INCOMING: Version 1.1 - Balance, Gems, Goals, Asymmetry and MORE

Discussion in 'EMPIRE (by Crazy Monkey Studios)' started by keithburgun, Oct 14, 2013.

  1. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Actually... what if for Shirin, warriors were free?
  2. vivafringe

    vivafringe Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Being able to just buy 6 of them any time you want is kind of flat feeling. However I think it would be pretty sweet if you got a free warrior every time you destroyed a blight base.

    Some other things:

    - Now that Meteor is class-specific, can we actually buff it to hit diagonals? I wouldn't have suggested it before because of balance concerns, but it really feels like a fireball should be hitting more than orthogonally adjacent units. If a guy on a horse can poke a guy diagonally, it sure feels like a METEOR should do that as well.

    - I agree with Bucky that starting with a lot of Strife feels kind of shitty. It doesn't feel like a knob that's worth turning, and I think every character should start with the same strife and be balanced elsewhere. Just give the Wizard tons and tons of spells that cost Command IMO, in place of Grit/Valor. With Max CP 4 and bad redraw, they're not going to break the game balance wise, but they'll feel a lot better than starting with a deck full of garbage.

    - While we're on the topic of Wizard, starting with +1 Command seems like a worse passive ability than the other 2, ESPECIALLY since he also has a drawback of crappy Cavalry. Since you're giving Shirin free warriors, maybe the Wizard should get +1 Command +1 Redraw per kill. That feels more like a Wizard ability anyway. Granted, with my previous suggestion this pushes the Wizard into "dangerously OP" territory, but 1) Highscores are separate so who cares and 2) You can increase his drawbacks more to make up for that (for instance 0 Grit 0 Valor and ONLY spells/strife would be a big nerf).
    keithburgun likes this.
  3. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    Nah, I don't think I agree. But if the unit-based move cards compensate a bit, then it may not matter. Basically, you want players at a minimum to be able to reverse the move polarity (odd vs even number of spaces between your unit and enemies), esp with Warriors & Cavalry, and not have to do it for all units at once (a la All Halt) since units typically start with different polarities.
  4. vivafringe

    vivafringe Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Move Any gives players more incentive to have lots of different units. Right now it's not the most powerful way to use 2 CP (Cavalry Move is usually better), but it's nice for its flexibility. I think it should stay in the game as-is.
  5. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    That's very true. I was thinking that the compensation in the unit cards would be what someone else suggested, i.e. moves for different units on the same card.
  6. Yojimbo252

    Yojimbo252 New Member

    Totally agree with much of what Senator and Viva have mentioned.

    I think I suggested some move cards being able to move multiple troop types at once which would be a way of encouraging more combined arms play. I also dig the move card to reposition an Archer behind another troop type. That's a great idea!

    On the subject of the unique cards, I'm still not that keen on the idea but if your heart's set on making them specific to an Emperor can I at least convince you to allow that Emperor to obtain multiples of them as per normal? Only having one throughout the game is inconsequential but if The Wizard can try out a Meteor based strategy as an example, that would be pretty cool.
  7. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Viva; Totally agree with the "free warrior when destroying a base", that's cool!

    I know what you mean, feelings wise, but I still think it's just too powerful and flat that way.

    Ok, sold.

    Also a good idea. Will re-tune his caps a bit to make up for that also.

    Wait, huh? It costs 2 CP? That's news to me if so. Anyway if it costs 2 CP then yeah I'm fine with it.
  8. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    No, it only costs 1 cp.
  9. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    Right, that's what I thought. But I love the idea of making it cost 2, so I'm gonna go with that and put it back in the pool.

    Question: Can there be action cards that cost 2 CP? Or should we make it a spell card because it costs 2?
  10. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    Currently I don't think the action cards say what they cost, so it might be best just to put costs on everything. And in that case, it doesn't really matter whether actions always cost 1 and spells always cost 2.
  11. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    I agree. The cards have been needing better icons for awhile. We have a lot of that planned for 1.2.
  12. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    Move Any, in the sort of strategies we want to encourage, is a tough choice between 'move an archer', 'move a warrior' and 'move a cavalry'. Almost every other card tells the user who to use it on. And it's the necessary glue to hold together an army with three different types of units unless we make Swap free or something.

