Page 6 of 24 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 232

Thread: General New Game Discussion

  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
    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.
    If a mudquake could ruin your strategy then it was not a good one to begin with. You shouldn't be allowed to hunker down and win a game against an equally skilled player. The attacker must always be favored, otherwise the game dies. Rushes will always be more commonly used because most people don't like spending hours on a single match. If the are disadvantaged then they will quit.

    I agree with some of your sentiments though. I enjoyed fending off rushes with my turtle, to defeat them with my counter attack. Though some sets simply had too large of an advantage to overcome sometimes. But again, it should be the counter attack that wins it. Not the hunkering down. I'm fine with luring opponents into a trap too, but the offensive player should be able to avoid the trap if played properly.

    I think the nerf to the ga and wisp, along with the 1 turn wait was really helpful for game balance. A few more tweaks and I think the game could have allowed for a more diverse set distribution.

    As an example... I've always liked the idea of a GA attacking from behind a knight wall or shrubs. Making him more durable, but not able to be set close to the front row would be interesting. If you can march your GA across the board to be in range of your opponents cleric, then you deserve to have his cleric.

  2. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |AFO| View Post
    If a mudquake could ruin your strategy then it was not a good one to begin with.
    I agree with this sentiment in theory, but to clarify what I mean, I'm speaking in regard to a relative context. For example, I have a turtle formation with a Stone Golem, and my opponent has a rush with a Wisp, Golem Ambusher, and Mud Golem. Let's say I'm ten times more skilled than this player, and I ultimately win the match. Because of blind luck that isn't formulaic like blocking, I had to win with a 9v10 match because my Stone Golem is effectively taken out of the game.

    This has nothing to do with the strategy, but rather is a fundamental flaw in how the game was developed. I wasn't clear before, but to be on point, no unit should be absolutely useless due to random luck. And in that case, it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by |AFO| View Post
    You shouldn't be allowed to hunker down and win a game against an equally skilled player. The attacker must always be favored, otherwise the game dies.
    Why? I don't mean to sound rude but this is just an awful statement. And again, I don't mean that as an insult but rather a challenge for you to explain for the sake of game development.

    You just said it - both players are of equal skill. What's wrong with one saying hit the deck and defensively outplaying the other? Isn't that, at its core, what a strategy game is?

    Quote Originally Posted by |AFO| View Post
    Rushes will always be more commonly used because most people don't like spending hours on a single match. If the are disadvantaged then they will quit.
    This is just wrong, and that isn't my opinion. The longest games were easily pre-Mudquake, pre-Furgon turtles back in 2003-04, and those topped out at an hour. I agree that if they last HOURS people will quit, but if that's the case then the game is just flawed. Mind you that back in those days is when the game had the most interest as well. Rushes were just one and done matches for the most part, except for with extremely talented players. And that's that's when the game went south and started losing interest.

    My ultimate point isn't that rushes were bad. I was there when the first rushes were used after the release of the DSM, so I know this all extremely well. My point also isn't that an aggressively offensive setup is bad either. What I'm saying is that the inherent random advantages rushes brought to the game is what destroyed it. You're just outright wrong that setup luck didn't decide matches, because it did. Not even in just losing either, there were games I won that I had to claw tooth and nail to squeak out a v against inferior opponents because they could just mindlessly click and point to send all their units forward and bombard me. Which I guess is my ultimate point.

    Want to be offensive? Great, go for it. But in a good strategy game, I shouldn't get an automatic advantage over someone because of random setup luck. This is what needs to be fixed here ultimately, which is why I suggest a no mans land in between both setups. No, you can't just first turn hit my Cleric with you GA because you were randomly lucky enough to have placed said GA in range.

    Quote Originally Posted by |AFO| View Post
    I agree with some of your sentiments though. I enjoyed fending off rushes with my turtle, to defeat them with my counter attack. Though some sets simply had too large of an advantage to overcome sometimes. But again, it should be the counter attack that wins it. Not the hunkering down. I'm fine with luring opponents into a trap too, but the offensive player should be able to avoid the trap if played properly.

    I think the nerf to the ga and wisp, along with the 1 turn wait was really helpful for game balance. A few more tweaks and I think the game could have allowed for a more diverse set distribution.

    As an example... I've always liked the idea of a GA attacking from behind a knight wall or shrubs. Making him more durable, but not able to be set close to the front row would be interesting. If you can march your GA across the board to be in range of your opponents cleric, then you deserve to have his cleric.
    I agree with all of this. GA was a great unit but related to the game's context unfairly and poorly, IMHO.

