Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Omega

  • Rank
    Forum Commander


  • Display Backer Tags
  • URL
  • Biography
  1. Omega


    "Ghost Hook" You're welcome.
  2. Yeah, you can clearly see that a turn system in which entire teams move at once forces you to adopt a whole-team oriented strategy. In turn systems that are more granular, you still have the option to do that by simply choosing moves that compliment the moves of other units. But like in real life, the enemy also gets a chance to pre-empt that strategy as it's playing out. It's a very organic model. However with the way things are currently planned, I don't feel like having the option of classes in the game makes much sense. You are forced to think of your team as one big boring, predictable wave that zergs enemy units one at a time. At which point, battles are probably just decided on how much damage you can soak up. You see that in Fire Emblem where there is really not much to differentiate classes. So long as your unit can survive any one individual combat encounter, you pretty much walk across the battlefield. This gets very boring, very quickly. It ends up having nothing to do with strategy or even chance and all about hit points.
  3. I noticed during a teamstream - I think it was Brad - who made the observation that the fights were fairly one-sided due to how the turn system was working out. I made the point way back when the kickstarter closed that if MC didn't use a turn system more in depth than Xcom and many other turn based games, it would just blend into the scenery. I guess with the observation above (made by someone working on the game), and what I said before, is it not reasonable at this point to legitimately experiment with a more advanced character-focused turn system? At it's simplest, using something like what Tactics Ogre (PSP) or Final Fantasy Tactics used would prevent battles from becoming these very one-sided slugfests. It would also give characters some opportunities for diversity.
  4. So, especially given Valve's recent announcements, I was wondering if the Massive Chalice team has any intention of ensuring Linux support doesn't fall by the wayside or get the off-hand treatment? I've been trying to focus on Steam titles that are available in Linux in the hopes of fostering a better future for our gaming platforms. One issue I have noticed however is that a lot of game makers are still content with what sometimes seems like very poor testing on the platform. Given Ubuntu+Steam and SteamOS, I think it's reasonable to expect comprehensive testing on Linux during development. I mention this because I've just started playing Awesomenauts on Linux and have encountered some issues because I have a dual monitor configuration. So, even if this all just boils down to one small line item, I'd like to make sure when you guys do your testing, you try a few configurations with things like dual monitors and various hardware providers in Linux. Just to make sure nobody ends up stuck with the pieces of something that could easily have been avoided.
  5. Gotta say, I'm totally the opposite. I want to see more dynamic interactions with lots of ins and outs. Otherwise this game mechanically may as well be a re-skin of 99% of what's already out there. The diversity is what lends itself to making my game experience even worth sharing with others. Otherwise we're all playing the same game in exactly the same steps. Most people just read books or watch movies for a completely linear non-interactive progression.
  6. [sorry for the thread necro (and if you're new to this topic, it's a good read start to finish!), but I've been fairly busy IRL.] This is exactly it. I think worthwhile, complex systems can emerge from allowing players to dial in numbers at all levels of the game and then watching the changes bubble upwards through the various algorithms. With CT/Initiative, you get more opportunities for those traits to express themselves. With whole-team turns, most of the variances end up being flattened out into more damage or more healing, with the latter being moot due to oversimplification.
  7. I start thinking about things like "MVP" and iteration with these sorts of scenarios in mind. Although when making a game, MVP becomes a potentially absurd concept and can be the difference between a hit and a flop. DF's approach with DFA seems to be what I would have done in a similar situation. Which is push for the quality, just not the quantity and get dollars coming in through regular sales of the product. I think when that time comes, a proper promotional campaign would be a good idea - just to "get the buyers out". They don't need to know it's only half a game. Just that when they buy it, they will get more down the line. Watch out for that feature/scope creep!
  8. I like that idea where they can unlock certain abilities. But again, the explicit pairing seems forced. Would love to see it done just by proximity perhaps?
  9. Have to say, I wasn't a fan of the explicit pairing system in FE:RD. It seemed like an afterthought to otherwise pretty generic gameplay. One problem is that the paired units don't always get XP. The other is that the benefit of pairing was never really equivalent to having them act on their own. This may be in part due to the whole-team turn system that FE:RD used, but the pairing didn't help things at all. Would rather see work put into making classes more useful and unique than trying to orchestrate these strange static combinations.
  10. I'd say one move and one action in whatever order desired is an okay way to model character actions. I wouldn't mind seeing it where a character can move any number of their movement points, do an action and then move the rest. Might make for some interesting situations. Check out the turn system thread.
  11. Battlelore is a good board game to check out. It uses a system where moves are assigned randomly based on cards drawn. The map is divided into three sections and the cards say how many units in or across each section that can move. Units can be targeted by type or section. It's pretty neat stuff.
  12. I think if support roles are something you want to see shine, CT/initiative or a real-time (like Baldur's Gate) turn system is probably going to impress you a lot more. As we've hashed out already, during whole-team turns, you end up being so preoccupied with maxxing out your burst damage, support roles are rendered ineffectual. Other people here observed that in XCOM and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn - instead of choosing support roles, they just went for hard damage. This happened for two reasons. The first is that the combat modelling in both games is completely broken. Exchanges are designed to quite nearly if not always result in the death of the targeted unit. Contrast this to Final Fantasy Tactics where the unit is assumed to have some of the impetus to survive and that defence more equally matches offence. The second - mostly because of the first point - is that support roles became inherently under-levelled. If a unit survives an attack, I tend to retreat them for the whole battle while the rest of the team cleans up, hopefully not incurring further losses. Because of this, I need to ensure that my team always has enough damage. So again, the support role is just set up to fail quite naturally in whole-team turns. Substituting reaction-based mechanics in this situation to me feels like a hack and quite possibly introduces new issues while solving none of the original problems. Overwatch is such a good example of this where I feel like it was a patch made during play-testing to counteract the over simplification of whole-team turns. It doesn't represent a fundamental sophistication in the game system. We're also still left with the issue that if a support role doesn't get enough opportunities to act, they will start to lag behind the team. The whole point is really about equality. Give support roles equal impact and equal opportunity during a battle and don't let the flow of the turn mechanic overrule their potential. Which is why CT/initiative becomes a more natural answer. It isn't necessarily more complicated, it's just a lot higher in fidelity. A whole-team approach to team cohesion is still possible with this finer grained modelling of time, you just have to understand the scale. For some people who are hooked on whole-team turn systems this doesn't come easily and usually only after seeing the game will they go "Oh, that's not so bad actually...". This is because in a team of 5v5, assuming equal initiative, you basically get a my-turn-your-turn flow, unit by unit. Just as much as your unit is "standing there", so to is the enemy's team just "standing there". Having your unit obliterated by the entire team is more a problem in whole-team turn systems than it is in CT/initiative.
  13. Let's all take the time over the final hours of the Kickstarter to congratulate Brad and his team at Double Fine on raising - at the time of this posting - at least 1.1 million dollars! I re-watched some of the videos from the Double Fine Adventure where Tim talks about the end of publisher interference. MASSIVE CHALICE is a clear continuation of this trend we should all be thankful for! I look forward to the dialogue and deliverables we as stakeholders will all get to enjoy as work gets underway. As is normally said: This is just the beginning! Congratulations Brad, your team, Tim and the rest of Double Fine! !
  • Create New...