Chronic Logic

Quote from: mongolian on November 27, 2009, 03:30:42 AM
Thanks for the long reply sgainford.  I can't stress how wonderful it is to read long well thought out responses. I try not to be detailed with my ideas, therefore letting the developers deviate how they please.  But, I will get more specific:

1.   More Advertising/Marketing. (with budget: gmail/yahoo email advertising), (grassroots: marketing at game/anime conventions, revamping and re-advertising on gamer sites like jayisgames.com, free CD's of game handing around campuses across USA)

If you mean advertising through the actual email interface, that's actually an inefficient allocation of funds.  I went to a conference a few weeks ago and attended a talk given by one of yahoo's marketing researchers, and it turns out the rate of return for email advertising could be as low as 0. 

Quote from: sgainford on November 25, 2009, 11:11:29 AM
However there is a big set back to this game which will stop it being analysed and evaluated to its full extent, and stop it being as popular or more popular then Chess -- The time constraints. It is a real blow to the game because it doesn't give you the time to discover the full potential of the game. The time constraints really need to be scrapped. At the moment the game is like speed Chess, not real Chess, and that is just sloppy play. Some will disagree with me and probably will say that they don't want to sit around for hours and wait for their opponent to move. However if email play is set up then that won't be a problem (Please see my other comment above on email play). I personally think this game is so complex that it really can't even be properly played unless it is played by email. And for beginning players, who are already overwhelmed with how many units there are and all the units' special skills, when added with hardly any time to make a move and having to rush their move, they just feel inundated.  

Eliminating the time constraints is likely to alienate more people than it would draw in;  very few people actually enjoy sitting at their screen for ten minutes doing nothing while their opponent meticulously analyzes(and probably overanalyzes) everything. Back when I played in a chess club, even the most enthusiastic players would take out the timer, because they didn't feel like, or couldn't, play a very protracted game.  I'm also not enthusiastic about the potential being locked into a game when an opponent goes afk indefinitely. While I wouldn't protest a game mode where you can 'save' a game, uploading a move whenever you log in, 'email Zatikon' with a playerbase this size wouldn't work.  Having people in the chatroom when you first log into the game is a comfort, and creates a sense of community when you regularly interact in continuous time with other individuals.

It's pretty rare that I feel the time constraint is inhibiting;  I usually finish plays with 30 seconds or more left on the clock, and am not sure what I would do with the remainder.  The duration of my opponent's turn is perfectly adequate to develop a strategy.

Quote from: Lunaraia on November 19, 2009, 03:01:14 AM
as for prices, how about being allowed to name the next unit that you make?

If they implement a more 'campaign-style' single player/coop at some point, getting an opposing 'hero-unit' named after your in-game name would be neat.

I don't believe this works for mimic/necromancer-lich, but the lycanthrope can, after moving/attacking, receive diplomatic immunity by shapeshifting.  This means that I can move the lycanthrope up the field unopposed, since I just make him immune with the diplomat after attacking/moving.

Please, take this exploitative strategy away from me!

I personally wouldn't mind seeing an identical random mode added(not as a replacement for the current mode), although I'm not sure I would play it-I personally prefer to occasionally lose a match because I got an unworkable draw than to have every high ranked game be a protracted stalemate.

If you did add such a mode, please remove dracolich from the possible units to draw.  Dracolich v. Dracolich is a game of reversi, since units can be resurrected indefinitely. I think I played an hour and a half long game against Unique when I drew dracolich, and he drew a mimic(I somehow won, but it just wasn't worth it).  There are other units that I could mention that would essentially drive players to click the 'draw' button, but the dracolich is the worst offender in that respect.

On a similar note, it would be nice if mason were a rarer draw in random-it also makes for very protracted game, and no unit shuts down so many other units for such a low unit cost.

Regarding the idea of a tournament:

The basic structure of the tournament you suggested would likely be problematic, as there probably isn't a specific time when we can all play at once.  

