Page 5 of 24 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 232

Thread: General New Game Discussion

  1. #41

    Default

    The board is a sample layout and I believe we all want the look and feel of the same game with the known board layout. I believe it was a sample of colors and spread out to show what Hulky has put together. Having the no true 4 corners is a huge part of the design that will remain.

    As far as units. Without saying they "are the same" the concept is to keep everything as close as possible without treading on true straight-up copyright issues of cloning pixel for pixel hp for hp and action for action of each unit.

    I think the Archer/Scout will NEED to be very similar if not exact. I think that Hulky is showing the new units with their respective older unit model as a way of saying "hey, we all know we shouldn't clone to be successful, so lets try and match as close as we can."

    I would like to set up a true CAU. Matt and I, and I think I also discussed with Hulky, to have some kind of Base unit start..

    Something like every unit has:
    Health Base: 20
    Attack Damage: 15
    Attack Range: 1
    Movement Range: 3
    Recovery Rounds: 2
    Armor: 10
    Blocking Chance: 35%

    And then we have 8-10 pts of upgrades ability for each suggested new unit.
    So to upgrade Health by 5pts requires 1 upgrade pt.
    To upgrade attack range, movement, or reduce recovery takes 2pts each for each one.
    Add damage to attack goes up by 2-3 pts for every one pt.
    Upgrading points in armor, upgrades a certain percentage to block
    And then for each special ability takes something like 3-5 pts.

    Are these exact numbers tested? No, it my first glance idea of a system to balance, but the method is tested. Several games where you can build characters has something like this set. From your sports games to your RPG's there are a base and you can build onto that and think having sample model in place like this will help with CAU.

    I think as anyone really making TAO 2.. (new name required as well) really needs to look at what is going to be allowed and what major and even minor tweaks are going to be required to not get a C&D and provide a workable version of the game we all love.


  2. #42

    Default

    I agree on keeping Scout LoS mechanically the same. For testing purposes, I think it would be best to leave Knights, Scouts, and Clerics identical to their TAO versions. They can be fine-tuned down the road once we figure out the remaining units.

  3. #43

    Default

    Board is 8x8 for the top down bad graphics version so that we can test the networks and stuff behind the scenes Matt, Mel, and Xyx are working on. Like as they build that up we will need testing units for an 8x8 board. Eventually when the more real version comes out (after networks, servers, coding is fleshed out efficiently) then the board will expand out and the crappy 2d top down units would be replaced graphically as well.

    On the Slack group Einjar posted this 3D board that could be a direction things head in eventually, or it could be more like what BR did as an HTML 5 TAO (but with unique graphics and stats).


  4. #44

    Default

    tl:dr, we keeping the Furgon?

    Banner by Madamos
    Co-leader of The Dawg Pound - humpin legs since 2004

  5. #45

    Default

    For the record...please use this subform to give feedback on any and everything. Want to talk about the pace of the game or the board size? Awesome, make a thread about it.
    Maybe you want a larger board, and you want to have a similar range of mobility found in the units. That has nothing to do with balancing the exact units, but it does say something about what you thought could have made TAO better. Ach suggested a larger board. If you gave tao 2 tiles of no mans land, think about how that might have affected the balance of sets. Maybe set luck would decrease, and the first few moves of the game would be ever so slightly more positional than they were. You can still provide your ideas for how to make TAO better, and we can use Seeds game as a basis for developing the new game. We are all very familiar with the pacing of the game, so you can give us vague concepts, and we can try to work with them, then as the game becomes more rigidly defined over time, maybe then you will be ready to give feed back about unit balancing.

    Point is, don't limit yourselves to discussing only unit balance. Be creative and think about what you would want to see in the game. No idea is too vague at this point.

  6. #46

    Default

    Can we rename the subforum 'TAO 2.0 Development' or something similar for clarity?

  7. #47
    Wizzy
    Guest

    Default

    it is named something similar

  8. #48

    Default

    It wasn't earlier.. its since been corrected


  9. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristocatt View Post
    For the record...please use this subform to give feedback on any and everything. Want to talk about the pace of the game or the board size? Awesome, make a thread about it.
    Maybe you want a larger board, and you want to have a similar range of mobility found in the units. That has nothing to do with balancing the exact units, but it does say something about what you thought could have made TAO better. Ach suggested a larger board. If you gave tao 2 tiles of no mans land, think about how that might have affected the balance of sets. Maybe set luck would decrease, and the first few moves of the game would be ever so slightly more positional than they were. You can still provide your ideas for how to make TAO better, and we can use Seeds game as a basis for developing the new game. We are all very familiar with the pacing of the game, so you can give us vague concepts, and we can try to work with them, then as the game becomes more rigidly defined over time, maybe then you will be ready to give feed back about unit balancing.

    Point is, don't limit yourselves to discussing only unit balance. Be creative and think about what you would want to see in the game. No idea is too vague at this point.
    Yeah, exactly. I can sum up exactly where TAO went south in one, simple sentence.

    After the mudquake was introduced, even if I was a better player than my opponent, they could move beneath all of my units and mudquake my entire team on the first turn if they simply got a better hand in how our setups matched up.

    That shouldn't exist in a strategy game. Some luck, such as blocking, is fine. But a game shouldn't be decided before it's started on absolute blind luck that's not based or some sort of formulaic algorithm like blocking was. And this only got worse when the GA and Wisp were introduced. The GA (before the nerf) could hit a Cleric on its first turn if it matched up well, and then the Wisp, along with the Muddy, could just tele across the map and attack large groups anywhere.

    I literally lost to people I knew I was profoundly better than due to how setups matched up. The DSM began the first real rush, but once the mudquake was added, the game was destroyed. Not because of the mudquake, but because of how the mudquake could be used in the context of the board layout. By the time the Wisp was around, it became "let's just make a setup, run directly at one another, and see who has the last man standing."

    This isn't to say there weren't great players once the rush took over, there were. But the turtle game, and even defensive spreads, was a much truer tactical game.

  10. #50

    Default

    The worst part of the mudquake was it d/cing you lol. Then they added /fx to toggle it off. So many games I lost when the guy knew I'd d/c so they just mudquaked turn one, or wait until it was close or I was winning then quake to d/c me. That's the kind of bug that would be catastrophic.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Account Registration is now open || How to View General Discussion
    By Crabwalking Lord Mommy in forum TAO Tournaments & Game Challenge Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2020, 10:12 PM
  2. Standalone game versus an in-browser game
    By Gabe in forum New Game Development and Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-13-2016, 05:21 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •