Timeslip Softworks Forums
Vigilantes => Suggestions & Feedback => : Daithi May 16, 2017, 08:42:34 AM
-
Thread for your thoughts on pacing.
-
I have a suggestion for speeding up battles, but it should really be an option the player can select (if it can be done at all).
This is the amount of time battles take, rather than the number of hits to kill.
One of the things I've noticed on higher danger level maps is the number of enemies causes a massive wait between player turns.
If possible... I propose a (player selectable) option where the enemy doesn't wait between moves. Have the NPC calculate its move and as soon as it knows where it's going the next NPC calculates and moves while the previous one is moving. Visually it will look like most of them are all moving at once (there'd be a small delay between each one starting to move).
It would have to be a player selectable option, because like the option to have the camera follow the enemy, some players like to see what each enemy does.
Having the enemy seemingly all move at once would speed up turns immensely.
... if it can be done without too much hassle (if at all).
(and yes I do realise that, visually, it may lead to some enemies seeming to run through each other)
-
Although this isn't I-go-you-go of teams I suppose it's always good to do re-considering how things can be pre-calculated. Your proposal for a group of enemies between turns of two player's units is neat but really depends on the workings under the hood. It would require that all actions and results for the first unit were already calculated (including results of attacks of opportunity) and the status of the whole battlefield updated at the time the next unit starts with its calculations, and so forth. Hm, I initially thought it's done this way and calculations for the next one are started while we are still watching animations of the first, but then why there is so long delay at the start of the next unit in a row?
Other options for (not only) speeding up battles overall:
- Slider in settings to adjust speed of camera actions (scrolling, rotation, zooming, centering) -> at least it can considerably speed up player's turn, but perhaps also when camera follows actions of hostile units.
- Two sliders for running speed (only movement action) - for player controlled and for AI controlled units separately -> usual setup is having own units to run faster and for enemy slower.
- Slider for a tooltip delay.
- Possible re-considerations when camera follow is on:
- camera doesn't need to fully center on the character when his turn is due. I usually find myself scrolling back to the original camera position. Especially not in the case it would bring us partially out of the map.
- don't zoom lower than was zoom level the player ended his turn.
- Let us give orders during animation. Perhaps a bug (quite obvious when CC): right now if I right-click to attack but an animation of the previous action wasn't done yet, the game doesn't remember nor subsequently execute the order. Typical example: If you right-click on your character to heal while he is still changing hands it won't remember and you need to order again. I think, sometimes even "End Turn" isn't obeyed while an animation ongoing. It will become even more obvious with a keyboard support, as we will be much faster at ordering. In case this is done because an action can be changed, then let's consider execute order (right-click) as locking the previous action into finishing without interruption.
- For any unit doing the same attacks (actions) in a row it would be interesting if can be somehow chained without idle in the middle. For enemy units I guess knowing if needs do more attacks is no problem when it's all pre-rolled. But player sees results with delay, there would need to be some deadline for the next attack order to be counted into chaining.
uff, to be continued?
-
lol.... and I'm pretty sure none of our suggestions so far are relevant to what you were originally wanting discussion on. =)
Sorry about that.
-
It's good to get ideas - how do you feel about pacing in general?
Your idea for precalculating is good, but it's also going to be very (very) hard to implement. I noticed X-Com 2 does this (and moves enemies at same time) when you alert aliens, but it's for simple stuff, like taking cover after being spotted.
Some of what you suggested will be looked at ushas. CC animation speed can't really be touched, but move speed can. Accepting orders while animation is playing out would be work intensive. Camera movement speed slider is a good call, very doable.
Some thoughts: AP systems (rather than the 2 action system in more modern games) generally results in slower pacing. There are now limits on the number of enemies that can be spawned at once, capped at around 13 for higher danger levels with a full party vs church. The remainder will spawn as reinforcements. An area that could be worked on is rebalancing the stat system (which would like to do for multiple reasons) and further reducing the number of enemies active at once.
