Vigilantes > Resolved Bugs

[Resolved] Tactical Re-Positioning issues

<< < (2/3) > >>

Daithi:
Take your point re testing. Menu is available in tactical repositioning, will lock it down later.

ushas:
How to break this in v20:
1. When tactical repositioning yes/no dialog is on screen;
2. Escape to the menu;
3. Go back and observe Sam's interface on screen;
4. It stays and is interactive till normal turn. Then it all corrects itself.




Feedback:
1. Turn: Really liking this feature, but still think that compare to the current form it would be even better as a normal pre-first turn with AP based on bypass and forbidden all actions except move.   
2. Dialog: Think on Steam somebody mentioned that the yes/no dialog has no C&C aspect. That is untrue for linux, there is a HUGE consequence making you to click on 'no' even when having 100% - the wandering camera! However, as that will go away, there is indeed no reason in choosing. Suggestion: Either let the game roll for us in the background automatically (no dialog), or give it some drawback (for example, if we choose to re-position, then enemies will get +X to initiative on the first normal turn). In the latter you can scrap the chance rolling all together, let us simply decide if do it.
3. Balancing (expecting it's WIP, so just preliminary thoughts): Ray has Bypass around 60+ and can re-position by 2 tiles (others by 1), while the re-po chance is around 160%. The feeling is that the former could go way up (even 1 tile per 10 points?) while the latter perhaps way down.

Daithi:
1) Will keep it in mind - if benefit / time is good, will pursue.
2) Leaning toward the idea of a risk reward, with either initiative or ap bonus to enemies if you fail
3) Will look at this now. The repo chance is currently static and that needs to change, depending on which gang/characters you are up against. Agree that the bypass per tile is too high, will look at that too.

ushas:
Ad 1) Just for the record, my stance is not completely objective with the first turns matter thinking.


Ad 2) I see, yeah that is a third option. Plays differently.

a) Decision and repositioning without consequences: I thought this worked well even as a part of every battle. The only problem there was the nonsencical yes/no. With % chance that's similar to the roll for a map you get. However, as you can influence the chance it puts a strong incentive to specialise one character if want to use re-positioning. Perhaps the chance can be based on the party sum instead of the highest? (so the player can decide if specialize one or make more allies good)
b) Consequence of failed roll: So the encounter boils into one percentage number, and you just weight it against the consequence of failed roll. People enjoy low chance gambling esp. if immediate reward (eg. slot machines), but I personally still see only one real decision, the same strategical one as in (a) - whether invest or not into Bypass on Sam (to get close-to-100% more often). Btw. -1 to initiative is low, not having any impact on fast guys...
c) Re-positioning itself has consequences: Tactical in comparison to (a) & (b). Deciding if trying to undertake the action, resp. how much, is worth based on where units are. I've mentioned a drawback of 'yes' decision. But can easily be more refined than that. For example: each tile moved => -1 to initiative on the first turn for this unit. So how many steps you want to go depends on the base initiative. Can be combined: eg. with (a) roll happens in the background and you weight the steps, or with (b) the failed roll has different consequence than steps (eg. distracted status), etc.


Ad 3) Listened to the video, the correlation sounds great as such % estimation adds to the difficulty of the encounter. Btw.  Survivalists again? They are gradually becoming even more difficult than already were compare to others.

Daithi:
1) Noted :)

B) You're probably right on -1 penalty - will test it a bit and scale from there - will look at the other character stats also, and push one of them closer to being a bypass expert

C) It's an interesting idea - will roll this out as is in V21, and keep it in mind for future enhancement

Yeah, it's a fair enough point re survivalists - from a logic POV it (seemed to) make sense as they best trained of the enemies - will spend some time getting equilibrium between gang difficulties

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page