    EDIT: it's worth noting that, barring Shift Archers with only one Archer, Move Any is the only remaining way to perform the incredibly basic action of moving a single unit to an adjacent row. This role would need replacing.
    Senator likes this.
  13. Nachtfischer

    Nachtfischer Well-Known Member

    But it would probably be a rather overpowered strategy, too. So we'd have the same balancing problem again, just sort of shifted to another place. Maybe it's even worse, because you can't even reliably get Meteors. So it would come down to hoping for Meteors to show up (if it'd turn out to be the optimal thing) and in the end almost to playing slots.

    Concerning "Move Any": I agree it should stay in the pool, with the 2 command point cost. It's a really good card (hence the double cost), but as Bucky pointed out also an important one to have in the game. Cutting it out would likely be too much.
  14. Yojimbo252

    Yojimbo252 New Member

    I don't really like the idea of taking a card out of the game if it's too powerful, that's the easy way out and has a big downside in that it reduces choice. I know someone is going to come back at me and say it's still in the game it's just unique, but like I've been saying when there's only 1 of that card and only for a particular Emperor it will have negligible impact, it's effectively out of the game.

    I don't have an issue with it being toned down in some way or its cost increased if people honestly believe it's too good but to strip it out is bad for the game in my opinion. If someone wants to try a predominantly spell based strategy, what are they supposed to use? The other offensive spells are relatively weak in terms of direct damage and Meteor is about the only one that gives a spell based player any chance of eliminating a reasonably sized enemy force.

    And besides, who ever heard of a magic game with no Fireball spell? ;)
  15. torm3ntin

    torm3ntin New Member

    I agree with yojimbo252 that taking a card out of the game is kinda harsh.

    But i also agree with keith that the card is way too good the way it is. The best would be to raise it's cost for 2. That would still make it playable but not overpowered.
    We still gotta remember that in the end, Keith want to kill us :D
  16. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    I think a win condition of "defeat the super army that appears when you get 200 Victory Points" would feel more satisfying.
    Senator likes this.
  17. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    OK, I said I'd give up on this, but last night I played a game where I really tried to be aggressive with the Purge card. I got one after one my very first battles, then picked up another one in the middle game. At literally every opportunity, I burned through all my redraws to see if I could set up a worthwhile Purge (at least two strife, or any other two cards that I didn't want in my hand e.g. Archer Shift). Despite having stocked up on cycling cards (ie ones that give redraws). I literally couldn't use either of the Purge cards until my deck was more than 25% Strife--in other words, until after the start of the death spiral toward game end, about 80% of the way through the game. I never was able to use the second Purge, and I passed on the opportunity to take a third in the endgame because...why?

    So, I carried what was essentially an extra Strife card for 75% of the game, and a second one for about 50% of the game; I also burned a bunch of redraw points in pursuit of it. It's great that one of those cards finally did let me get rid of a couple of Strifes. But can there really be a justification for keeping Purge at 2 command points when it so often means that you are taking on voluntary junk card just to have the chance to purge? The Copy card--which also gains its usefulness from the other cards in your hand--is free, and it gives you both long-term benefit (potentially doubling your chance of being able to use the most powerful card in the deck), and short-term benefit (being able to use that card twice in one turn).

    Bottom line: Purge should cost 0 command, so that you can at least be guaranteed to be able use it when the chance arises.
    torm3ntin likes this.
  18. torm3ntin

    torm3ntin New Member

    Agree with this. It's already hard enough to find a good situation where you can purge something useless. Costing 2 commands make it even MORE unusable. But then again, the point of the game is screw us anyway so...
  19. EnDevero

    EnDevero Well-Known Member

    The game wants to screw you for sure, but it also wants to be fair.
  20. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    I agree, pushing the player into a climactic battle that's harder than the rest would feel more like "really winning".

Share This Page