-
After moving away from the starting gun, I haven't really had any issues with pacing. Just the amount of time waiting until it's my turn again.
I think the pacing (of the default starting difficulty) is fine.
-
Hehe, sorry, got it mixed with the battle pacing. No general thoughts on the game's pacing yet. So please feel free to move my posts anywhere else.
Accepting orders while animation is playing out would be work intensive.
Sad to hear that. Would it be easier just for some actions? I mean End Turn is remembered here and there already. After all that time still ordering prematurely when changing hands :-\
There are now limits on the number of enemies that can be spawned at once, capped at around 13 for higher danger levels with a full party vs church. The remainder will spawn as reinforcements. An area that could be worked on is rebalancing the stat system (which would like to do for multiple reasons) and further reducing the number of enemies active at once.
Yeah, I initially meant to talk about the culpit no #1: number of enemies. Then critically failed the roll against befuddlement. (don't underestimate the smoothness of the player's turn flow though)
So obviously high number makes you wait a lot (aren't turns also more computationally intensive?). Cooked dinner during one such battle (on Vigilante, v15). In v16 had fun playing with Sam alone on Hard Boiled (says one whose ideal number of units to govern is around 14).
Even 13 seems too much for a battle (in total). For Churchers it is indeed interesting gang specific attribute - a swarm. But even then it would be more interesting if higher numbers are more for special situations like a facility attack, or tiles around, etc.
As far as I got the sense what influences this: 4 party members will face at min 8 survivalists at danger 1 and at max 15 churchers at danger 3; and 1 party member faces min 2 max 4 enemies. What is bad on 4 vs. 4-7? Just for the sake of waiting the upper hard limit should be lower, more like 8 enemies. Reinforcements would make it slightly better paced indeed, but can angry players if done unpredictably. And even that will eventually wear down.
Of course if there is be something to do (eg. reaction fire) or interesting happening to watch (barks, grenade catching, turn-timed events) in between turns, then the same number of enemies becomes less taxing.
AP systems (rather than the 2 action system in more modern games) generally results in slower pacing
Not buying. Technically yes battles in this AP system may last longer than in TU system, TU can last longer than 2 action system... uh, 2 action system is for sure slower than real-time...
Don't all just have different challenges to face when addressing pacing and balance? I dunno, Achilles' heel of fallout-like AP systems being number of units and usage of AP currency.
-
@Nomad - the starting gun has been mentioned before - at least it can be replaced soon. Glad you feel the battle pacing is reasonable enough. Hopefully I'll be able to tune it a little more.
@Ushas - Should have been more specific, is battle pacing most interesting at the minute. Battles are close to fixed, so a better thing to hone in on.
Feeling on queuing orders: the majority of the time is spent in completing the action (moving, shooting, melee animation). Outside that, there's a brief lapse (usually a bit of slack to allow animations to complete), and then input is accepted again. The only gain would be the player's time to react to input being accepted, maybe in the region of a 1-2 seconds. The input is tied into a lot of things, displaying info, querying tiles, triggering animations, managing hand positions. Assuming it's possible, it would likely take days to make the changes and days to handle the bugs. Unfortunately, Benefit Vs Effort isn't good.
Am with you on the enemies - think it's the easiest way to improve the pacing. If we look at a full party 4 (player) vs 13 (enemies) = 17 - if the character system and stats can be balanced to bring that down to 13 total, that's around a 25% gain. As characters are among the most complex things being drawn, it would help a small amount with performance too. It should be possible to decrease characters more than that, as you suggested, and bump the numbers up for special encounters, like gang leader and facility battles. 4-7 might be low, would like to maintain the idea that you're outnumbered, but this is a promising area to investigate.
Danger level buffs could be increased, to manage the difficulty of battles, rather instead of increasing enemies. A lot of pieces to the puzzle :)
-
It looks like lesser numbers might be the way to go (if coding faster enemy moves is a problem).
