Vigilantes > Gameplay Discussion

Your thoughts on Enemy Facilities

<< < (2/4) > >>

ushas:
A bunker!

More and more liking that detective approach. However, if spheres of influence will be too big, moreover partially overlap, it may become too arduous to do. Don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward giving feedback at which lowest data one is able to find with a fair confidence, but most players aren't such maniacs. :-\

I dunno, would be useful to consider gradient - the highest influence on the facility's tile itself and then it decreases with distance?


--- Quote ---The high intel was the old way to find facilities, before interrogations, will think about offering both solutions.
--- End quote ---
I think it would go better if those work as two different mechanics that synergize as opposite to two standalone solutions giving the same result. (although in principle no problem)

Example of the former: The position of a facility itself is either guessed based on the area around, or is revealed during interrogation, or both (confirmation of the guess), however, for the mission itself having a certain level of intel done is the necessarily condition. So although interrogation may add % to that, you may still need to do more surveillance to launch.

Example of the latter: Regardless of the level of surveillance on a tile (eg. 90% or 0%) you get info from interrogation that there is a facility and right away can hop on the mission. Meaning you either did all that additional intel for nothing or been actually lucky and don't need to do it at all anymore.

Anyway, based on how all is balanced (influence, interrogation, intel % / time, etc.) or even presented, there is danger - that people won't consider worth investing high surveillance (why would we want to do it now, actually?), or conversely worth to ask in interrogation - while you're developing all options.

Nomad:
If you ARE going to try the interrogate to get info on a facility... did you want to tell people they failed to get the information, or just have the victim insist that there isn't one here?
Effectively, you don't know you failed as the target is just refusing to talk.
I think this would work as the intent here is that we are asking on blocks where we suspect a facility to be.
I do a LOT of interrogations... so if there are up to six facilities across the map (assuming two per faction), that's a LOT of locations even if you do increase the size of the map a bit. There can be a bit of hit and miss there.

ushas:
Well, depends how implemented, no? Approximating based on v16: At the beginning have to decide what you're after - are you asking about gang? place? person? After that the game continues with interrogation - as far as I know, it's clear whether the roll overcame the resistance. So when you're getting direct answers like "no facility" or "there is nothing happening" you know it's a successful interrogation.*

What you're saying would require additional disguise of the result, so subjects can lie time to time on failed interrogation. In principle, that is devious and I be lying that it didn't cross my mind too (eg. random black sheep, or those with a coward trait trying to tell you what you want to hear), cross-interrogations and combining with other clues, but it multiplies the complexity and needs to be handled with delicacy. What about first setting a skeleton in motion and later assess if players and those 23 programmers Timeslip employs would be willing to handle lying? (eg. doing more interrogation)

(*) I suppose even when getting a sure negative answer it's only relevant at the time of asking, as the gang can go and build a facility there the next day.

What brings me to surveillance. So if a facility should be revealed at X%, you do it on a tile and... nothing. Next day they build it there. Will the game update the tile intel to up-to-date state? I would say it should when the requirements are met. If there are also other events (eg. special encounters) to be revealed at Y% intel this would reward the vigilant players who are checking the map.   

However, what about increasing intel deterioration? Eg. something more like -1% per day or two?

Edit: correction racket->spec. encounter

Daithi:
I like the idea of being mislead by a gang member. Gut feeling is that there's going to be a lot of work in it. That said, the interrogation system will definitely get another look - in particular, to add the ability to choose racket/lieutenant intel, and which lieutenant/racket to get the intel on. Will think over the red herring idea when get this far.

Intel does decay over time, but on checking, it doesn't remove information if it drops below threshold - another job :)

ushas:
I'm aware it decays - approx like -1% per 6-7 days? That would go -4% or -5% per month. Seems slow, unless the game is supposed to take year or more.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page