enemy missile troops kited your barbarian each turn? If the archers required 2 AP per attack like normal human beings, instead of the current 1 AP/attack, i don't see that as being a problem except for the sheer number of archers - my Cleric was regularly pelted by 7-8 arrows per turn in some battles. She was having to heal herself twice and swallow a potion to survive at times (making it useful as nothing but a self-healing pin cushion). Maybe the problem isn't that of the (PC) system allowing 3 attacks/turn for archers, but the that the number of Ratkin archers is too high? Obviously, i haven't play-tested the other mechanism - i'm just speculating/intuiting here. i don't think i've ever played, e.g., a tabletop tactics game or RPG where two teams use different rules for such basic mechanics as moving and attacking. Sidebar: If they could not fire from range 1, PCs would have an additional tactic to use against them. In one of the first scenes, the Warrior cries out something like, "they've got archers! Rush them!" the implication being that closing in will somehow hinder their attacks. It depends a lot on which region you're fighting in, and what monster groups you roll up. Some combats will be heavy on missile troops, some will not. For the game we are trying to make, the number of archers in combat groups seems to be just right. Archer counts are not arbitrary numbers, by any stretch of the imagination, hundreds of battle group combinations were tried before we settled on the ones we are using. I'm pretty confident having played both. I think every single table top tactics and RPG games I've ever played used different rules for different teams. Do you have any examples of games (of significant complexity) where the creators have found true balance in a single static set of invariant rules? I'm certainly not interested in adopting that for Heroes, it would ruin (by removing the balance) the game's later episodes ... but I would be very interested in studying the games from a mathematical and design standpoint, however. Perhaps there is something to learn from them. Sidebar: The warrior cries out to rush them because that's the way you put down enemy archers. Standing back and engaging them in missile fire is a loosing proposition vs. Red Hill guards, especially on higher difficulties. The early combats in Red Hill, the characters are talking to the player as much as they are to each other -- the advice given to engage the archers in melee combat is the additional tactic the game is teaching. Closing on THOSE archers doesn't hinder their attacks, it enables YOUR attacks =) |
|
|
|
Post by sgbeal on Dec 30, 2013 14:28:08 GMT -5
I'm pretty confident having played both. I think every single table top tactics and RPG games I've ever played used different rules for different teams. Do you have any examples of games (of significant complexity) where the creators have found true balance in a single static set of invariant rules? I'm certainly not interested in adopting that for Heroes, it would ruin (by removing the balance) the game's later episodes ... but I would be very interested in studying the games from a mathematical and design standpoint, however. Perhaps there is something to learn from them. Sidebar: The warrior cries out to rush them because that's the way you put down enemy archers. Standing back and engaging them in missile fire is a loosing proposition vs. Red Hill guards, especially on higher difficulties. i'm a bit surprised to hear that first point. Every tabletop strategy game i've ever played has a single set of rules for all players involved. Examples? Let's start with Chess and Checkers (both theoretically perfectly balanced), move on to Ogre/G.E.V. (both highly regarded for their balance), Risk and Axis & Allies, while possibly not perfectly balanced, use a single set of rules for all armies. D&D, in all it's variations - monsters use the same attacks, movement, etc., as players. They do, of course, get the "claw/claw/bite" attack scheme, whereas PCs typically get one attack, but that's basically the same as any other class-specific trait. i can't think of an example off-hand where one team uses notably different movement and combat rules than another (certainly some exist, but none that i personally know about). But in any case... You've done the playtesting/simulatations, and i certainly defer to judgement based on experience, i just find it odd that finding a balance between two disparate systems can somehow be easier than finding a balance within a unified system. The question "how many oranges equals an apple?" is impossible to answer, while "how many green apples equals one red apple" is _relatively_ straightforward (the only visible difference being the skin, i.e. the sprite attached to the PC/monster). In my (admittedly limited) HoS experience, standing back and engaging the archers in ranged combat isn't all that much of a problem as long as they concentrate their fire on the front-most PC(s) (namely the Wizard and Cleric). The Thief and Mage do more damage than the enemy archers (on average), so as long as the Cleric can keep up with the damage via her healing spells, the PCs will win. Not that i _prefer_ to do it this way, but i've done it more than once. PS: please don't understand my continued criticisms to be attacks in any form: i wouldn't spend this much time picking it apart if i didn't really like it! |
|
|
|
Post by fallen on Dec 30, 2013 14:41:10 GMT -5
A bunch of PvP game examples don't really count here, since that's not the format we are discussing. If you have two humans sitting down to play each other, then yes, most of those games are going to employ the same rules (Chess).
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Dec 30, 2013 14:57:16 GMT -5
Some related games with totally different rules for monsters and players:
Heroes Quest
Advanced Heroes Quest
Space Hulk
Warhammer 40K
D&D -- since you list that as a counter-example, we must be playing different games.
AD&D
CK
ST
TA
AoP
As a GameMaster/Storyteller, I would never try to hold the players to the rules used for the monsters. If I was playing, I'd get so hellaciously bored as to probably leave if the GM enforced invariant rulesets.
I love critical input about our games, reading it all (good and bad) is one of the things that we believe sets us apart from other game studios. Even when people send me profanity laced hate mail (that is an attack) I still read it and extract value.
Like all things in the creative process, feedback must be filtered through our experience as players, makers and gamers.
Talking a lot on Twitter these days about how that fits together into a set of rules of philosophical perspectives.
Good discussion -- I really appreciate you taking the time to play and post.
From my first days of game design I have repeatedly learned this lesson -- "it is odd that finding a balance between two disparate systems is far easier, and ultimately more satisfying for the average player, than a single invariant ruleset."
One of the paradoxes of single player games...
Other examples ... Metroid, Castlevania, every platforming game ever, Doom.
Maybe this perspective that Andrew and I have developed is another thing that sets us apart from the teams that created two player games like Chess and Checkers? If so, cool -- I love identifying things that help us stand out!
|
|