Hmm.... would it be possible/easy to have an option where the enemy move animations are increased? So the enemy sprints?
It would need to be an option as some would like to see what's going on. I just prefer for them to get on with it and then when it's my turn, I'll check out where things sit.
Less enemies would be the other alternative.
I think the balance comes down to some maths. Work out what you think a baseline for the characters are, and then work out chances to hit at an average range versus the enemy's chance to hit at that range. Then look at what damage both sides do and then the health's of the two parties.
That will give you an idea of how long a fight should take.
Throw some numbers at me if you'd like me to crunch them and let you know the results.
Eg: If a solo player has a gun that does 8 damage and an accuracy of 33%, it will take them approximately 9 turns to kill an enemy with 17-24 health.
-
Nomad, the best way how some games do this is offering those two sliders for movement speed for your units and for enemies separately. So one can then adjust both to his liking.
Math is a good servant. A bit worried about interpreting such results though.
Am with you on the enemies - think it's the easiest way to improve the pacing. If we look at a full party 4 (player) vs 13 (enemies) = 17 - if the character system and stats can be balanced to bring that down to 13 total, that's around a 25% gain. As characters are among the most complex things being drawn, it would help a small amount with performance too. It should be possible to decrease characters more than that, as you suggested, and bump the numbers up for special encounters, like gang leader and facility battles. 4-7 might be low, would like to maintain the idea that you're outnumbered, but this is a promising area to investigate.
Danger level buffs could be increased, to manage the difficulty of battles, rather instead of increasing enemies. A lot of pieces to the puzzle :)
A puzzle! ;D
Pretty much thinking alike then.
Btw. according to log it can happen to have more enemies in the battle than is number of gang members on the tile (more party members + higher danger + lowish crime, I think). Have you considered using this occupation (crime rate?) to vary their battle numbers, instead? Meaning high danger + high crime -> more buffed enemies. High danger + low crime -> fewer buffed enemies. So 4-7 would be perhaps only for tiles with very low occupation.
Theoretically (read: I am using unfounded assumptions and didn't think it through), from the campaign perspective it may as well balance itself out, because tackling low crime areas, albeit much easier to win, will still cost some resources, as well as time, and it isn't harming the gang's income much anymore (isn't also less enemies -> lower chance to get subject?).
What brings to wealth. You said that it influences % of enemies to level up. Not sure where I got the idea that it also factors in equipment, apologies if wrong. IIRC the whole gang income is sum over all its tiles' incomes. So it would be square and fair if the gang's equipment is distributed in accordance to the contribution (wealth*crime). -> high wealth tile will be better equipped and so better protected than the low one at the same crime rate.
All in all, it's about how much variety can emerge naturally. But, yeah, it still boils to choosing the right number range.
-
I like the idea of the enemies having better gear in high wealth areas. When you think about it... gangs aren't really known to be caring and sharing types. If a group has a good scam going on, they'll have more money and they'll kick money up to their boss. They aren't going to be giving handouts to other gang members that are on low income blocks.
If you want more money, you'll have to prove yourself and see if you can get a job with the group in the high wealth area. I'm talking groups within the individual gangs.
So, I like the idea of:
Wealth = Gear
Crime = Numbers
Danger Level = Enemy toughness
That way you have a very clear idea of what to expect and what you might be able to take.
It also means that if you fluke finding a low-ish crime, danger level 1 area that has high wealth, it's just a beautiful thing.
Of course, after you hit it once or twice, the wealth level will go down and their gear won't be as good. OR... if it's high wealth... (adding complexity here) then the Danger Level might increase as they react to a good earning area being hit.
Of course... I'm sure that Daithi already knows what the numbers represent. I'm pretty sure he's explained something like this before.
Once better gear has been implemented, we'll see the effects when they shoot us in the face.
-
Is your word filter for sale?:) I like how you can express, taking 10 time less space.
Btw., as far as I know the contribution is wealth*crime.
