PDA

View Full Version : [Split] Discussion on hand creature limit and gamer skill



Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 11:32
Also, it allows the faster clicking gamers (i.e. "twitch gamers") to gain an advantage (in an RTS, no less), and those fast clicking players will still be fast enough to create a lot of clutter once they familiarise themselves with the GUI, so as far as solutions go it's a pretty poor bandaid.

On the subject of the 8 Hand Limit, no I don't think it is balanced when it comes to stopping a Player from dropping huge armies all at once. Anyone who's smart can abuse the pause option get around that anyways. I know it was definately possible in both DK1 and DK2. It also adds an advantage to the Hero Side as they have smaller numbers.

However, an 8 Hand Limit does offer more balance compared to DK2's 64 Hand Limit. There's other aspects of the game that it effects other than battles. Let's use the prison for example. In DK2, all you need is a 3x3 Prison. Using a 3x3 Prison, you can gain up to 66 Prisoners at one time if you wanted to.

Having such a large Hand limit does offer other perks that are quite abusable. Therefore, I think a smaller hand limit should be in place in order to prevent this kind of abuse.

MeinCookie
October 12th, 2011, 12:09
12-18 hand limit would be nice. Enough to withdraw/deploy decent numbers of creatures as required, not so exploitable... and I always felt it was really annoying moving large amounts of gold in DK 1.

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 12:18
12-18 hand limit would be nice. Enough to withdraw/deploy decent numbers of creatures as required, not so exploitable... and I always felt it was really annoying moving large amounts of gold in DK 1.

I don't think there's enough drawback to remove the Prison Abuse. Normally you don't have too many Prisoners at one point in time either, so 12-18 Hand Limit would still be signficiantly abusable.

As for gold, I do recall there were plans so you could pick up practically unlimited amounts of Gold. Units are the ones that will be effected by the Hand Limit. (And possibly certain other things such as chickens)

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 13:02
What Prison Abuse? Holding prisoners in the hand because the prison is too small? I don't see that as much of an exploit, it saves you from building a slightly larger Prison at the cost of having your hand full, limiting doing other stuff.

EDIT: Also,


On the subject of the 8 Hand Limit, no I don't think it is balanced when it comes to stopping a Player from dropping huge armies all at once. Anyone who's smart can abuse the pause option get around that anyways. I know it was definately possible in both DK1 and DK2.
How do you intend to pause the game in multiplayer?

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 13:12
What Prison Abuse? Holding prisoners in the hand because the prison is too small? I don't see that as much of an exploit, it saves you from building a slightly larger Prison at the cost of having your hand full, limiting doing other stuff.


In DK2, all you need is a 3x3 Prison. Using a 3x3 Prison, you can gain up to 66 Prisoners at one time if you wanted to.

Having such a large Hand limit does offer other perks that are quite abusable. Therefore, I think a smaller hand limit should be in place in order to prevent this kind of abuse.


EDIT: Also,


How do you intend to pause the game in multiplayer?

That was more directed at single player gameplay, obviously.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 13:18
That was more directed at single player gameplay, obviously.

It's not an issue in singleplayer because in Hero maps balance is entirely different anyway and it's not as much an issue, and in Keeper maps, the AI would just as well do something to the same effect anyway. Plus, if you have to abuse pause to do this to defeat a singleplayer level, that's just sad.

Multiplayer is where the problem resides, if without pause it cannot be done there's no problem anymore.

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 13:28
It's not an issue in singleplayer because in Hero maps balance is entirely different anyway and it's not as much an issue, and in Keeper maps, the AI would just as well do something to the same effect anyway. Plus, if you have to abuse pause to do this to defeat a singleplayer level, that's just sad.

Multiplayer is where the problem resides, if without pause it cannot be done there's no problem anymore.

Never said anything about a need to pause abuse in order to beat a stage, in fact I doubt it really will even help a Player beat a stage. I was merely adding onto some ways where a Player could work around the 8 Hand Limit.

Also, you must be forgetting the problem that Funderbuck stated.


Also, it allows the faster clicking gamers (i.e. "twitch gamers") to gain an advantage (in an RTS, no less), and those fast clicking players will still be fast enough to create a lot of clutter once they familiarise themselves with the GUI, so as far as solutions go it's a pretty poor bandaid.