  3. #53

    Default

    If the defensive player is favored then both sides will hunker down and the games will drag on unnecessarily. Or the better player may be forced to attack into a disadvantage which doesn't make sense either. This just doesn't make for a good game. If you are going to allow your opponent to attack you then you deserve to lose.

    And GAs are not inherently lucky. The cleric can be placed opposite side or in the center. 33% of the time he was in range. 66% he was not. Plus he was not hard to block off after the nerf. Same with the PW. I hear you though. The idea of a no mans land is nice. Chess certainly has one. Advanced Wars has one. I'd say most turn based strategy games do.

    But again... Defense is a no no.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
    The longest games were easily pre-Mudquake, pre-Furgon turtles back in 2003-04, and those topped out at an hour.

    Want to be offensive? Great, go for it. But in a good strategy game, I shouldn't get an automatic advantage over someone because of random setup luck. This is what needs to be fixed here ultimately, which is why I suggest a no mans land in between both setups. No, you can't just first turn hit my Cleric with you GA because you were randomly lucky enough to have placed said GA in range.
    Have you played a grey game against Lemon or Eagle? Those could last for days.

    I understand your frustration with losing games because your opponent has a set advantage. But what's the difference between losing a game due to set disadvantage and losing a game due to bad luck? You can go for a low percentage hit on a unit during the game that if it lands leaves you in good shape and if doesn't leaves you at a disadvantage. Similarly you can use a GA and hope it's within striking distance of your opponent's cleric. But if it's not then you are at a disadvantage, because the GA is a pretty worthless unit if it doesn't get a quick cleric kill.

    In both cases you're taking a risk. You can still win a game with bad luck. You can still win a game with a set disadvantage.

  5. #55

    Default

    Tell that to my GA! I used to march him over to opposite side cleric on legends!

  6. #56

    Default

    Probably against fucking Dape or something.

  7. #57

    Default

    Zad. Which my phone wants to autocorrect to Sad. Probably cause that's how you'd describe his game.

  8. #58

    Default

    uguysgotdasikestburnz

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by |AFO| View Post
    If the defensive player is favored then both sides will hunker down and the games will drag on unnecessarily. Or the better player may be forced to attack into a disadvantage which doesn't make sense either. This just doesn't make for a good game. If you are going to allow your opponent to attack you then you deserve to lose.
    I didn't say the defensive player should be favored. I actually don't want that at all. I said the game should be balanced and any luck introduced into it should be formulaic. I'm all for people being aggressively offensive.

    Quote Originally Posted by |AFO| View Post
    And GAs are not inherently lucky. The cleric can be placed opposite side or in the center. 33% of the time he was in range. 66% he was not. Plus he was not hard to block off after the nerf. Same with the PW. I hear you though. The idea of a no mans land is nice. Chess certainly has one. Advanced Wars has one. I'd say most turn based strategy games do.
    But that is luck. If I ended up, by a 33% chance, in range of their Cleric with my GA... I was lucky. That's the inherent definition of luck. And as I said, that luck shouldn't exist in this game unless it's formulaic. But no less, it seems like we agree for the most part albeit minor technicalities.

    Quote Originally Posted by manonfire101 View Post
    Have you played a grey game against Lemon or Eagle? Those could last for days.
    Sweet summer child... I played TAO for over a decade. As far as I know, X, Mel, and I are the only day one players for TAO.com still around. There were greys who were considerably better than both of them, and who dragged out games far longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by manonfire101 View Post
    I understand your frustration with losing games because your opponent has a set advantage. But what's the difference between losing a game due to set disadvantage and losing a game due to bad luck?
    Because blocking is formulaic, and it's equally awarded to both players. Myself and my opponent both operate within the context of the same law of probabilities with blocking. Setup luck, however, is completely and totally random. Whereas a block is decided by a mathematical algorithm that applies to everyone, setup advantage is completely and totally random.

    Lastly - not sure why you thought you ripped my head off per that visitor message. I'm a laid back dude, we can argue all day and it's no big deal. This is a good thing, we're developing ideas in a Socratic sense. Same goes to AFO. No hard feelings here, we're just respectfully all disagreeing for a good cause.

  10. #60

    Default

    Setup luck is not exactly "luck" it's how well you apply the meta, both within the game as a whole, and your approach to a specific player.

    That being said. Meta should not stagnate at one or two sets. It also should not be as influential as it was in TAO.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 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
  •