For example (using arbitrary numbers):
Tile A: high wealth 3000 + low crime 10% -> 0.1*3000 = 300
Tile B: low wealth 1500 + high crime 50% -> 0.5*1500 = 750
Between the two the low wealth one will be contributing more.
Naturally, the most would come from high wealth + high crime. (so the notion was about wealth*crime=gear)
Or... wait a minute... are you saying they will keep all above the base cut (eg. as if on a low wealth tile) in their pockets?!
Aka: High wealth 3000 + low crime 10% ->
(low wealth=1500)*0.1=150 send to boss
(high-low wealth=1500)*0.1=150 will keep ?
Huh, actually, that's somehow fitting. Depends, if wealth is constant, then high wealth tiles are more valuable from the long run. So it's not bad idea to better protect them. One can squeeze only so much from low wealth as the crime grows in time. Would make it also easier to orient, as you pointed out. On the other hand, this can harm the gang in the shorter term and would probably require to keep separate budget on a tile as well as overall gang level.
So yeah, we're musing in a bubble, while Daithi has the whole gang AI to think of.
For a brief moment though, let's just pretend it's somehow viable. In that case the first pitch I would think of [how to vary equipment across time as well as tiles] is that on the top gang level the base value of a gear per troop can be estimated as
base_value_of_gear_per_troop_unit =
gang_equipment_budget / number_of_troops_weighted_by_rank
(like on a plane, whales taking more and expensive seats).
On the level of individual tiles, however, they will add to this an addition modifier being function of wealth (+0 at low wealth), so on various tiles their gear per troop can be slightly different:
final_value_of_gear_per_troop_unit =
base_value_of_gear_per_troop_unit +
tile_equipment_budget [= C * (tile_wealth - low_wealth) * crime_rate] / number_of_tile_troops_weighted_by_rank.
So if you have an equipment table for each gang and each rank to determine gear for ranges of the final_value_of_gear_per_troop_unit variable, the game will just calculate this value, look the gear up and assign at the time we go on a mission...
Not sure how danger level fits. Right now, number of enemies aside, it buffs levels as well as stats (at least there is a hp multiplier?). Buffing is ok, just not sure what means, whether it's a tile effect like wealth or something based on or influencing local gang activities like crime, etc... Is it somehow set first and then kept constant, or changes - based on what?
I'm writing this book called "The art of derailing threads". Good exercise.
Still remotely related to pacing I suppose... What isn't though...
-
@ Ushas: If the mission requires more enemies, low level ones will be spawned. I think there are effectively infinite enemies for now, but that will change.
@ Nomad: I really like the method you suggested of differentiating the threat level. Don't think it will be possible to boost equipment level every wealth level (there are currently 9 equipment tiers), but +1 at highest would work. Wealth level won't change, crime rate will go down, resulting in less income for the gangs.
@Ushas: Yep, wealth x crime rate is the amount the gang pockets per day. It goes into a single account - I considered separate money for the bosses, and maybe there is some benefit, but the gang AI is going to be a hard one to balance out. Incidentally, progress is slow on enemy rackets (facilities) for the reason you mentioned, so many different factors have to be considered, it makes decisions difficult. Good news, starting to modify the code now, and the system is hopefully flexible enough to change later.
Equipment goes from 0-9, and there are other sources (permanent upgrades, different starting levels, global and local bonuses from rackets). The buffs from danger level are currently additional damage and hp.
-
Gang equipment tiers go from 0-9?
0 being zero equipment, I assume.
Are you just doing 9 brackets of wealth?
Eg: high crime x high wealth = tier 9.
Work out what value that equates to, then divide it by 9 and then whatever combinations of crime x wealth pay out, will determine the gear they can have.
Or.... high crime x high wealth = tier 5.
Having a particular gang buff gives +1 to gear level.
This upgrade gives a +1. That Starting level gives a minus through to a plus, etc, etc.
