Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


DFA Backers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bigheadzach

  • Rank
    Double Action Newbie


  • Steam Community Tag/URL
    Big Head Zach
  • Xbox Live Tag
    Big Head Zach
  • Display Backer Tags
  • URL
  • Location
    Atlanta, GA
  • Occupation
  1. House Testagrande marches to the beat of a different drum, one foot forward at a time. Eat caber, Cadence scum.
  2. The hold action in CT drops the timer by a set amount and then ends that character's current turn. Their next turn will simply come up sooner by way of the game continuing to tick thereafter. Try out Final Fantasy Tactics to get a feel for it (I'm not talented enough to make an infographic or video) Oh, I'm a big FFT fan, so I completely get your arguments. What I was mainly asking was if there is a way to provide an "overwatch" mechanic in a CT-based environment, similar to the "Hold Action" command in most D&D games: "I'm going to aim at this person, and if they try to move, I want to interrupt it with a shot." You answered my question by reminding me that "Wait" in FFT is a set amount of CT ticks. You don't get to specify how long you wait, or who you end up acting before/after (although you can see by pressing Left/Right what the resulting order would be if you Wait, you don't get control over that). If one were to, say, try and perform a whole-team action in a CT context, what you are saying is, "I'm going to have all my squadmates Wait until the last friendly unit in the order is able to act, then commit all my units sequentially." In the CT context, what that would tend to end up doing (individual Speed ratings aside) is cause the enemy team to get all of their actions at once. So can you perform "overwatch" in FFT? As designed you really can't because the game does not let you program conditional actions with your Wait action, nor can you guarantee that the duration of your Wait will pre-empt the "overwatched" enemy. Could you implement Overwatch in a CT context? I suppose it is possible, but the interesting thing is that Overwatch really only applies to combatants that have a range-independent attack (i.e. archers and magicians), and even it's ones that have abilities which require no charge time (more on that in a moment). If you already are admitting that not everyone is going to be an archer (and magic is rare), the coding-effort-to-reward ratio of implementing Overwatch in CT is rather low. What you *could* allow is for units to specify a "Wait" in order to pre-empt another character - whenever that character would come up in the order, your Waiting character immediately gets their turn first (and if someone were to knowingly pre-empt them, they'd go even earlier, etc.) It doesn't solve the problem of "How can I shoot the guy as he runs from cover to cover?", but as mentioned, this game is not nearly as needy of a fully-implemented ranged-combat solution. ...so, charge-time abilities. FFT has Mages with spells which require time to cast. The CT order shows you exactly when the spell will go off. If cast on a person, the spell effect happens wherever the target happens to be. Since you're playing against the computer, the game doesn't try to cheat by not telling you who/where the spell is targeting, because it will know where you're casting. It simply makes magic this thing that forms a gigantic crosshairs before it happens. If you get laser-painted with an AoE fire spell, one legitimate tactic is to run at the enemy and try to get them caught in the blast. FFT has Archers which can focus their aim on a target for a number of CT ticks, with additional damage caused the longer the aim lasts. But you have to specify exactly how long you want to aim (and each additional time increment is actually a separate skill that must be purchased!). If the enemy runs for cover when your Aim action ends, tough, you just wasted all that time and end up shooting nothing. THIS is one case where I think they could have done something better. For magic, it's easy to just handwave that and say, "Once you start the incantation you can't stop it", but an Archer who just blindly shoots at a no-longer-viable target? That's silly. So, my questions to continue the discussion are: Is Overwatch worth implementing in CT even though its use will be minor, and how should charge-time-abilities like archer aiming be handled?
  3. How would you (anyone) compare the idea of a generic "Wait x CT" command opposed to "Wait until THIS point in the turn order"? Does it break the freeflowingness too much to be allowed to specify who I should preempt? Is the "Hold Action" command the CT equivalent of Overwatch?
  4. Yeah, I'm a fan of this as well. But it still has the disadvantage of 'conga lines' quickly popping up, where let's say H is a hero, and D is a demon, you then get these scenarios: Two heroes flank a demon: H D H Another demon sees its buddy being flanked, and then tries to flank either of the heroes to help its buddy: D H D H Another hero sees its buddy being flanked, and then tries to flank the demon to help its buddy: H D H D H etc. This actually got solved rather well in the aforementioned Blood Bowl: If you yourself are being flanked (being threatened by more than one enemy), your ability to threaten others is either reduced or negated. I can't assist on an attack if I myself have multiple attackers. It might have to be a reduction effect rather than a negation, and you might have to simply just compare the number of enemies surrounding you (beyond the first), rather than trying to solve the infinite loop of "who can flank who". So in the last example the middle human would be just as flanked as the two demons.
  5. I'm more of a fan of what a few of the most recent D&D iterations has done: flanking bonus. If you are engaged (i.e. adjacent and able to threaten) with someone in melee, then other attacks gain a bonus chance to hit as your attentions are being divided. This solves the problem of facing by "evening out" the various modifiers for side and rear attacks, and just gives a straight up bonus. It could be additive for each additional threat a target has. Ranged attacks would not be counted as threats (unless you gave it as a special ability to master archers, to "mark" a target and have it count as a threat).
  6. I wouldn't be a fan of hiding, but obscuring for the sake of flavor might be a creative option to consider. Finding qualitative terms to rate the various ability scores (usually as a percentage of their max possible value, or deviation from the average). You could also choose to have the score included in parentheses, i.e Strength: Mighty (15). What that *would* do is give an easier analysis of special effects / abilities that are available at a certain score. As an example, the "Intimidate" skill which lowers an enemy's attack skill for a time, only works if their Willpower is Unsteady or lower.
  7. Keep them in the back? Have a squire protect them?
  8. I know there were several games (FFT might be included, the mechanics are hazy) where everyone in a squad secretly acquired "job points" for whatever classes were in play, when those classes' abilities were used. Call it "on-the-job training".
  9. I'm not ignoring it. I'm providing short-sighted reasons that houses wouldn't automatically cooperate, requiring you to manage relations. If fighting a greater enemy might leave one house defenseless against their neighboring enemy, they might be reluctant to throw their weight behind the group, because some would rather not exist than be subjugated.
  10. How is "40% chance to hit" not gambling?
  11. Because it's rare that everyone in the realm equally realizes the external threat and acts upon it in total cooperation: 1) Some don't think there's a threat at all. 2) Some think the threat is secretly a power play by . 3) Some think they can overcome the threat all by themselves, and so any sacrifice to the group is pointless. 4) Some think they can avoid the threat and come out on top when everyone else is gone. 5) Some think the threat is actually good and will join up with it. 6) Some think they'd rather die honorably than sully themselves cooperating with . Everyone has different perspectives - some think only in the short term, others the long term, and even others in the long-long term.
  12. Definitely not. If I did, I would propose reasons/alternatives. It just sounds a lot like summons, which are cool but require a decent amount of art and animation.
  13. I guess I can respect that, sure. Hey, where is this Silk of yours from, out of interest? Don't mean to derail, just curious. Anyway, I can totally understand people's ideal to make sure their bloodline reward is really worth something, though my preference would be for it to be in a way that doesn't get in the way of a player's ability to customise, since that's such a fun part of these kinda games to a lot of people. In a way, I'd be ok with being able to edit house details after the fact, because you have to go to the effort to do that, and I don't have to.
  • Create New...