[Confirm Fix] Highest tier enemy not always being interrogated

[ushas]

Game length is something that I suspect would be REALLY easy to set up.
You put a bunch of variables, like the speed that the enemy levels, rate of intel gathering, etc and you make a game option of Short, Medium or Long (perhaps with a Very Long option too). The player chooses and then it sets the rate of advancement.

I'd pick Long (or Very Long). Others can pick what they want. I expect that many will select Short for their first game to try it out and then go from there.

Choice. Everyone is different. You can't please everyone. If you set it at a particular rate, then you'll have to get it just right to hit the most number of people. Add an option and the people can choose what appeals to them and you'll hit close to everyone that enjoys the gameplay.

Yeah, I'm leaning towards this possibility. Could be hard to balance with multiple settings, (it's going to be hard with one) but can see the merits. If the number of pieces of intel was reduced and the gang leader starting level reduced, it would allow players to find the gang leaders more quickly and be in a position to actually beat them more quickly too.

I really think it would be the way to go. That way people could play an extended campaign if they wanted to without others being pissed off about it being too long.

I must express disagreement. Or at least caution. (don't take me wrong - am with you on that, would be happy if could set everything to own liking, experiment. However, I'm trying to achieve objective to provide feedback as far from from my own POV as possible)

Sure, externalizing parameters is logical thing to do. Providing them to players would be great too. Except, in no way that excuses from tuning the default preset. In fact, I would say it even puts bigger pressure on getting default and all the other settings right and on clear communication of their meaning. Multiplying balance work.

To elaborate a bit:
Seeing it in all sorts of games, it can be also detriment. If options are in the menu you're saying that those are officially supported, that they won't harm experience. (though there are "unsupported" ways, like hidden in a config file or maybe under advanced settings of difficulties with big red warning...)

However, the most important observed (would be happy if proven wrong) is that you can't expect people will use it. Very few will touch it, most will judge your game by its default. Even when there were settings available to easy solve what they disliked.

Also, newcomers will have hard time to judge what's ideal for them.

Just for the record, above doesn't negate nor in any way lower Nomad's take on this. Think not pleasing everyone just looks more blurry from here.

[ushas]

If the number of pieces of intel was reduced and the gang leader starting level reduced, it would allow players to find the gang leaders more quickly and be in a position to actually beat them more quickly too.

Was thinking about this a little bit. Although loosely correlates, ingame time isn't much precise indicator of real time (in a day one can take several battles or none at all, though the variance will be lower when battles start cost ingame time). Then number of battles gives better idea when talking game length (not only from the exact real time perspective but also for pacing).

Basically, if each lieutenant requires 3 pieces, boss 4, and you always have to caught them all... Then it's 36 battles to get intel on lieutenants + 16 on bosses + 3 final battles = 55 battles at minimum. Then, if you take into account initial progression, getting also different intel and % based interrogation... *sound of casting Cloud of Bewilderment spell* may easily be twice as much and more. So I'm making up conclusion that such game can last 30-50 hours. And it needs enough variety for say 100 encounters to feel engaging.
(too much for the goal?)

Thus, indeed, rate of intel and number of intel pieces required for an advancement are two main factors for # of battles. Note, the former isn't so easy to tame (at least now in v19) and can potentially result in substantial game time difference between players. Of course, the more intel pieces required, the bigger this difference can be...

*end of Cloud of Bewilderment spell*
Yeah, such a lousy estimate. Though, before attempting on a better one, perhaps first I should try to play closer to the end, to understand the progression.

[Daithi]

Fair points, Ushas. I haven't really had a lot of time to think about this, so am kicking this can down the road. Current thinking: it definitely wouldn't be an attempt to escape work on the default (that would get the most attention). I think for default I'd aim for the 15 - 20 hour mark, and have a second setting, which adds an additional intel piece for each leader. The rate of intel gain is currently top of the list for V21.

Will need to factor in rackets too. As mentioned, I think there will need to be some requirement other than interrogation to find them, given their value. Maybe a combination of interrogation and surveillance will offer a nice solution. Right now, intel gain is the most unbalanced aspect of the game. I'm glad you spelled it out... 55 would be okay if you could get 1 intel per battle, but it would be safer to assume a ratio of 1 in 3. That's far too many battles.

[ushas]

Yeah, your 1 in 3, instead of 1 in 2, is probably more closer to reality.

In approximation,
  Intel pieces = number of lieutenants  x  number of pieces per lieutenant
So the left side can also be influenced by changing number of lieutenants, unless 4 per a gang is set in stone, of course.

Say 3 lieutenants, each requiring 2 pieces of intel, while the boss 3 = 30 battles at minimum
Etc.

Right now, intel gain is the most unbalanced aspect of the game.

I'm slowly catching up, starting to understand why you're worried about this. For example, I'm having a sort of all comes Sam now, except he doesn't put points into Presence. Somebody else can specialize him or a party member for interrogation, then our difference can easily be like 1/4-1/3 in number of battles needed. I can also decide target facilities more or less. It makes sense that it's a part of the challenge for us, as outracing the enemies is part of the game. On the other hand, you have less control over our game length...

it definitely wouldn't be an attempt to escape work on the default

Of course, sorry, didn't want to imply that you were cooking something like that, only that it more complicates things.

and have a second setting, which adds an additional intel piece for each leader.