-
Heh, Nomad, you took the original notion (wealth*crime->gear) and changed to (wealth->gear), got it approved, and now changed it back... What now?
Well, what about gangs having different priorities when deciding?
Mafia (long time investments): wealth-> gear
Survivalists (effective and fair): wealth*crime-> gear
Church (protecting weak to grow): wealth*(1-crime)-> gear
What I like is that Churchers don't need to rely so much on equipment as Survivalists. So if not mistaken, can be used to gang's advantage as well as player's...
If you two insist on equipment tier jumps between wealth (or any other variable), it's also possible to set the medium score (eg. med. wealth) as the one at which the gang by its current shape resides and then based on this variable go up like +1 rank (eg. high wealth) or down like -1 rank (eg. low wealth), or more.
However, although I was unable to express well, sorry, there is reason why tried abstracted continuous modeling translated to concrete discrete only at the end. By no means wanted to have outside rules forced like this looks. On the contrary, was about what we see in intel to be linked to the gang's AI dealings in the background.
No problem if the game is a bunch of rules to game. it's fun. But I got the impression that you actually want the AI feel like we are dealing with an opponent? So I may be giving a bit more tough feedback. I remember one of the Gollop's talks where he said it doesn't need to be intelligent, just appear to be...
AI may be governed by just simple probability regulations, but players don't see the whole picture of the gang's management, just observe side-effects and correlations. Enough for to have something to grasp, but not enough to uncover all the laws.
Would it be possible to approach the problem hierarchically? For example, settle first robust system for gangs that can work without rackets & side facilities (no need to forget them though), and then add them to decision making process later?
-
lol...
Sorry. I thought wealth*crime was what you put in your previous reply, so I thought that was how you were doing it.
I like your idea of making it abstract to reduce people gaming the system.
However, if you are thinking of making it simplified down to:
Wealth = Gear
Crime = Numbers
Danger Level = Enemy toughness
Well, that works. We get this information through surveillance. These values are how we are quantifying the gangs we are surveilling. We look at their gear and determine that we think they are doing pretty well to afford the gear they have.
We see the number of gangers hanging out on the corners and know the kind of numbers we're up against.
We see some tough looking enforcers and decide what danger level the area is.
It doesn't really have to be abstract, seeing as the premise is that we are actively scouting the area out.
Really, if you wanted to make it a little abstract, you could fill in the three details on our first surveillance run with either random or all low values. These represent your initial impressions. Colour them red or perhaps have them say "Maybe" before their values, until you've done enough surveillance to be sure of your impressions.
=)
I like making more work for other people. =p
-
If you two insist on equipment tier jumps between wealth (or any other variable), it's also possible to set the medium score (eg. med. wealth) as the one at which the gang by its current shape resides and then based on this variable go up like +1 rank (eg. high wealth) or down like -1 rank (eg. low wealth), or more.
The gang having better gear sounds good. If they're wealthy, then having better gear makes sense. The more money they have, the more they can afford and the better gear they'll want in order to protect that wealth.
However you want to implement it is fine. Start at the bottom and increase equipment based on level and wealth. Start at the middle and go up or down from the baseline.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
However, although I was unable to express well, sorry, there is reason why tried abstracted continuous modeling translated to concrete discrete only at the end. By no means wanted to have outside rules forced like this looks. On the contrary, was about what we see in intel to be linked to the gang's AI dealings in the background.
I don't think something this simple needs abstraction.
We are getting the information through surveillance. The values represent what we are seeing and noting.
-
Uff. Let's forget I said word abstraction. Just made us talk apples and oranges (budget & AI here), sorry.
Haha, so I first thought you omitted crime, but then took it seriously and realized that wealth is the Resource after all, and went making different budgets to accommodate that local greediness:)
Gangs have various priorities, including but not only protect their income in the form of wealth*crime. So would make sense to observe this via correlation wealth <-> gear or so. The trick is to make it clear enough without a need doing statistics, but not straightforward. So you can slightly nudge gang AI into one way or the other by weights, but this doesn't mean always forcing them to use +1 equipment tier for troops on high wealth*crime tile and such...
