Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Lurian

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lurian

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Basically, what the title says. Fog of war has, on multiple occasions, been cited as a desired core game for Massive Chalice's tactical combat system. I am curious as to why. I can totally understand fog of war in a game like X-Com where it helps build the tension and atmosphere in a sci-fi/horror setting, but Massive Chalice seems more aligned with the heroic fantasy genre. I don't quite see what it adds that is so desirable. Ambushes? A role for scout classes? It's not a common mechanic at all in the TRPGs I've played - and yes, I enjoy (or at least am more used to) the more chessmatch-like feel the game has when I can see every unit at all times - so I find it curious that fog of war seems to have been a priority since day one. I'd have made an effort to ask this during the livestream where backers were given the opportunity to call in, but unfortunately I was quite busy working at the time. I haven't seen the question really addressed anywhere else either. Did I somehow manage to miss some video where they talked about it, or has it just flown under the radar so far?
  2. I don't see this being about sending messages as it is avoiding taking the game into territory that will certainly make some players uncomfortable. Incest is one of the most common of cultural taboos. I'm not saying you can never go there, but Massive Chalice doesn't seem like the sort of game that wants to make players dwell on such things. Moreover, I don't like the idea of an inbreeding "trap". Firstly because, again, I don't think avoiding it is a fun mechanic. Others seem to disagree, however, so let's move on to a second point for now. If I accidentally stumble into inbreeding penalties, how am I supposed to know? How can I tell the difference between that and long-term damage from that demonic relic the child's mother was carrying? Or just plain rolling poorly at the genetic craps table? Does the game unfurl a banner of shame over their head? Or am I preemptively being deluged with incest warnings whenever I try to match heroes together ("hey immortal king, these two are second cousins - are you still cool with them breeding")? Sure, eight generations removed seems okay, but I think the tie-in question is how many generations we can expect a game of Massive Chalice to last. The number I've seen bouncing around is ~4, which means you'd basically spend almost the entirety of the game in the range of siblings/cousins/second-cousins and in that circumstance a total ban seems quite defensible. If the game goes significantly longer, then it obviously doesn't make as much sense. I also totally understand the desire to have siblings in combat, as I said earlier. That's a known weak point of what I proposed. I've tried putting some thought into potential solutions, but so far they all seem unwieldy. I suppose the simplest is probably to just forbid "established" bloodlines (that is, bloodlines which have keeps) to marry into one another. Or, to put it more simply, if you were born in a keep, you can never be put in another keep. Feels a bit arbitrary, though. Or maybe it just needs some lore justification where the immortal king revitalizes a keep by binding a heroic bloodline to it or something. Yeah, well relics will certainly be a big part of the game, but there's something to be said for the direct blood lineages. I like having the constraint of not being able to give any trait to any child through a relic because of the randomness and asymmetry from genetics. I'd also like lots of options for training up children through relics, mentoring, and so on, but I think having them start out as completely blank slates would take away from their individuality and the replay value of the game. Not completely blank. I was thinking that parents would influence the "skew" of a hero's initial stat allocation/potential. In other words, it would influence what sorts of classes they would be good at/qualify for. For instance, one generation I have an archer hero and a thief hero, so I set them up in a keep in hopes of getting an awesome sniper hero. If that (and relics) are what bloodlines are about then I'd be perfectly satisfied, though it does seem that quite a few people are hoping for something more akin to a full-on genetic simulation model.
  3. That's exactly how I played Fallout 1&2. You needed high agility (the most useful stat anyway) to pull it off, but it was so very effective and the only risk-free way to handle the early parts of Fallout 2 besides. It also felt rather gamey and exploitive and ultimately, rather boring. Let's not go that route. For the most part, I agree that letting everyone do this is probably a bad idea. That said, I think it could be cool to give it to, say, a lightly armored thief-type melee class. They can't take damage well so keeping them in melee range is a bad idea. To make them less weak you grant them this move-attack-move ability. Since they're melee they can't really exploit this single-handedly unless their movement radius is more than twice their opponent's, but it does promote synergy with bulkier melee types who can get in the way of demons and buy the thief a little space.