My particular idea for a tournament would be this; during a 'registration' period, players select 1-3 constructed armies, which they will be locked into(On this note-the army archive in the mac version still crashes the game), for the tournament.  When the tournament begins, players will receive a number of tokens.  They can then click on a 'tournament mode' button, choose how many tokens they're wagering on that game.  Another player makes the same decision, with the smallest token gamble being accepted(By this, I mean that if player 1 is  willing to wager 3 tokens, and player 2 is only willing to wager 2 tokens, then both players can only win/lose 2 tokens.

The player with the most tokens at the end of the tournament period(month long periods, with a week in between for example) wins.  Of course, the tournament would need to be restricted to players who had bought at least one expansion, to prevent people from creating 'fake' accounts to gather up tokens.  It would probably also be ideal to implement some sort of 'cooldown' on playing the same player, or even for playing a tournament round against anyone(So that you can play a player perhaps twice during a tournament), so that people who play less aren't at a substantial disadvantage.

Oh, and a shiny border around our names/rank, a title before our chat, and a unit useable only in coop/single would be neat prizes.

This is a change to the strength potion I've wanted for a while; it should simply provide a temporary damage increase, rather than allowing an archer to one shot a wyrm.

Well, the fact that I can't think of a single TBS game that 'made it big' in recent history probably suggests that it was pushed aside for 'continuous' games(some more effort could probably be made to draw in chess players).  It's also difficult for small companies to create games with a multiplayer emphasis, since these sorts of games require a certain number of players to get them rolling(although the 'chess club' feel of the Zatikon community isn't unpleasant);  the 'value' of a game with a multiplayer emphasis depends, to a large extent, on how many people are playing it.  Large companies have the marketing tools to make sure that they get enough players.

Thus, making the single player more engaging is probably the single most important change that could be made;  while I've typically noticed a decent number of people on lately, the fact is that many players come in to a nearly empty chat room and get discouraged, or bored with the AI.  New players are also often hesitant to play against higher ranked players, because they expect to just get crushed.  These people need a more engaging 1v1 for learning, or more 'new' players to play against.

I don't have any specific suggestions at this time for single player, but I think most people agree that 'fight your way through endless waves of enemies on the same field every game' gets a tad repetitive.  

The vs. modes in this game are great, but they're hard for new players to jump into.

I agree that the artificer's 'make permanently inorganic' probably needs to go.  Maybe a temporary inorganic status? Personally, I think the artificer should be downgraded to 250 points, have a 'make temporarily inorganic' ability, the ability to add armor to inorganics, and the ability to heal one inorganic at a time.

I don't think units that are inorganic by default pose a serious balance issue, if any. 

While probably a challenge for experienced players, or players who cheese single player with hydra and changlings(like me), I think this would probably be more frustrating than it's worth;  you can expect to lose against the AI all the time with a randomized army.  IT also might detract from the feeling of 'progression' as people earn gold to add new units to their army.

But I suppose that it might be useful for players who aren't brand new(they would undoubtedly be frustrated by the format) but aren't particularly experienced either.  I suppose it might also be less frustrating than being crushed in random, or 'shocked' when an AI unit does something you were unfamiliar with.

Quote from: Kran on October 11, 2009, 07:47:10 PM

I  think Luna misunderstood your suggestion;  he seems to have read it as 'wyvern can lay eggs without feeding', when your proposition only allows this once.

Quote from: Rudolf on October 10, 2009, 06:53:46 AM
Lunaraia/Norsker,

Thank for the feedbacks.