Ok, will try muse over equipment differently -- from the AI perspective:
The point is one can express (when programming) how things are relative costly by something like Gang Units (GU, previously troop units). You can define GU for each troop category, eg. mafia rank 1 = 1 GU, sniper = 2.5 GU, underboss = 5 GU... let it vary across ranks and gangs so it feels approx. ok (not exact).
Globally, there is a decision to make how much you want to invest into equipment. Perhaps initially you you don't need to spend more than some minimal amount, and just add enough to accommodate inflation of troops. If player doesn't bother you, may as well save money for facilities even if doing well. But if he starts to be a threat (eg. easy last 3 battles), time to react by investing more money, etc.
M = sum of all Gang Units across all troops. So money value per 1 GU is
MeanValuePerGU = Money-in-gear-property / M. (if you invested more money -> more valuable gear)
Gear-property can be variously distributed though. For example, locally putting higher or lower weights on tiles, but the total amount has to be conserved. If a tile's troop total is N GU and weight W (eg. W=1.4 on high wealth or W=0.8 on low), then
summing [W x MeanValuePerGU x N] over all tiles = MeanValuePerGU x M = Money-in-gear-property.
The most challenging is to first well define what is important for AI at various stages. Inferring then the weights placements and balancing is just an exercise.
So by weight adjusted local money value per 1 GU is
TileMeanValuePerGU = W x MeanValuePerGU. (if you care more/less about this -> more/less valuable gear than mean)
Till now, what's inside gear-property hasn't been defined yet. It will only need to be translated into concrete state for a group of gangsters at the time of a mission (ie. observer's effect). All one needs are tables (array) for each troop category (3 x boss, all underbosses, all specialists, 3 x tier 1) to map values of TileMeanValuePerGU into equipment tiers. Naturally, sniper has different and more expensive equipment than rookie mafia guy (for the same TileMeanValuePerGU).
When the gang gets access to new stuff, tables can have a second column with an alternative gear to read from. The same if it's a special encounter (eg. all guys having knives or katanas) or a local gear deviation (facility?) - just add a column or condition (eg. exchange main weapon)...
All that is easy to do because, apart from making it look like progression and using common sense, you don't need to care about the cost of gear for gangs at all nor doing any purchases. So yeah, looks like a lot of tables but easy to balance and add special complexity (making tables vs. programming). One may as well have all equipment tables to be read from external xml file, to edit and test on the fly...
Btw. if we defeat and loot an enemy, those items will have specific value balanced from the player's pov, but it's the [TileMeanValuePerGU x troop's GU] what is substracted from the gang's Money-in-gear-property, and his GU from M and N.
-
It appears we have differing views on the subject.
I do see where you are coming from. You're looking at it from a business perspective. Only spend what you need and then spend reactively.
I'm looking at it from an observational perspective.
The player is observing the gang in a particular area and evaluating their threat level. Then the player writes down three values. These are observational values.
Why can't they just apply?
Eg: As it IS surveillance, we could just change the values to:
Danger Level Same as current Danger Level - Proposed to be Enemy toughness/skill
Strength Was called Crime - Proposed to be numbers of enemies
How well equipped Was called Wealth - Proposed to be Gear level
Could just call the last one Gear, as an evaluation of their gear.
Currently it is called Wealth because that's the value to determine how much money the gang makes in that area... however... if the values are related then it doesn't matter. If their Wealth determines their gear, then we can just look at their Wealth and know how well they're going to be geared up (because the more money they have, the more they spend on their gear). The player just thinks he's evaluating their gear. Then when more money drops... well... that makes sense. They must have more money if they can afford this stuff.
The Gear value that the player sees is taken from the current Wealth (we just rename it on the Surveillance screen). It doesn't change. That value is still used by the gangs to determine their earnings.
programatically, nothing changes. If it was Crime x Wealth before, it still is. It's just that now the player sees Crime as Numbers and Wealth as Gear.