This is the true problem that exists in both Single Player and Multiplayer.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 13:31
Also, it allows the faster clicking gamers (i.e. "twitch gamers") to gain an advantage (in an RTS, no less), and those fast clicking players will still be fast enough to create a lot of clutter once they familiarise themselves with the GUI, so as far as solutions go it's a pretty poor bandaid.

This is the true problem that exists in both Single Player and Multiplayer.

Skills are bad? NOOOOO, CURSE YOU GAMER SKILLS!

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 14:08
Skills are bad? NOOOOO, CURSE YOU GAMER SKILLS!

...you really don't see his point nor the problem he pointed out, do you?


I think you may be making a misconception there, the choice to restrict the max amount of holding creatures to 8 is not to go back to DK1's technological limitations. It was for balance purposes. Having an unlimited amount of creatures holdable at once makes it too easy to instantly drop an entire army of creatures on any one spot, which would easily cause a lot of clutter when attacking an opponent. To find a solution to this issue, it was proposed to limit the max amount of holding creatures, simply because it's an easy fix to the issue.

You stated that the reason why WftO had adopted the 8 Hand Limit was because it was for balancing purposes, being as it prevented a Player from dropping an entire army all at once.


Also, it allows the faster clicking gamers (i.e. "twitch gamers") to gain an advantage (in an RTS, no less), and those fast clicking players will still be fast enough to create a lot of clutter once they familiarise themselves with the GUI, so as far as solutions go it's a pretty poor bandaid.

He argued that that isn't a very good reason for implimenting the 8 Hand Limit because it didn't stop a Player from dropping an army at once. Saying it requires skill does not make it "balanced" either. That's like calling chain grabs from SSB balanced because they require a lot of skill to pull off. And I have to agree with Funderbunk that this is a poor solution for this problem.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 14:12
That's like calling chain grabs from SSB balanced because they require a lot of skill to pull off.

What, you mean they aren't balanced?

I suppose we have different standards of what is "balanced" then.

(Unless you were talking about chaingrab infinites, which is a different case entirely)

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 15:02
What, you mean they aren't balanced?

I suppose we have different standards of what is "balanced" then.

(Unless you were talking about chaingrab infinites, which is a different case entirely)

http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu284/DarkFire4114/DonkeyKongFacepalm.jpg

I'm sorry but that deserved a Donkey Kong so much. I know you know that that is exactly what I meant when I referenced SSB.

Judging by the fact that you're not even bothering to try and reply to the actual topic and instead want to pick at the wording I used for a reference, I'm going to presume you withdraw your arguements.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 15:11
Judging by the fact that you're not even bothering to try and reply to the actual topic and instead want to pick at the wording I used for a reference, I'm going to presume you withdraw your arguements.

Your presumption is, bluntly put, dumb. Seriously.

And how about you get the term right rather than pulling Donkey Kong out of your ass.



Chaingrab infinites it is then. I have been part of the SSBM/SSBB competitive community for quite a while (back in around 2006-2009), and I only know of two chaingrab infinites so far which actually meant anything.

King Dedede's down throw chaingrab in SSBB. Caused problems with being an easy infinite on about 2/3rds of the cast, but only in stages that had open ends or walls, which both are generally disliked in the competitive community anyway, so stages like that don't appear in competitive gameplay (and even then it's situational anyway). I fail to see the relevance with anything here.
Ice Climber's infinite chaingrabs. I find it funny because these are perfectly legal techniques - and yet Ice Climbers aren't top tier. You know why? Because it required skill to pull off. Perfect example of a chaingrab infinite considered balanced by a competitive community. What was your point again?

Metal Gear Rex
October 12th, 2011, 15:22
Your presumption is, bluntly put, dumb. Seriously.



Chaingrab infinites it is then. I have been part of the SSBM/SSBB competitive community for quite a while (back in around 2006-2008), and I only know of two chaingrab infinites so far which actually meant anything.

King Dedede's down throw chaingrab in SSBB. Caused problems with being an easy infinite on about 2/3rds of the cast, but only in stages that had open ends or walls, which both are generally disliked in the competitive community anyway, so stages like that don't appear in competitive gameplay (and even then it's situational anyway). I fail to see the relevance with anything here.
Ice Climber's infinite chaingrabs. I find it funny because these are perfectly legal techniques - and yet Ice Climbers aren't top tier. You know why? Because it required skill to pull off. Perfect example of a chaingrab infinite considered balanced by a competitive community. What was your point again?

