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

    Yeah, I hear you. Honestly, the real answer to doing score is to do with this game what we did with Auro - some kind of multiplayer score-contest thing. Not exactly sure how that would manifest in Empire, but I am exactly sure that we don't have time - at least right now - to work on such a large scope system.

    So, what we are doing with the VP-goal is giving players something to work towards. It's got a lot of limitations because - as you guys mentioned, it might not really "feel" like victory, for one thing. Also it's just a arbitrary spot we chose. However, I still think it's the best practical solution we have available.

    As to a climactic battle... I don't know if our system supports a battle climactic enough to really feel like very significant, at least not without a ton of work. Also what's to stop players from just not-fighting the climactic battle? I don't know, it's complicated and a bit weird and I'm not sure the payoff would be what you guys are thinking.
     
  2. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    A 'set piece' battle that sets the player against a pre-defined, pre-arranged and large enemy force should work.

    e.g. 4 archers in the back row with a solid wall of 4 cavalry and 4 warriors in front of them.
     
  3. sterben

    sterben New Member

    One thing that might be fun along these lines would be to have a 'super' nest form towards late game (either after some number of VPs or weeks) which, upon defeat, would "end" the game. The player would thus have to choose between trying to accumulate further VPs against an increasingly overwhelming enemy and potentially risking defeat, or attempting to defeat the "final nest" and win, thereby sacrificing any VPs they may have earned had they waited just a bit longer. Of course, this boss nest would need to be of appropriate difficulty somehow, which is not just as simple as adding more monsters to kill. Just a thought!
     
    vivafringe likes this.
  4. Kdansky

    Kdansky Well-Known Member

    As for Meteor and hitting diagonals: Why not have two Meteor-type spells (Fire Meteor / Ice Meteor), one of which hits only diagonally, and one hits only orthogonal? It would be in theme very much, not break balance, and make the Wizard more spell-focused. More than one unique card for a class? Why not! Symmetry is not required.

    Boss-battle: Be really careful. You run the risk of fucking up like FTL did, in that the whole game becomes a pure preparation race for a yet unknown puzzle. That boss-battle in FTL really made the game worse than it should have been, because it broke down to "collect the required items: Cloak, 4+ shield, 5+ crew (ideally one or two melee focused guys), and two out of three of EMP/drones/missiles". I'd rather the game just increased difficulty a tiny bit at a time, with more units, or stronger units (Champions with one extra HP?), or something similar. Then it would be more about "how far did you get?" and less about "did you defeat that one arbitrary challenge?".

    I agree that more basic movement cards are a good idea. I found it very annoying when I just could not affect the battle at all, because I only had three movement cards in my deck, one of which was for a unit I didn't bring. Then the battle is all about RNG placement. Also Zap sucks. How about making it cost 1 Command? Then it would feel worth playing over Meteor.
     
  5. keithburgun

    keithburgun Administrator, Lead Designer Staff Member

    If we had a boss battle, it would only be for a special "story mode", not for the main game.

    Also 2 major attack spells like that might just be too many major attack spells in the deck early game.
     
  6. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    I've seen the FTL boss die to a player with no cloak, EMP, drones or missiles. There's a pretty wide space of possible solutions.
     
  7. mgeiger9

    mgeiger9 New Member

    I disagree--Zap's biggest benefit is being able to change the opponent's position, which can be the difference between keeping or losing one of your units, or keeping an opponent away from your base for one more turn to allow you to destroy theirs. There are definitely situations in which Meteor is clearly preferable, but I think Zap is a useful card.
     
  8. Senator

    Senator Moderator

    Yeah, Zap is definitely a nice card to have and very distinct from meteor. And in the 1.1 beta, it does 2 damage, so it's an instakill for anything but warriors.
     

Share This Page