Observational.
Even if there's a heap of additional programming under the hood to determine how well the gangs are doing, to the player if could just come down to:
How tough are the baddies?
Roughly how many would I be facing if I went in?
How well equipped are they?
-
@ Nomad - The problem with linking the equipment entirely to crime rate & wealth is that the highest levels of equipment will be available to them very quickly. A small modifier based on wealth will work.
@ Ushas - The hope is to have different gangs emphasise different priorities - the survivalists want better gear, the churchers will focus on economy, with the mafia in the middle. More ground work (including rackets, permanent upgrades, re visiting basic Gang AI code (a basic implementation, which was written more than a year ago *shudder*), is needed though, before this can be realised).
Can't be certain that the idea of setting numbers, buffs, and equipment will work the way that has been discussed. It seems to make good enough sense, but a lot of things need to be implemented and thought about before any changes are made. Unlikely anything major will happen on the balance front until V19.
-
Well... I think you should go with whatever you've already got (assuming you've already got something going, or in mind).
I'll be happy to see the enemies sporting different gear.
There's heaps of melee weapons for them to choose from. There's a reasonable number of guns. It will make the fights a little different for them to have a variety.
I'm happy to see what you've got in mind. I'm sure it will work just fine.
And as far as them getting gear too early...
My perception was that when I do surveillance, there are areas with low wealth and areas with high wealth. If I know the high wealth areas are going to have bigger guns/knives, then I just won't do them early. I'll do all the low wealth areas and clean up the dregs before I move up to medium.
It doesn't have to be wealth x crime, but if it is, then I'm sure it will be fine.
-
IIRC gangs are supposed to grow in time - in numbers, leveling up, building facilities, upgrading gear, training troops... If the gear itself would go as you say, many players will do exactly opposite than you.
@Daithi Yeah, on the base level though all gangs want the same, priorities can be re-balanced later, no? That's why was having fun over equipment, no problem if the implementation doesn't fit, its principle is general - the gang AI being robust as bare while it's easy to add nuances (factions, global progression/upgrades, local space and time variations). You have much more going on though, of course. Except, you guys still want to tie the AI's hands for gear as opposite to nudging. >:( (btw. why is mafia always in the middle?)
I don't think anybody expects that anything will happen as imagined, on the contrary it a kind of frees...
(in case of trying to shoo the discussion, too mild tbh, hint: redirect)
I do see where you are coming from. You're looking at it from a business perspective. Only spend what you need and then spend reactively.
Not necessarily. Flexible system will let you do such if desired. Doesn't need to work like that though, probably won't.
The player is observing the gang in a particular area and evaluating their threat level. Then the player writes down three values. These are observational values.
Why can't they just apply?
Empirical... Mars does not live by epicycles, his mistress is the gravity.
And that's the beauty isn't is? When empirical laws do apply (under certain conditions), you can go by those laws and fight the enemy, and yet observing just effects of a bigger force...
Btw. a good summary from the player's perspective. Intel we're getting is a mixed bag indeed.
Let's categorize useful things to know:- Attributes of a tile (basic resources, doesn't change)
- Gang's long term and short term activities in the area (strategical part)
- Crime rate (% of tile's wealth collected, not sure if its grow is set in stone or can vary)
- Number of tile occupants (goes with crime, unsure how exactly, upper limit for # of enemies for a battle?)
- Underboss / Leader (not sure how/if benefit, but their placement (hunting) is a part of gang's (player's) strategy)
- Special Encounters (??)