I love how you're putting so much effort to argue something that isn't too relevant to the actual discussion. Regardless of whether I was wrong to reference SSB or not, it doesn't change the fact that an 8 Hand Limit is not a good solution for stopping Players from dropping entire armies down all at once. They still can if they're fast enough, and that puts faster players at an unfair advantage.

(Also, I don't know how abusable exploits can be considered balanced. It doesn't matter if the character is bad as it doesn't make the exploits any more balanced)

kyle
October 12th, 2011, 15:24
Guy's can you take this to chat this topic was never meant to be used as an argument thread.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 15:30
I love how you're putting so much effort to argue something that isn't too relevant to the actual discussion. Regardless of whether I was wrong to reference SSB or not, it doesn't change the fact that an 8 Hand Limit is not a good solution for stopping Players from dropping entire armies down all at once. They still can if they're fast enough, and that puts faster players at an unfair advantage.

So, let me get this straight. Gamers having skill is an "unfair advantage", because their ability to react fast is unfair.

I swear to god I would not even play the game if the skill involved when playing is literally brought down to zero.


(Also, I don't know how abusable exploits can be considered balanced. It doesn't matter if the character is bad as it doesn't make the exploits any more balanced)

So you see, this gets back to the whole thing - you just have a different idea of what is considered "balanced" than me. Or the Smash Back Room. Or the rest of the SSB competitive community.

And uh, who is bad now? I don't see that being part of the point anywhere.

dotted
October 12th, 2011, 15:30
They still can if they're fast enough, and that puts faster players at an advantage.
FTFY

Funderbunk
October 12th, 2011, 21:14
So, let me get this straight. Gamers having skill is an "unfair advantage", because their ability to react fast is unfair.

I swear to god I would not even play the game if the skill involved when playing is literally brought down to zero.



So you see, this gets back to the whole thing - you just have a different idea of what is considered "balanced" than me. Or the Smash Back Room. Or the rest of the SSB competitive community.

And uh, who is bad now? I don't see that being part of the point anywhere.

I certainly hope it's just a bad joke when you compare Super Smash and Dungeon Keeper when talking about game design because it is the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard, and this is coming from someone who hears ridiculous game design talk every other day. Obviously, action games like Super Smash Brothers are a test of twitch reactions. It's the fast twitch reactions and accurate movement that is the major driving force behind an action game and in these games, this skill is what is rewarded.

Strategy games like Dungeon Keeper require the exact opposite approach - it's the strategic players you want to reward, not the twitch gamers. You're wrong when you imply that my point was that fast reactions are unfair in any way. It's just that you're rewarding twitch gamers, who can react fast physically, with an advantage over strategic gamers, who can react fast strategically. Guess which one is the core audience of this Real Time Strategy game.

I mean, obviously there's no way to get rid of this divide entirely, but ideally, fast physical reactions (which you seem to define as 'skill') would only matter in a game where two opponents strategically match each other.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 21:15
I certainly hope it's just a bad joke when you compare Super Smash and Dungeon Keeper when talking about game design because it is the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard, and this is coming from someone who hears ridiculous game design talk every other day. Obviously, action games like Super Smash Brothers are a test of twitch reactions. It's the fast twitch reactions and accurate movement that is the major driving force behind an action game and in these games, this skill is what is rewarded.

Strategy games like Dungeon Keeper require the exact opposite approach - it's the strategic players you want to reward, not the twitch gamers. You're wrong when you imply that my point was that fast reactions are unfair in any way. It's just that you're rewarding twitch gamers, who can react fast physically, with an advantage over strategic gamers, who can react fast strategically. Guess which one is the core audience of this Real Time Strategy game.

I mean, obviously there's no way to get rid of this divide entirely, but ideally, fast physical reactions (which you seem to define as 'skill') would only matter in a game where two opponents strategically match each other.

Dude.

I didn't make that comparison. Rex did.





Besides, more than enough RTSes exist that require fast button-pressing or mouse clicking or fast physical reaction. Ever played Supreme Commander?
Conversely, action games like Smash Brothers also require a degree of strategy and planning on a competitive level. Hey, it's SSBM and I'm playing Puff and the opponent is Marth. How am I going to approach? And how am I going to space correctly?

Also, if strategy is more important as you say, then the strategic player will still beat the "twitch" player, as you like to call it. This one little instance will most certainly not shake the game up to a buttonbash fest. Be realistic.

Funderbunk
October 12th, 2011, 21:58
Oh, yes I see. In that case I apologize. I misread.