Shouldn't the warrior be more powerful than the golem 1 on 1 since it is organic and vulnerable to spells/stun/poison etc.? Right now the Golem has an edge (move within 2 to warrior and warrior has to retreat or lose the exchange)

The golem is a very slow unit that is pretty easy to harass( an effective attack range of 2 isn't very much), or surround and kill as necessary;  its primary value is  to provide some cover for other advancing units by forcing the enemy army to either focus on it(leaving the other units unscathed)  or take at most one shot before falling back to avoid being crushed by the golem.   Keep in mind that the golem, after taking damage, very rarely has the opportunity to regain it;  organic units can be healed by the templar, acolyte, abjurer, druid, quartermaster, healer, and alchemist.  Bringing down a golem supported by artificer heals is frustrating if you only have low power units to attack it, but think of it this way;  golem + artificer cost 550 points-this should leave you a lot of leeway to move around the board with your cheap weak units and take out that artificer.  Some constructed armies may be able to support golem + artificer, but hey, that's why I play random for rated games(Too much rock-paper-scissors)  .

QuoteI gather that you've had some bad experiences with inorganics./quote]

That may be very true  
but it is more the case that I share your view that:


logically inorganics shouldn't be affected by poison/spells (and poison/spells are somewhat overpowered against organics, so need inorganics to compensate).

While an army with at least one spellcaster will do better than one with none, I'm not sure I'd agree that they're overpowered(at least as an aggregate)

Quote
Hence my solution of making units like warrior and wyvern, which are also less effective against inorganics, more "anti-inorganic" and compensate by a more versatile (and maybe stronger) Artificer.

While some units will have an edge over others, I dislike the idea of 'rock-paper-scissors' balancing of units.

Make sure you include the left bracket when you're quoting;  there are a lot of quote]s there.

Quote from: Rudolf on October 09, 2009, 03:55:58 PM


Magus/Spirit: How about returning to castle after 10 turns? So it is mostly used to protect the Magus and stop gap defense (when rushed), not destroy an opponent's low armor army. In return, allow it to move the turn it is changed into spirit form.

I suppose I'm of the general dissenting opinion that I don't think there's any problem with the current incarnation of the spirit;  there are very few situations in which I would prefer to deal with magus stun/wisps rather than the same magus in spirit form.  

I think your suggestion might be actually make the magus/spirit more powerful;  right now, swapping to spirit form is a very drastic move that a player should take awhile to consider.  If you could get the spirit to return back to the castle, you would only need to temporarily forsake wisps/stun while you go pick off your opponent's weaker units.  

Quote
Artificer: change existing spell to: repair all allied inorganics up to 2 damages. Also change existing spell to: increase armor of one inorganic unit by 1. Add new spell: completely repair one inorganic unit. Also add new spell: create guardian once per game: Guardian= 2 life, 2 armor, 3 power, range 2, inorganic, immobile. This should make it more versatile but less extreme when used with a golem (or other high life units) army.  

High life armies tend to be relatively easy to maneuver around, and the artificer is quite susceptible to a rush armies.  It might be a tad strong in 1v1 situations, but less so that a conjurer or wizard.  I do, however, dislike the fact that it 'completely' shuts down a wide variety of units(spellcasters/units that stun/fanatic/units that poison).  I might be amenable to a cheaper artificer that cannot make units inorganic, or for a weaker 'inorganic' ability, whereby units because invulnerable only to spells.

It's also unfortunate that the almost guaranteed presence of an artificer in 2v2 limits one's ability to bring spellcasters in.  As a side note, I would love to see a 'random' version of 2v2;  power combos are way to dominant in the current format.

QuoteHydra: cannot be rallied, but attacks use no more than one command (free after first attack).

I would propose a slight alteration;  when the hydra attacks, all available heads necessary to kill the target attack(e.g., if a unit would take two hydra attacks to kill, a the hydra would have two fewer heads available)

Quote
Warrior: +2 damage to inorganics. Do not gain action points on killing inorganics.

While I believe that infantry in general are unwieldy, this seems somewhat arbitrary.  

QuoteWyvern: devour works on inorganics. eggs are inorganic, 1 armor and 3 life.

I gather that you've had some bad experiences with inorganics.

This doesn't rectify the fundamental problem with the wyvern;  it's a terrible unit against pretty much any army because almost every army can either kill it or disable it before it can escape and reproduce.



[/quote]

Kran, did you ask for socks for Christmas as a child?

Yes, but I can't imagine it's an intended use.