Will it work like when one chooses difficulty and then can add this on top?

I think the number of battles influences in-game time too, interacting with lvlup and income per days variables. If set independently (and no problem with that), may up difficulty for some players above the default difficulty setting.

[Daithi]

Yeah, your 1 in 3, instead of 1 in 2, is probably more closer to reality.

In approximation,
  Intel pieces = number of lieutenants  x  number of pieces per lieutenant
So the left side can also be influenced by changing number of lieutenants, unless 4 per a gang is set in stone, of course.

Say 3 lieutenants, each requiring 2 pieces of intel, while the boss 3 = 30 battles at minimum
Etc.

2 intel per lieutenant seems like a better call. You only have to fight lieutenants until you can reveal boss, but will likely stick with 4 + allow gang to recruit more in the case of failed interrogations.

Will it work like when one chooses difficulty and then can add this on top?

Most probably it would happen around the same time as difficulty select.

[ushas]

*describing awful experience with XCOM interface*

If they made you this angry... I guess they pretty much screw it up
 
I don't understand this, esp. with big budget. UI and controls is how the game connects to you. No way designers would want you fight it. Don't they have like million PC players? Yet someone decides, let's not give PC proper due...

It's often attributed to consoles, but I don't remember even most of the PC-exclusive games having any sort of great interface. Neither Vigilantes (sorry Daithi, at least based on Nomad's description, looks it's ahead of new xcoms!). Though liking the camera here (mostly "on" setting). Usually turning off in other games, so that came as pleasant surprise.

Maybe it's combination of the first impressions being so important selling point and of the bar being so low for games...

If I would make order of importance:
  Seamless to use when mastered >>>>> intuitive >> tooltips > tutorials >>>>>>>> gameplay tips on loading screen (ugh)

The sequence of impressions over time is more backwards. Doesn't help that important aspects are more subconcious, not easy to dig from reviews. Additionally, what matters for playing not necessarily matters for watching on youtube.

[ushas]

Yeah, your 1 in 3, instead of 1 in 2, is probably more closer to reality.

In approximation,
  Intel pieces = number of lieutenants  x  number of pieces per lieutenant
So the left side can also be influenced by changing number of lieutenants, unless 4 per a gang is set in stone, of course.

Say 3 lieutenants, each requiring 2 pieces of intel, while the boss 3 = 30 battles at minimum
Etc.

2 intel per lieutenant seems like a better call. You only have to fight lieutenants until you can reveal boss, but will likely stick with 4 + allow gang to recruit more in the case of failed interrogations.

4+ per gang means 12+ per game.
Was simply considering all the options. Depends. For example, in case of coming to conclusion that for your game length goals intel pieces would need to go down to 1 per lieutenant, then I would argue lowering number of lieutenants while preserving 2 pieces would be better option. For pacing and emergent story feel, but also simply because you implemented asking in interrogation feature...
 
Note, for getting 30 battles at minimum I already reduced intel to 2 pieces. Both variables went down.

What you said sounds like all we need to fight are lieutenants. I recall first encountering basic troops, then specialists start to show, all before one can think about reaching lieutenants. And unless handling them after each other isn't required, can imagine catching and getting intel on boss from one, while still not knowing where others are. Or going after Mafia boss while still hunting Survivalist specialists. Etc... Just some thoughts.

Definitely open to expanding mission variety.

That would be great!
Having maaany ideas...

[Daithi]

Fixed 2 cases where leadership level was not being set. Checked remaining cases when a gang member is created and they seem to function correctly. Going to test now.

[Daithi]

Have been testing lieutenant encounters, and it always pulls up the right character for interrogation. There's a question mark around tier 2 troops added for dialogue encounters, will check to make sure this is fixed today.

[ushas]

Just to be sure - does it fix the problem where specialists weren't recognized as tier 2 (or more precisely weren't giving away tier 2 intel even when randomly assigned to interrogation)?

Additionally:
-- From v21 on, will the game always choose the highest rank incapacitated for interrogation?
-- What happens in case of high rank killing, such as: all lieutenants and specialists dead, basic troops incapacitated? Should it choose searching the highest rank or interrogate the low one?

Apologies for drawing those questions again, but I would rather have some sense of intentions, provided you want us to test those things (np in case testing is no longer desired).

[Daithi]

In all instances I've encountered, t2 troops where recognised as such.

Further
- In all instances I've seen, yes
- This I haven't tested enough to be certain

[ushas]

Ok, I assume that also means they should give intel lvl 2 from now on.

Ad Further: thanks for info, but the questions were about your intentions, not whether it works according to them. To be able to do feature testing reliably, one needs have some sense what is desired outcome. Things like this may go unreported because having no clue what works how intended and what not. By asking questions we're trying to limit wasting time, although that's still pretty ineffective. So don't see other option than to conclude WIP and move on. After all, your call.

[Daithi]

Ok, I assume that also means they should give intel lvl 2 from now on.

Yes, that's the intention. It should be working like this in the majority of situations, but if you turn anything up that isn't let me know!

[ushas]

Oh. Ok. Yeah, I was confirming that understood it that way.

The further thingy was about less clear things like [kill rank2 & incapacitate rank1] combinations and so on. Your intentions about searching vs. interrogation are simply unclear to me, statistically as well as story-wise.