Regardless, I don't think you should brush of a legitimite concern so easily by saying "it won't matter THAT much". And I have player Supreme Commander (I'm surprised you didn't mention the StarCraft Progaming Circuit instead, this threw me for a loop for a bit, actually) and your assessment of it, while having some merit, doesn't hold true in this case. It requires fast strategic actions, the speed at which you press the buttons means very little unless, like I said, the opponents are evenly matched. Someone who plays very fast but still does the wrong things will obviously lose.

And it's true that Super Smash Brothers also require strategy on a competetive level, but this is mostly because on a competetive level the basic skill of a game is pretty even and it's the depth of a game that defines the winner. Like playing an RTS competetively means ideally twitch will only make a difference between evenly matched players, the opposite holds true for action games where strategy will make the difference between otherwise evenly matched players.

Also, the competetive scene is MUCH MORE affected by small balance factors such as what we've been discussing this whole time precisely because it's competetive and competetive players will try to understand and gain advantage over other players any way they can. For example, in StarCraft II (I follow this as an e-Sport, hence me bringing it up all the time, apologies for being repetitive) they completely changed the way competetive Protoss players play the game by adding ten seconds to the construction time of a building. This one little instance will most certainly not shake the game up, as you've said, but a competetive player will have most likely found more than one instance, they will know the game inside out and use and abuse small balance things like this to the point it culuminatively changes everything. The higher the level of play, the more a small imbalance such as this will matter.

Mothrayas
October 12th, 2011, 22:48
Okay, if I got it correctly, you're meaning to say that click speed only makes a difference when both players are equal on a strategy level in a strategy, and vice versa in an action game.

So, where's the problem? If a player wins in an RTS game by faster button handling while being equally good at strategy, it means he has slightly larger skills in playing the game. Note that RTS stands for Real-Time strategy. Real time. You're taking your actions in real time - if you're faster at executing these actions, you deserve to have an edge over someone who may be equally strategic but takes 20 seconds to move the mouse a quarter way across the screen. A mindset wherein execution speed does not matter period contradicts the meaning of RTS. If you want to make strategic decisions at your leisure, go play Turn-Based Strategy games instead. Or chess.

Also, I never played or followed any StarCraft game (sue me), so please elaborate on the last paragraph more, please. Who added ten seconds to Protoss building construction time (I'm assuming a patch did, but please be more clear)? In comparison to what? How will this "small imbalance" have more (or less) of an effect on higher level play?

Metal Gear Rex
October 13th, 2011, 00:20
I certainly hope it's just a bad joke when you compare Super Smash and Dungeon Keeper when talking about game design because it is the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard, and this is coming from someone who hears ridiculous game design talk every other day. Obviously, action games like Super Smash Brothers are a test of twitch reactions. It's the fast twitch reactions and accurate movement that is the major driving force behind an action game and in these games, this skill is what is rewarded.

Yes as Mothrayas stated, that was me who made the comparison. Perhaps it wasn't the best comparison considering the reactions of both you and Mothrayas, but it was the first comparison that came to mind at the time.

The comparison itself had nothing to do with what type of game, but rather, the comparison had to do with comparing a bad solution to an abusable exploit. The 8 Hand Limit is a poor solution for preventing a Player from dropping an army down all at once as any Player who is fast can do that anyways. Saying it requires skill doesn't make it any better of a solution. In that regard, I compared it to calling an abusable exploit balanced simply because it required a lot of skill to pull off. A requirement of high "skill" and speed doesn't change the fact that the 8 Hand Limit fails to do what it was supposed to do, nor does it make an abusable exploit any less of an exploit that can be abused.


Strategy games like Dungeon Keeper require the exact opposite approach - it's the strategic players you want to reward, not the twitch gamers. You're wrong when you imply that my point was that fast reactions are unfair in any way. It's just that you're rewarding twitch gamers, who can react fast physically, with an advantage over strategic gamers, who can react fast strategically. Guess which one is the core audience of this Real Time Strategy game.

I mean, obviously there's no way to get rid of this divide entirely, but ideally, fast physical reactions (which you seem to define as 'skill') would only matter in a game where two opponents strategically match each other.

I have to agree with this pretty much.


Also, if strategy is more important as you say, then the strategic player will still beat the "twitch" player, as you like to call it. This one little instance will most certainly not shake the game up to a buttonbash fest. Be realistic.