- Facility (gives local/global benefits to gangs)
- Tactical: Opposition to be faced in battle (varies, based on gang's strength, indirectly says how much gang values the tile at the moment)
- Number of enemies / Guard level (either exact or gives good sense how much to expect)
- Average level of enemies (it's tied to global leveling, not sure if useful to know)
- Danger level (how strong/buffed relative to gang's base troops)
- Equipment level (how well equipped, either relative to gang's current average, or exact in tiers)
- Mission objective
- Leader (morale mechanic, special enemy)
(things are uncertain, not sure how will correlate, took the liberty, feel free to correct)
Nomad's proposal to disentangle gear level and number of enemies is interesting, if possible (especially if helps to liberate AI:)). It makes sense next to the Danger. But I would keep Wealth and Crime too, those are good to know strategically.
The question of absolute vs. relative: Globally the gang is in the state reflected on all tiles. One needs to know is how it differs between them. One can use Guard/Danger/Gear level, with scores relative to gang's base. So Low Guard means 5 Survivalists but 7 Churchers, etc. You don't see absolute numbers, but if you pay enough attention will get the grip.
Alternative surveillance list v3 (ordered by approx intel % needed)
Gang
Guard level
Danger level
Equipment level
Wealth
Crime rate
Leader / Special. Encounter
Facility
Edit: correction rackets-> spec. encounters; re-ordered list to put tactical intel first - just something to consider.
-
@ Ushas: I think the most likely outcome is that on the wealthiest tiles, the gangs will get +1 to equipment level. In the scale of 10 levels, this is pretty small. Outside this, the gang will have to purchase permanent upgrades and build rackets (some provide bonuses to local tiles, others global bonuses) to increase the quality of their gear. Each gang's AI will make the choices on what goals to pursue.
Not trying to shoo discussion - you're welcome to talk about anything. It doesn't take long to follow the discussion and a single perspective is much too narrow to design a game of this scale, so ideas are very useful for improving decision. Trying to avoid giving the impression that anything's going to happen very soon in this area, or that anything weeks or months away from being worked on is fixed.
Hadn't thought about showing equipment level, but can see certain advantages to it, particularly in terms of detecting rackets which boost equipment level in a local area.
-
Albeit what you said about equipment would be possible with flexible AI too, I understand, will have to declare defeat. :'(
For the better, of course, the most important is that you work towards your vision the way feels the best.
Yeah, it's good to moderate our expectations, in case translated wrong (ie. over the internet), wouldn't mind to be redirected from reasons you mentioned. On the other hand, knowing you're sticking to your schedule makes one less worry being out of line...
Hadn't thought about showing equipment level, but can see certain advantages to it, particularly in terms of detecting rackets which boost equipment level in a local area.
I smell detective approach!
To recap, from the pacing perspective it's good if tactical buffs in numbers/toughness/gear here & there vary in space & time, so players experience different setups. As secondary, it would be neat if contains deeper campaign meaning as well. You have ideas, fingers crossed.
What we seek - Leaders/bosses, (spec. encounters), facilities and high income tiles? So what about a system where each of those 3-4 categories boosts at least one observable tactical parameter on a tile(s), differently if possible, each leaving its own imprint? Perhaps it's handled individually for each gang (reflecting their priorities).
If done well and players will be able to detect or suspect via observing uneven guard/danger/equipment levels or so, no need to tell explicitly, like at all. It would be satisfying finding out the correlations and how utilize in hunting on one's own...
Well, I guess complicates balancing though...
Edit: correction rackets-> spec. encounters
-
I've watched the video (a nice map btw.), did you just said rackets=facilities? :o
I'm an idiot. All the time thinking rackets are special encounters (like the bootleggers and such). That aside facilities the gang AI is also deciding when/where to trigger those and some of them are supposed to give temporary local/global bonuses too, so you can detect... while you were talking the facilities... Well, better late than never, I guess.
Will edit some of the posts, as many things make no sense anymore. Apologies for confusion. Please don't hesitate to correct me when factually wrong.
-
It's all good. Will correct if notice, but didn't in this case!
Am testing the gang AI placing rackets and buying upgrades now. It's likely to be pretty unbalanced at first, but scaling of enemy threat level won't be restricted to level now, they will also have better equipment and buffs.