Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheOnlyRew

  • Rank
    Action Newbie
  1. If I'm not mistaken, movement is somewhat complicated by diagonal steps as well. The first diagonal step costs 1 movement, the second costs 2, the third 1, etc.. So a hero with a speed of 3 could sprint (use two movement actions simultaneously) straight 6 spaces, or diagonally 4.
  2. @JFarceur -- I don't mean to shut down conversation, and I'm sorry if that's what my last post did. I was just seeing a lot of note-comparing about mid-game research, which I think is in a fine state and tangential to what I wanted to approach in this thread. There are definitely other ways research could have been done for this game and I really like the idea of separating general research and bloodline-specific tasks, but I feel it's out of scope for the current progression of Massive Chalice. In a different game, an expansion, or a mod? I would love to see that kind of thing. I also think you have a really good point regarding research traps, and I think that's one of the things that bugs me about early research (though I didn't know how to articulate that facet till you brought it up). Among my first couple games, I was researching in an exploratory way -- I wanted to know what better armors did, what Perilous Cores were -- and I feel like I was punished for it. I'm not sure that's a terrible thing because losing is fun and exploration is fun, but I feel like it could be mediated by putting players in a more forgiving starting place. @Potato Shaven -- Oh, I never did anything but early keeps. Maybe that's why I didn't feel the .90 difficulty bump as much as some others? I think you touched on why I only felt comfortable recommending skipping the first ~15 years of research. Sure, I always do the same thing for 30 years, but that doesn't mean there aren't other viable paths through the early game. It's mostly because it takes 15 years before I keep the second keep and my first item that I feel the need to stay on my one particular path. Now that you bring it up, limiting the early research more than it already is might be a really good way to remove the feeling of an overly-punishing early research tree, even if it doesn't remove the necessity of it. The feel *is* what's bothering me after all.... I'm going to have to mull that one over. EDIT -- man I'm good at typos. So good.
  3. Yeah, this has strayed pretty far from what I wanted to suggest... I don't think the recruitment needs to be separated from research, especially at this point in development. I think it works mechanically and thematically. I think if there's a sequel that brought in city building and management (a la Heroes of Might and Magic or Civ?) that could be really interesting to explore, but not right now. My issue is that the early years of research are just route and uninteresting. Experimentation isn't rewarded beyond novelty. While I can see a case for Health Vials not being the numerically superior second research choice, I'm never going to stray (unless I'm looking for novelty) because I think having Health Vials is just more fun than not having Health Vials. And when someone shows Vitalibands or Steady Handers to be numerically superior to Health Vials, that's just going to further strengthen my point because I'm going to be sacrificing a mechanical advantage not for a challenge, but for the opportunity to get the most out of my tactical encounters. And all of us will still never not immediately build that second keep. [EDIT]: Except Magerious, whose post I initially misread and might disprove my central assertion.
  4. DF Brad has also said the tutorial reworks are going to include the option to skip (while still fighting the first fight). My hope is that skipping the tutorial will allow players to pick the heroes they send to the first fight, but, all in all, I'm with ApexHawk on this one. Find one of the five starters you like and try to stack kills to get him/her past lv 2, then see what the other 10 heroes in your roster bring to the game.
  5. Ha! Womp womp. I don't think I completely agree there, though. All catchup mechanics (which were introduced to this thread by whom? ;-P) are a kind of rubberbanding, but only for when you're loosing. The reason I picked that Hero Death/Cadence kill ratio is that it would normalize towards zero pretty quickly if the player does well (thereby returning the game to the "default" difficulty), or accelerate the game toward a loss state as the number if it kept going up. If the player is doing consistently well, it won't make the game any harder. That said, this is not a perfect -- probably not even the correct -- mechanic. I just do love myself a good semantic debate. EDIT (IN RESPONSE TO THE EDIT): I think it's fair criticism, all the same. I can see a few ways to game this kind of thing, and, depending on balance, it could make losing less substantial and much less fun. Which would make me super sad.
  6. Specifics of the research progression aside, I think my point stands that there are very few choices to make in the very-early game. 'Cuz seriously, does anyone not immediately build their second keep?
  7. I really like the idea of the soft catch-up mechanics you proposed, ApexHawk. I agree, zdesert, that losing is a big part of the game, and that it should be -- and is -- fun. I really hate the feeling of waiting for a loss, though. Finding myself in a downward spiral and knowing I have no way of getting out of it except for prematurely restarting the game. More than just a catch-up mechanic, I think I'd like to see some kind of acceleration mechanic. Maybe the game should track the ratio of Hero deaths to Cadence kills over a 60-100 year period. As that number gets higher, encounter rewards go up and the time between encounters goes down. More (potential) experience enters the game and the rewards can be potentially game-saving, but the Cadence have a chance to (quickly) roll over the player rather than waiting us out. The focus is narrowed to the short-term, and players are given a couple ways to get themselves out of that nasty, boring, downward spiral.