Generally, the faster Player will hold the upperhand in battle when it comes to dealing a powerful first strike as they can drop all their Units down before an enemy can. It does give them an advantage, especially if they use a lot of Heavy Hitters and Burst Damage Support. That strong first strike can definately turn the tide of a battle and definately will lead to a Player being capable of defeating an enemy in some situations, regardless of whether he is strategically better or not.


Okay, if I got it correctly, you're meaning to say that click speed only makes a difference when both players are equal on a strategy level in a strategy, and vice versa in an action game.

You didn't get it correctly.


I mean, obviously there's no way to get rid of this divide entirely, but ideally, fast physical reactions (which you seem to define as 'skill') would only matter in a game where two opponents strategically match each other.

Mothrayas
October 13th, 2011, 07:32
You didn't get it correctly.

Please elaborate, my sentence looks pretty damn close in meaning, to his post. Now you're just posting against for the sake of posting against.



Other than the word "ideally". Also, I noticed you didn't bother replying to the rest of my last post. Let me put this in a beautiful post constructed by yourself.


Judging by the fact that you're not even bothering to try and reply to the actual topic and instead want to pick at the wording I used for a reference, I'm going to presume you withdraw your arguements.

Searingflame2
October 13th, 2011, 08:47
Starcraft 2 is indeed a perfect example of an RTS (even if I don't like it :3)

There is an unfathomable level to strategy to everything, which is why something as seemingly insignificant as a 10 second increase in a buildings construction time can completely change the meta game for people. This goes hand in hand with the notion of 'twitch gaming', however. If the average APM of a SC2 player was the same as a DK1 player, then 10 seconds would make all of no difference at all, because DK is a COUCH POTATO GAME comparatively. In SC2, if you want to play Zergs competitively, you need to have at least 280 (I think, don't quote me) so the 10 seconds making a gargantuan difference.

Directly on topic, an 8 hand limit would be ideal IF AND ONLY IF you give hotkeys for picking up creatures. I don't think the idea of HOTKEYS BEING A MAJOR SYMBOL OF SKILL EVERYWHERE is a stretch of the imagination. If priority of hotkeys is given to spells or rooms or other functions, however, the limit should be higher - 12-16, as previous mentioned, perhaps.

Rewarding people for slouching in their chair less is a GOOD THING. Reward "twitch gamers", they deserve it.

kyle
October 13th, 2011, 10:46
Well we did have discussions about that, and we are already adding hotkeys to the game for spells, we also had ideas for a quick cast bar, where your favorite functions could be binded to a bar lower down. the latter was only an idea however, kind of like the league of legends type of casting.

Searingflame2
October 13th, 2011, 10:53
Sounds good to me. Edit: [Hypothetically] Would the quick bar be versatile enough for me to bind, say "Pick up highest level Dragon"?

You could maintain a low hand pool and add a layer of skill to boot.

kyle
October 13th, 2011, 11:05
Well technically we could design it to do whatever want, so we probably would allow you to do something like that.

Searingflame2
October 13th, 2011, 11:09
Well, the concept sure as hell has my vote, for what it's worth.

Metal Gear Rex
October 13th, 2011, 11:38
Please elaborate, my sentence looks pretty damn close in meaning, to his post.

From what you posted, it appeared as if you thought he said we were currently in a scenario where the Player's speed will only matter when they are both strategically equal. However, that is not the case. What he said was that that would be the ideal scenario to be in, not that it was true to the current scenario.


Now you're just posting against for the sake of posting against.

Not at all. Accusing me of such isn't going to make my points any less true.


Also, I noticed you didn't bother replying to the rest of my last post.


So, where's the problem? If a player wins in an RTS game by faster button handling while being equally good at strategy, it means he has slightly larger skills in playing the game. Note that RTS stands for Real-Time strategy. Real time. You're taking your actions in real time - if you're faster at executing these actions, you deserve to have an edge over someone who may be equally strategic but takes 20 seconds to move the mouse a quarter way across the screen. A mindset wherein execution speed does not matter period contradicts the meaning of RTS. If you want to make strategic decisions at your leisure, go play Turn-Based Strategy games instead. Or chess.

That was an unneccessary attachment of what you said in the small paragraph right above it, so I decided to cut it out at the time of the posting. Even if I did reply to it, it would get a very similar response to part of your previous post.