  4. Rolling the dice on the genetic effects of inbreeding as a game mechanic? That's a bit much for me. If you want inbreeding to be detrimental, then why allow it in the first place? This is ethically treacherous territory, and I doubt Massive Chalice wants to devote time to mapping it out when we could be fighting epic battles instead. Sure, it'll make it difficult for me to recreate Jaime Lannister, but I find that preferable to repeatedly pouring over ancestry trees for fear of incurring penalties by accidentally inbreeding third-cousins. I don't know about you but that's one of the things that really caught my interest. Family trees are really just the human races' stock books. They let us know who comes from what. A good horse can tend to have a more accurate family tree than most people, since how else can you prove it's a pure breed. As for the ethics.... well I'm the kind of guy who plays the evil version of any "moral choice" game and I really like Saints Row so I don't really like the idea of ethics polluting my game. Since if for ethics inbreeding will be disallowed how will I build the Webfoots my special squad of heroes bred for tackling swamp terrain? Also how far are we going to go with it, anyone who's related by even the slightest margin can't breed? I think you'll find yourself out of options rather quickly. Also as far as I know it's legal (at least in half the the states in the USA not sure about other countries) for first cousins to marry, and this is for regular folks no special rich and powerful only thing. And if it's legal you know what that means, people do it. And if you personally are squeamish about the idea take extra care about it. Me I want the chance that I'll get a chinless wonder if I'm not good at managing my breeding program. You say that now, but I wonder how long you'll want to stick with the chinless wonder breeding program when the involved heroes are so bogged down with undesirable recessive genes that random commoners with pitchforks and tattered rags are more effective in combat. This isn't a genealogy simulation in a vacuum; you have to take the game world into consideration with it. Allowing the player to order their subjects to engage in incest only to slap them with penalties for doing so (as was suggested in the post I was responding to in that quote) has a veneer of realism to it, but I don't see anything in that which would make it a fun game mechanic. It would just be a potential trap for your bloodlines that you would have to plan around avoiding and I'd much rather be thinking of ways to make awesome heroes than optimizing a generational marriage scheme to minimize the loss of genetic diversity over time. Alternatively, you could just make incest consequence-free while prohibiting the most egregious cases (parent/child, sibling/sibling). However, if incest has no mechanical impact then why would you want it to be a possibility? As to how you'd get your webfoots without inbreeding, the obvious answer is demonic technology. From what I can tell, being able to give a bloodline some benefit like webbed feet at the cost of inflicting some genetic damage is pretty much exactly what that mechanic is intended to do. Better yet, you don't have to engage in a multi-generation breeding program to get to that point.
  5. That seems a little extreme to me. Not being able to ever have siblings in battle would be disappointing. That's a good point. I missed that one, and I don't really have a good way to get the best of both worlds there. That's not really the sort of possibility I'd want to give up on easily, though we do already get to see familial bonds on the battlefield in parent/child form so it's not as if that opportunity is completely obviated. Maybe someone else can think up something, or maybe I just need to go to sleep instead of posting at 2AM. Rolling the dice on the genetic effects of inbreeding as a game mechanic? That's a bit much for me. If you want inbreeding to be detrimental, then why allow it in the first place? This is ethically treacherous territory, and I doubt Massive Chalice wants to devote time to mapping it out when we could be fighting epic battles instead. Sure, it'll make it difficult for me to recreate Jaime Lannister, but I find that preferable to repeatedly pouring over ancestry trees for fear of incurring penalties by accidentally inbreeding third-cousins. Is the problem that you don't want random non-heroes to be completely interchangeable with heroes for breeding purposes (thus undermining the very idea of having heroic bloodlines), or do you just really want genetics to be the overriding factor in how a character develops? If the former, I think there is another way. Rather than genetics, I'd favor relics as the vector through which children really benefit from having heroic parents. Among other benefits, this avoids putting same-sex couples (who presumably must adopt) at a disadvantage. Let genetics decide things like physical appearance and what class a character is predisposed towards, but let the relics carry the stat bonuses and special powers. This even gives you more "control" over inheritance as you were hoping for, since you know more or less exactly what you'll get from the relics and the randomness is consigned mostly to physical appearance.
  6. Honestly I think any sort of incest potentially gets pretty icky fast. Allowing it is, erm, disquieting. Having to avoid is just not a fun game mechanic. Just imagine setting up a pair of heroes in a keep only to get the "sorry, they're third cousins" message - again. I think the best option is just to stomp even the potential for it out completely. Each keep produces one and exactly one heir (maybe more children, but they aren't heroes because they didn't inherit their parents' relics, or something), and the player must constantly supplement his hero pool with promising young commoners. Upshots are twofold: incest is completely removed from the picture, and players get to make interesting decisions on whether to concentrate the material wealth (relics) of your more established bloodlines to create amazingly-equipped heroes or to spread the wealth around. Downside? Well, gear could get a bit bloated when your third-generation hero is sole heir to the relics of eight distinct heroic bloodlines. Maybe you solve that by having heroes fuse their bloodline relics when they marry to signify the joining of their houses. Or maybe they only do it when their relics would both go into the same slot.
  7. I want to: -Have the bulk of my heroes make what looks like a desperate last stand against superior numbers while my sneaky thief character rushes behind enemy lines in a bold effort to assassinate the enemy commander and save the day. -Have one of my child heroes witness a demon kill his parents on the battlefield and then spend decades training, waiting for a chance to engage the demon himself to avenge them. -Have one of my heroes who was corrupted by demonic influence join the bad guys, then have a Darth Vader moment when he sees his own child coming after him on the battlefield. -Realize that no matter what I do I will soon lose a region to the demons, and be forced to choose whether to sack it myself before they arrive to deny them the resources there. (Okay, won't happen in-battle, but whatever.) -Hear my heroes marching to battle-songs of their ancestors' heroic deeds. -Have one of my characters branded a coward for fleeing battle only to redeem himself later on by going out in a blaze of glory. -Drink from a massive chalice!
  8. I love this idea. So often in games like this, players come to think of a character as the sum of their accomplishments on the battlefield. That came through pretty strongly in the XCom livestream the team did with, for example, Zhane. It would be great if the game could key off that by reminding you of each character's moments of awesome. Then you could flip through a bloodline's history and be reminded how character X was the sole survivor of the Battle of Redmarsh, while character Y killed eight demons single-handedly at the Battle of Pine Lake.
×
×
  • Create New...