Idea for Goals

Discussion in 'EMPIRE (by Crazy Monkey Studios)' started by Dasick, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. Dasick

    Dasick Well-Known Member

    Everyone here has played 4Xes I assume, so I don't think I need to explain how "winning" in empire is not at all like winning in one of those. Goals in empire feel a bit tacked on.

    Here is my suggestion - the game ends at a certain VP threshold, 100 for easy/quick mode, 200 for medium/average length, 500 for hard/epic. However, aside from the binary win/lose, there is also a percentage of how well you did, based on where those VPs came from. If you're the senator, you only count VPs you get from civic activities, such as building academies and feasts. So for a score of 200, senator getting 35 points off civic activities, the senator actually only won 17.5% percent. To win 100%, the senator would have to have won 0 battles or any other VP sources and still get to 200 VPs (which is near damn impossible (which is the point)). Same with the warrior princess - she would have to keep her economy in shambles and rely on combat prowess to carry the entire realm (again - near impossible). The wizard could have something related to how many magic cards he has out of all the cards he has. This would also make all the characters play very differently.

    This is not meant to be the main mode, just something more comparable to 4X game victory conditions to help 4X fans transition into the highscore chasing mode.
     
    Nachtfischer likes this.
  2. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    I agree with the general sentiment of your point, but I actually think it gets a little too complicated with the whole % of where your points came from thing. I would sooner just make it that the Senator just doesn't get points from combat at all, although that seems like it might break the game.

    I'm pushing for introducing a kind of metagame XP system that sort of tracks your wins/losses and gives you ranks and stuff, because I think the game is a little skimpy on "structure". It just feels too much like getting points in some isolated NES game that doesn't save your scores or something. Also for the PC version I think we need something like this even more.
     
  3. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    The metagame stuff is a good idea.

    I think that a natural goal could be to clear the land of monsters--basically, once you reveal the whole contiguous landmass (ignoring isolated hexes of fog within), new monster nests cease to spawn. Once you clear the remaining nests (and wandering monsters?), the game ends. This would require changes to fog reveal, of course, to ensure fair incentives and lack of exploits surrounding exploration (probably also some auto-explore mechanism so that there is always a ticking clock), but could be interesting.
     
  4. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Making the goal "clearing the land of monsters" has two problems. One is that it's one of those "sudden COMPLETION STATES coming into an otherwise endless system", like you have in roguelikes with their weird vestigial "beat the game" condition, which means that the game is evergreen UNTIL you hit this arbitary spot.

    The other problem is that it's actually a really big deal to change the goal to a non-VP goal. It would mean we would have to remove VPs so we didn't have two conflicting goals, which might have a lot of ramifications, I'd have to think about it.
     
  5. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    When clearing everything was possible in the first beta, there was no conflict; destroy all monsters = endless feasting = effectively infinite VPs.
     
  6. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    I'm not sure I understand your point there.
     
  7. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    It sounds like I need to do a better job explaining this suggestion. I am not suggesting moving away from VP, rather I'm thinking of clearing the land as essentially a timer: you have until the fog has cleared, basically, to collect VP. There would be some work involved in tweaking the exploration system (most centrally: other systems would probably have to change a bit too) to provide proper incentives for exploring; probably you'd also need some mechanism for fog to be cleared that didn't depend on the player.
     
  8. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Yeah... how do we make it so that the optimal play isn't just "explore everything but 1 tile".

    Kinda makes me wonder if we should do the whole Desktop Dungeons thing, and you get Gems FOR exploring, but also uncover+activate monsters.
     
    Dasick likes this.
  9. ComfortablyNumb

    ComfortablyNumb New Member

    I'm new to the game, been playing for a week or so on android so please take with a grain of salt. Tho did just get high score there. I love the game, thanks for your efforts!

    From what I see is there is already a built-in incentive for exploring...the fact that you're alerted to all spawns and have the first chance to attack..maybe after 85% visibility, u get a gem cache or possibly a card..idk. seems balanced.

    I like the idea of cross game upgrades...a research new skills/enhancements. Would help create a long term goal (besides points..)
    Only obstacle here is that they would reduce the difficulty of the game, and greatly lengthen the time of each game..

    The pursuit of long term goals brings more in line with the 4x games I've always loved, (civ, aow, etc.) But is a slippery slope away from the core of what u bring. I'm going to think more about it.

    Thanks for the great game!
     
    keithburgun likes this.
  10. Strattis

    Strattis Member

    I think the map section of the game is perfect as it is. It simplifies overly complex pc titles whilst retaining plenty of strategic options. The ability to 'store' settlers when you already have three cities is a great idea. I think it is such a good idea that you should be able to do the same with the troops. Just one of each kind extra (3 in total), so that if you lose one in battle it can be instantly replaced by its reserve. This will also make the resurrect card more powerful as it gives the opportunity to have more than 6 units on the battlefield. I also think there should be more variety of cards. After a few battles, choosing the spoils becomes tiring as the player is faced with the same old cards. Also, I think there should be more cards like ALL HALT that have more than one action, rather than simply having an instant effect on the battlefield. Apart from that, it's a brilliant game.
     
  11. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    I like that idea about units, strattis, but the bigger problem is that it's better to have 3 units than it is to have 6 due to tying unit-death to strife (which we're gonna change in 1.2).
     
  12. Silvercloak

    Silvercloak New Member

    Is this true? I've done pretty well at the game, and I'm really not sure. I found there was an interesting tension in number of units, where with fewer I could use my cards to save individuals, but with more I had the firepower to keep the enemy under control and my units inherently needed less saving. Overall I thought I did slightly better with a maximal sized army, but I'm not super-confident about this.

    If it is better not to have the biggest possible army, I agree that that's a problem -- not for game balance as such, but because it's so counterintuitive. Players will want to build a big army, and it's silly to punish them for it.

    So ... if you think four units (say) is strongest, perhaps the simplest solution would be just to cap army size at four. Of course this doesn't work if you think the problem is that six units is stronger, but four is more fun (which I find quite plausible).
     
    ComfortablyNumb likes this.
  13. ComfortablyNumb

    ComfortablyNumb New Member

    I have to say I think 6 is better than 4. And in late game where fighting groups of 20+, imperative.

    Larger armies give more room for error in starting positions, cards, and dumb mistakes..

    I agree and said elsewhere that keeping player's options open will almost always improve their game experience.
     

Share This Page