Generally, the faster Player will hold the upperhand in battle when it comes to dealing a powerful first strike as they can drop all their Units down before an enemy can. It does give them an advantage, especially if they use a lot of Heavy Hitters and Burst Damage Support. That strong first strike can definately turn the tide of a battle and definately will lead to a Player being capable of defeating an enemy in some situations, regardless of whether he is strategically better or not.

I felt it would be a bit repetitive to include a response to this as well considering both replies would be within the same post, so I didn't bother try and reply to it.


Also, I never played or followed any StarCraft game (sue me), so please elaborate on the last paragraph more, please. Who added ten seconds to Protoss building construction time (I'm assuming a patch did, but please be more clear)? In comparison to what? How will this "small imbalance" have more (or less) of an effect on higher level play?

This is obviously something directed at Funderbunk, requesting him to explain further. Therefore, I see no reason to reply to this part of the post. I myself have never played or followed any StarCraft game so I wouldn't be able to tell you anything useful either.

There, happy now?


Let me put this in a beautiful post constructed by yourself.

I said that because you didn't bother to continue arguing against any of my main points at all. Instead, you started arguing about my use of a reference, which you may or may not have fully understood. You dropped practically the entire arguement instantly, which made it appear as if you were withdrawing your arguements.

I, on the otherhand, did not drop the main arguement. You can see this in the post I have made above.

Since you're complaining about me not replying to parts of your post, I must ask you why you didn't bother to reply to the main arguement I made and instead decided to make a false accusion and a failed attempt to use my own quote against me?


Rewarding people for slouching in their chair less is a GOOD THING. Reward "twitch gamers", they deserve it.

Faster Players already reward themselves when it comes to reaching maximum efficiency when building a dungeon. In battle, however, they shouldn't be rewarded too much because the outcome of the battles mean a lot. As I previously stated, it could lead to situations where they win simply because they're faster and not because they're strategically better than their opponent.


Well we did have discussions about that, and we are already adding hotkeys to the game for spells, we also had ideas for a quick cast bar, where your favorite functions could be binded to a bar lower down. the latter was only an idea however, kind of like the league of legends type of casting.

I don't remember such a discussion. Is it one of the older ones or did I simply miss out? Though my only concern is having enough hotkeys to impliment this idea properly. I do recall we'd need a fair amount of hotkeys for other things as well. But I'm sure we can figure out a way to make it all work out very well.


Sounds good to me. Edit: [Hypothetically] Would the quick bar be versatile enough for me to bind, say "Pick up highest level Dragon"?

You could maintain a low hand pool and add a layer of skill to boot.

DK2 involved use of holding Control and Alt when it came to selecting highest or lowest leveled Units. (I don't remember which was used for which) Could do something like that if we do go through with the idea.

kyle
October 13th, 2011, 11:50
It was along the lines of, you select which spells you want to hotkey, because let's be honest, you're going to hotkey the spells you use most, like heal and such, not the really expensive ones like destroy wall.

As for the quick bar thing, you could Alt click+drag the creatures profile onto the quick bar and have it function like that.

Metal Gear Rex
October 13th, 2011, 11:57
It was along the lines of, you select which spells you want to hotkey, because let's be honest, you're going to hotkey the spells you use most, like heal and such, not the really expensive ones like destroy wall.

As for the quick bar thing, you could Alt click+drag the creatures profile onto the quick bar and have it function like that.

Seems like an efficient way to get the hotkeys set up in a way that fits the preferences of different Players. Perhaps hotkeys could be utilized to also tweak the power level of a Spell?

natchoguy
October 13th, 2011, 12:27
I have a question; what is the creature bar going to look like and how will it work? If it's going to be the same as Dk1 you still drop down entire masses of creatures no prob. And if it's the same as Dk2, there's absolutely no difference whatsoever. Speedy players are going to have the upper hand and remember that Dk is a unique RTS genre. Comparing it to starcraft is like comparing american football to soccer; they play differently

Mothrayas
October 13th, 2011, 12:42
From what you posted, it appeared as if you thought he said we were currently in a scenario where the Player's speed will only matter when they are both strategically equal. However, that is not the case. What he said was that that would be the ideal scenario to be in, not that it was true to the current scenario.

Not at all. Accusing me of such isn't going to make my points any less true.

I thought it was obvious to you that I meant that.

Of course, it's a nice double standard that I always have to know exactly what you mean for the argument to have any meaning (http://keeperklan.com/threads/2399-Split-Discussion-on-hand-creature-limit-and-gamer-skill?p=36188&viewfull=1#post36188), and now you're splitting hairs and playing dumb here because it supports your point. How fallacious.