  8. I think the only way I'd like this kind of option is if the regent has a chance to say "No." Maybe trigger a one-on-one combat with the sibling/child/niece/nephew sent to replace him/her. That would require some additional AI work, and I don't know if that's really worth the time... Actually, my brain just sketched out a whole big multi-phase event tree for this option with good and bad endings... I'm not going to bother writing it up unless someone actually wants to hear about it... Generally speaking, though, I think it would be hard to disincentivize a depose option strongly enough to prevent players from abusing it, while still making it work mechanically and thematically. I love how stressful the decision of regent can be, and I think it should remain an incredibly significant and long-lasting option.
  9. Oh, oops, I just started a thread in the Bug Reports. http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/16140/ I'll try to keep an eye out for this again, and see if it's reproducible across saves. It would be nice if there was some way to guarantee that combats would use the same random seed across saves so testers could get deterministic outcomes throughout a single fight...
  10. I vote for limiting bloodlines to a single keep and a single relic. Late game relics, too stronk. And as Selke said, it's downright squicky to be able to marry first cousins, regardless of how many keeps have been granted to their parents/uncles/aunts. Also, do we (the community) know what the knockback damage calculations are? Using a Ramcap Caber, I've hit a pair of adjacent Wrinklers into each other and dealt 43 damage to *both*. And that was in .90a!
  11. I've actually had a couple fights where I Knockback a Twitcher into empty space to position them for a Charge or a Knockback Shot stun, but they snap back to the original square before my next action. Is that something they do, or should I try to recreate and report that as a bug?
  12. I agree that the number of starting heroes is fine right now. I think it really is my own preference to rush that first wave of new heroes, and only then because I want to get that third keep active quickly, and I've already put in the 25 years of research to get there, etc., etc.. The new hero every 20-30 years sounds like a great early-but-expensive (base 30 years, maybe?) research that could change the way players approach the mid-game. And... I'm not sure that I agree with the difficulty of the early game being a particular problem. I see your point, JFarceur, about it being very unforgiving and very easy for new players to get into an inescapable rut. That said, I think this game -- along with XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and of course Dwarf Fortress -- have a streak of Rougelike that all but necessitates a bit of up-front difficulty. Maybe my enjoyment there has been an acquired taste, though... Regardless, I think DF Brad has said the difficulty curve is going to be a target for the coming patches.
  13. 8BitCreature. You should toss that example in to the Random Event Ideas sticky.
  14. Alternate title: Does Anyone *not* Immediately Research their Second Keep? I've started a fair few games in the .86 and .90 betas, and every single time my research progression has gone: ** Year 1 - Second Keep ** Year 8 - Health Vial ** Year 14 - Third Keep ** Year 25 - Recruit New Heroes ** Year 29 - First Actual Choice Getting a fast second keep lets you found bloodlines using your initial pool of heroes while giving them enough time to have kids. The early health vials makes combat more fun (I suddenly have another potential action I can perform with each of my heroes) and have amazing mechanical usefulness (seriously, they're so good). The third keep and first wave of new heroes to fill it... Those are admittedly my personal play style. The fact remains, though, I'm not making any interesting research choices for the first 30 years of the game. 10% of each run is autopilot now. I really think I would have more fun if new games were rebalanced to obviate those first 15 years of research. Here's my idea. Start the game with: ** The first empty keep -- as it currently stands, filled as part of the tutorial ** The second empty keep -- placed by the player in case they want the edge-territory bonuses (and risks), and not part of the tutorial so the player can hold off filling it (until after additional research, a cadence encounter, etc.) ** A weak Health Vial -- only heals 4hp (maybe the progression goes Health Vial(4hp)->Megalixer(10hp)->Ultralixer(25hp)) ** A weak Perilous Core -- AoE enough to hit multiple enemies (thrown?), but only deals 3-6 damage so it can't one-shot Seeds The benefits I see in this modified start are pretty numerous: (I like lists, don't judge) ** It takes my early game off autopilot ** It gives players more actions to play with in the first fight (in the form of randomly distributed healing and damaging items) ** It gives players another interesting itemization choice in the early matches (do I want burst heal, or burst AoE?) ** It (potentially) motivates players to upgrade their Mildly-Dangerous Cores into Perilous Cores (an item that I've only seen mocked on these forums) The drawback is that this would make the first maybe three to five cadence fights significantly easier than they are now. There has been some rumblings of the early game being much harder in .90 than in .86 though. Then again I sorta think those first couple encounters could do with a few more Seeds, so... I guess I can't really help there. Thoughts?
  15. Regarding Enforcers I think tastum got it right, that lining up a good knockback is pretty hard right now, and perhaps should be better rewarded. If that skill did extra damage on a stun I think it might be better? If that skill could be used after a sprint... that might actually be overpowered, but man that would be fun... Regarding the Muddiness of Hybrid Classes I actually really like that hybrid classes unfocus your bloodlines, and muddy up the game some. I think that Massive Chalice is different from most tactics games in that I don't think it's actually about carefully manning the battlefield. I think it's about thinking that you're carefully manning the battlefield. It's about the illusion of control, and the feeling of that control slipping away from you, and then you getting away with the win anyway. Or dying horribly. I don't disagree with anyone's analysis that hybrids suffer for being designed from the bottom up, and maybe lack the design and aesthetic focus that the pure classes have, and still need some polishing. I'm not sure, though, that I want to count those marks against them (in this very specific circumstance).
  • Create New...