Your Move Games
May 24, 2013, 01:27:53 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Defensive Skill IS better than Toughness and thoughts on dealing with it  (Read 761 times)
Hannibal
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2393


I want caaaake!! I want it noooow!!


« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2012, 02:38:30 pm »

Quote
My point is you never have to make that trade, because you can still get the bonus by ensuring your guy is on Close.

Yeah, and my thought is that you should.  For example, it is currently child's play to get the best of both worlds by putting a unit on Close with a terrain objective between it and the enemy unit.  If we include some rule where there is a downside to trying to delay a turn while on Close (by that shenanigan or by DCing), then we'll get more of a risk/reward element to delaying.  But any reduction of the effectiveness of the Charge bonus makes the charge less valuable and thus makes being on Close less valuable. 

I think rewarding people for being aggressive and engaging is good, especially since the game structure by itself rewards attempting to delay.  Which is fine, I think.  I just think lets not swing any further in that direction and if anything we should tack slightly away from that.



Quote
If units had (+0) +1/+0 bonus for holding,

Frankly it seems weird to get that bonus for holding.  To me a unit on Hold should get Def: +1/+0, but that flies in the face of the desired goal.



Quote
However, I do think that the meta of the game would change DRASTICALLY if we were to make this change. In particular, there are a lot more Toughness 4 critters out there than DSkill 4 units (celestial guard, elven cav on the charge turn). Basically, I would take MM next tourney if we went this way.

Yeah that's my concern, that the meta would be changed too much.  There are a lot of factions out there that lack a Pow 6 unit specifically because the designers factored in the Charge bonus. 


Quote
I think we all recognize that this is an issue, but I think we've reached a point where we're going to start to mess the game up for constantly changing rules in pursuit of an illusionary goal of balance.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying here (especially on cavalry), but I do think that high toughness factions are still just the bottom of the heap.  However, I think this is one of those rare cases where addressing the specific problem creates more issues than it solves and that in fact it might be better to holistically balance the units.  I still think there's merit to the +1 Cge if a unit has a higher Toughness and think that would go a long way to making high Toughness units better.  It would also make them play different:  more grindy and less likely to be broken through.


I know I'm not on the design team anymore, but as a player in the community my opinion on changing the charge bonus is still an emphatic no.  That being said, Niko, if you really like the idea, post a couple of battle reports I guess.
Logged

Kevin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3486



« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2012, 03:28:18 pm »

Just for the recod I think it would be awesome to see Seth play Monsters & Mercs.
Logged

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. - Winston Churchill
Zelc
Playtester
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 730


« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2012, 05:14:26 pm »

Quote
This change would really hurt cavalry which depend on their charge turn and the impact hit to make up for their small health, and cav feel pretty well balanced to me at the moment.
Someone please do me a favor.  Go download my attack calculator (see link in my signature).  Run some cavalry units or other front-loaded units into enemy defensive profiles they'll probably go after (probably don't need to charge them into the 1/4 Treant Tongue).  Check what percent of the time they'll deal enough damage to force a turn 1 rout check with both the current setup and if charging gave (+1) +0/+0.  Report back Smiley.

If you're feeling particularly generous, download my combat simulator and run some of these combats (5000 trials is good, although 2000 could work and 25000 is ideal).
Logged

Uriel Doombringer
House of Midnight
Playtester
Full Member
*****
Posts: 159


High Blood Prince of Conquered Ravenwood


« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2012, 09:37:50 am »

Hannibal: I don't think the cases are "rare" when a change to fix a small problem creates more problems elsewhere, probably more like "frequent" - but then again, I work in the land of land use regulations (a real life board game) where our decisions have wide-ranging impacts.

Zelc: I'd be curious to see these outcomes too - though part of my point is actually how much tougher it would make x/4 monsters. As it is now, you can often charge the Treant or Dragon with Knights and maybe not do enough damage to cause a check on turn one, but do a lot of damage, particularly if you bring force or might. But right now heavy cave on Str 8 would on 4s or less. Under the change there will be very few sources of Str 8 in the game at all (and force will become a swingier card)... Anyway, for these reasons, I will probably play some playtest games with Mercs soon including the spoils, and the +1 attack for charging, and trample for large monsters. (You're all doomed).

Logged

Yours shall be the doom of the elves of Ravenwood, if you oppose the demands of the pure blood.
Hannibal
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2393


I want caaaake!! I want it noooow!!


« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2012, 11:14:38 am »

Quote
Hannibal: I don't think the cases are "rare" when a change to fix a small problem creates more problems elsewhere, probably more like "frequent" - but then again, I work in the land of land use regulations (a real life board game) where our decisions have wide-ranging impacts.

Just to clarify, I was stating that this was a case where addressing the problem itself, head-on, is a bad idea.  Too often in game design (and in my previous jobs:  local government [which is almost entirely land-use] and grant management for HUD) if you had a problem trying to address it holistically was a bad idea.

In other words, if the stated problem is that the free Pow bump on the charge is making Toughness not worth its points, then the simple solutions are:  1)  recost Toughness or 2) remove the Pow bump.  Usually when these problems come up people want to add special rules (like, for example, +1 Cge for tougher guys Wink) which creates unintended consequences later.

In this case it's the opposite:  addressing the problem head-on actually causes more problems than it solves (IMO).  So the holistic work-around is better (again, IMO).

Just wanted to clarify what I seemingly failed to say before.


Land use . . .   shudder
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!

Bad Behavior has blocked 2543 access attempts in the last 7 days.