And acting dumb is most certainly not going to make your points any more right.


That was an unneccessary attachment of what you said in the small paragraph right above it, so I decided to cut it out at the time of the posting. Even if I did reply to it, it would get a very similar response to part of your previous post.

Did you even read it? It's not an "unnecessary attachment", it's what the frikking point was about. Real Time Strategy has a real time action element to it - it's in the goddamn name. If someone who acts slower loses, it's perfectly valid in RTS.



Generally, the faster Player will hold the upperhand in battle when it comes to dealing a powerful first strike as they can drop all their Units down before an enemy can. It does give them an advantage, especially if they use a lot of Heavy Hitters and Burst Damage Support. That strong first strike can definately turn the tide of a battle and definately will lead to a Player being capable of defeating an enemy in some situations, regardless of whether he is strategically better or not.I felt it would be a bit repetitive to include a response to this as well considering both replies would be within the same post, so I didn't bother try and reply to it.

Hey look, a "twitch" player uses strategic thinking, utilizing not only his "twitch" skill but also, combining that, utilizing creatures to their maximum effect. Sounds like a strategy in itself to me. If the other player lost, that's mostly a strategic fault for either having inferior creatures out, or being sufficiently brain dead that it takes 20 seconds for him to drop each creature (which, unless you believe brain deads should win from skilled players, doesn't count (see also the RTS part you conveniently liked to skip)). The advantage a "twitch" has is very small anyway, at best it saves you a second or two and allowing one or two attacks off earlier. If somebody loses heavily from a "twitch", the mistake is just as well strategical.


I said that because you didn't bother to continue arguing against any of my main points at all. Instead, you started arguing about my use of a reference, which you may or may not have fully understood. You dropped practically the entire arguement instantly, which made it appear as if you were withdrawing your arguements.

I did not drop the argument. You tried to make an example, I responded to said example. You brought up a point, I defended myself against said point.

In fact, your primary point in the post was this: "Saying it requires skill does not make it "balanced" either.". You then cited an example to support your point. I defied that example, therefore I defied your point entirely.

(Also, regardless of whether I did or did not understand your reference, you haven't tried to defend yourself since I posted to it. Does that mean you give in to the fact that either - it was a bad reference, or - you were wrong?)


I, on the otherhand, did not drop the main arguement. You can see this in the post I have made above.

That was only after Funderbunk and I posted again. You never had an actual response to my post up there, other than bringing out Donkey Kong, derailing the thread with accusations that I can't debate, and laughing at me for actually wasting time to reply to your points. (I suppose you are right - it's laughable that I'm wasting time trying to debate with you, since you just have to turn to attacking me directly).


Since you're complaining about me not replying to parts of your post, I must ask you why you didn't bother to reply to the main arguement I made and instead decided to make a false accusion and a failed attempt to use my own quote against me?

Woulda helped much if you actually explained the latter part rather than just saying "you're wrong". The rest is accounted for by now.


Faster Players already reward themselves when it comes to reaching maximum efficiency when building a dungeon. In battle, however, they shouldn't be rewarded too much because the outcome of the battles mean a lot. As I previously stated, it could lead to situations where they win simply because they're faster and not because they're strategically better than their opponent.

So, using the Real Time of Real Time Strategy is A-OK when building dungeons, but using the Real Time of Real Time Strategy is wrong when it actually means anything.

What do you want the battles to be like then? If it's going to have to be completely independent of speediness skill, it'd have to be like a card game. Or Chess: Dungeon Keeper edition. Or whatever type of Turn Based Strategy you'd want to make.

As long as the game and its combat sequences are still an RTS game, speed will still be involved. And superior tactics will still prevail over a disadvantage of a couple seconds dropping down creatures, anyway.

Searingflame2
October 13th, 2011, 13:30
Rexxy, speed and strategy are two sides of the same coin. On their own, they're both redundant, but together, they have a function.
For example, rushing. The strategy revolves around the speed required to set it up and act it out.

In regards to holding alt (or any other key), I'd still be using my mouse to click on an icon in the creature bar, which is a waste of time. After actually getting good at some RTS, I can safely say using your mouse of everything is disgusting, awful, and an affront to nature.
Ideally, I want to be able to hit, say, QWERTYUI, and drop down the 8 creatures of the highest level that any one situation demands.
I don't, however, want to have to scroll through my bottom (or side bar) skipping between the creatures that I don't need at any given time.

The quickbar would be twofold; it would allow the fast players to act even faster, and give the strategy spectrum some decisions to make. More decisions = more skill possible.

natchoguy
October 13th, 2011, 21:49
I wasn't really complaining. was trying to prove that Dk1 and Dk2 combat initiation was just about the same and that comparing it to other RTS's is pointless

Searingflame2
October 14th, 2011, 05:22
Don't know about anybody else, but I would like it if DK adopted just a /few/ things that make more traditional RTS popular, like fast paced gameplay.

God knows I take 5 to make a tea or grab a snack whilst playing DK, and you won't catch be playing below 200% speed on Dk2.

MeinCookie
October 14th, 2011, 05:42
Not all RTS is fast-paced. A game of CoH will set you back just as much as DK 2, and to be honest, that is better. It is more realistic. There is nothing wrong with having time to think in an RTS, and its a much more relaxing immersing experience. Never has it been writ that RTS means fast-paced, no, I can name many many that are not.

Furthermore, its the very nature of the conflict which suits a slower game for people with refined tastes. This is a strategy that takes place underground. There is nothing fast about that. Look at the undermining and counter-mining across the entirety of the western Front in WW1. Its a slow and bloody war of attrition. Rushing for what is 'popular' often destroys great games with unique innovative game-play... look at what they did to the Battlefield series in re-aligning to take on Call of Duty. Goodbye any semblance of strategy and depth.

Sure, add the option to increase speed in multi-player, but I never play DK2 on anything other than normal speed :D.

Searingflame2
October 14th, 2011, 06:21
The problem is, Dk's gameplay is so slow paced that you TAKE OUT the strategy.

Sure, there are a few maps where it isn't the case (maybe 10%?), but in the other 90%, you want to find gems, wall off and wait 'til you've got an army of level 10's (or use a workshop economy float, if no gems are available). That isn't strategy! You know how you're going to play the instant the see the gems.

Once time becomes as much a resource as mana, imps, creatures or gold, then you can get yourself some true strategy, because you're better able to take your opponent unawares, rush, pincer, whatever floats your boat.

Any simpleton can devise a master plan when you give him a lifetime to do so. But it takes a true strategic mind to think and adapt on the fly.

Blutonium
October 14th, 2011, 12:12
It's simple guys. the coders can put a limit of 64 on it for now - when we playtest and balance, we can just change the value to 32, 16, 8 or whatever.

MeinCookie
October 14th, 2011, 14:29
That would be bad map design. People, myself too on some occasions, just slap down Gems anywhere as a bonus - but quite obviously they have a massive effect on play. There should never be a gem stone where it cannot be easily/openly contested. More importantly though... gem stones should be rare, and not every map should have one, and those that do should have them well placed as to avoid that walling. Furthermore, there should be significant incentives for not doing such, making it less viable such as large deposits of gold in the open.

Maps should be designed intuitively to take game-play into account, not the other way round. Indeed the main problem you perceive is simply in the design of the maps.

It is like playing a level of AoE III and starting with 3 fishing boats and a whale (Infinite Gold) right next to your dock. Just because some idiot doesn't know what he's doing, it doesn't make the slightest comment on the game-play and balance of the title.

Searingflame2
October 14th, 2011, 17:59
That would be bad map design. People, myself too on some occasions, just slap down Gems anywhere as a bonus - but quite obviously they have a massive effect on play. There should never be a gem stone where it cannot be easily/openly contested. More importantly though... gem stones should be rare, and not every map should have one, and those that do should have them well placed as to avoid that walling. Furthermore, there should be significant incentives for not doing such, making it less viable such as large deposits of gold in the open.

Maps should be designed intuitively to take game-play into account, not the other way round. Indeed the main problem you perceive is simply in the design of the maps.

It is like playing a level of AoE III and starting with 3 fishing boats and a whale (Infinite Gold) right next to your dock. Just because some idiot doesn't know what he's doing, it doesn't make the slightest comment on the game-play and balance of the title.

Just sayin', but that means ~90% of Dk1 and ~50% of Dk2 maps are poorly designed =P

I agree with you, though. But the incentive to sit back and train is still too potent...

MeinCookie
October 15th, 2011, 00:34
The incentive may be strong, but if you take away the means then there isn't a problem. Its a simple matter of carefully adapting any old maps which come through. The newer maps should all be fine if this is kept in mind.