Forum

Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 28 July 2016, 20:39pm
Changes to game
Any changes likely to happen soon?
 
Poster: Khronnkk-Gak!!
Date Posted: 09 August 2016, 01:31am
Re: Changes to game
The game seems to have run to a standstill. There is no incentive for new players, and the old players, including myself, are just too powerful. I would not object to a reset, as it should be a game of tactics and cooperation, not wealth, accumulated items and powerful characters. We had the most player activity and board dynamics when every participant was balanced. Those times were fun. Infuriating, but fun.
 
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 11 August 2016, 05:19am
Re: Changes to game
It would be good if there was a few new races and professions to choose from. Then a restart could be something special. With of course a hall of fame from previous game.
 
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 27 August 2016, 04:57am
Re: Changes to game
Right now, I don't have much time to devote to this game... even a reset would take more time than I have.

I am actually working on another game (with Kooho, who did most of the art/graphics for Crown). It doesn't have as much depth as Crown (it's a fairly simple turn-based strategy), but it'll at least be something we can actually "finish". It's a downloadable game, but there will hopefully be a WebGL version too.

As for the future of Crown... not sure at this stage. It needs some attention to make it better. It really only works if there are a good number of players trying to build kingdoms. (And that only lasts for a while, as there are balance issues which are not easy to address). It'll be around for a few months for the handful of people playing.... beyond that, I'm not sure yet.
 
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 28 August 2016, 00:44am
Re: Changes to game
Here's some info about our new game, Grim Legions: http://zeefin.net/2016/08/28/grim-legions-a-turn-based-strategy-game/
 
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 28 August 2016, 20:02pm
Re: Changes to game
Looking forward to playing new game.
 
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 08 September 2016, 22:48pm
Re: Changes to game
Beta version released! http://grim-legions.zeefin.net/
 
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 13 September 2016, 08:46am
Re: Changes to game
Oh?
 
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 13 September 2016, 10:27am
Re: Changes to game
Download it here: http://grim-legions.zeefin.net/play.html
 
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 20 September 2016, 08:10am
Re: Changes to game
Grim
 
Poster: Khronnkk-Gak!!
Date Posted: 21 September 2016, 02:50am
Re: Changes to game
Like it. You have to play aggressively and take account of the terrain.
 
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 21 September 2016, 20:20pm
Re: Changes to game
Should be a new release coming soon
 
Poster: Cipheron
Date Posted: 06 October 2016, 08:18am
Re: Changes to game
[quote author=Falchion link=topic=1557.msg4129#msg4129 date=1470892778]It would be good if there was a few new races and professions to choose from. Then a restart could be something special. With of course a hall of fame from previous game.[/quote]

Personally I think the existing races are too similar to each other. I wrote a post ages ago looking at class/race combos and showing how some of the design decisions do not work as intended.

e.g. in character creation, elves for example have +2 minumum Int, +1 minimum agi, -1 minimum Str, -2 minimum Con, while dwarfs get -1 Agi, -2 Int, +1 Div, +2 Con. But all races have the same maximum of 18 for every stat. Having racial minimums not reflected in the maximum actually backfires: they become constraints not bonuses.

e.g. consider making an Elven Archer. +1 minimum Agi should make them good at being an archer, right? Well, not really. We have 30 points to allocate to starting stats. First we add 12 points to Agi, giving 18 Agi, we top up +15 Con (18 Con) for the HP. That gives up 3 remaining points so we get Str 7 so we can carry gear. The result is 7 STR / 18 AGI / 18 CON. Next we make a dwarven archer. we add 14 to Agi, giving 18 Agi, top up Con to 18 for the HP, and the remaining 5 points go into strength, for 10 strength. The result is an archer just as good as the Elven one, but with 3 more Str instead of Int, adding vital carrying capacity for heavy armor and loot. Hence, it would be kinda stupid to ever make Elven archers, even though the system is clearly intended to make them better at it. In fact, Dwarves arguably make the best archers in the game because they are the most free to use Int at a dump stat.

This would be alleviated if the starting maximums also reflected the +/- amounts of the minimums, which is a very small change.

The other related design issue is Con-related HP gain on level up. This makes sense in D&D where Con is static. but it makes little sense in a game where Con can be raised at higher levels. If you can buy Con, then the proportion of HP related to Con should be recalculated whenever Con changes. The principle is that if the player is allowed to tweak a build, they should get the advantages of the current build, rather than being penalized for not progressing the character in one single "optimal" build. This sort of thing levels the playing field.
 
Poster: tobiastony
Date Posted: 06 October 2016, 09:04am
Re: Changes to game
This is a good game.
 
Poster: Mutant
Date Posted: 06 October 2016, 18:59pm
Re: Changes to game
[quote author=Cipheron link=topic=1557.msg4167#msg4167 date=1475741899]
e.g. in character creation, elves for example have +2 minumum Int, +1 minimum agi, -1 minimum Str, -2 minimum Con, while dwarfs get -1 Agi, -2 Int, +1 Div, +2 Con. But all races have the same maximum of 18 for every stat. Having racial minimums not reflected in the maximum actually backfires: they become constraints not bonuses.
[/quote]

I agree, there are issues with the races - I think it's pretty clear that I didn't put much thought into them. It would be nice if there was a bit more variation, but they should at least be more or less equal.

As mentioned, I don't have a lot of time for this game right now, but I may look into doing some tweaks at some point.

Thanks for the input.
 
Poster: Falchion
Date Posted: 08 October 2016, 07:16am
Re: Changes to game
You're right Cipheron about the races. Be nice if they are tweaked at some point.
 
Poster: Cipheron
Date Posted: 08 October 2016, 10:33am
Re: Changes to game
[quote author=Mutant link=topic=1557.msg4169#msg4169 date=1475780349]
[quote author=Cipheron link=topic=1557.msg4167#msg4167 date=1475741899]
e.g. in character creation, elves for example have +2 minumum Int, +1 minimum agi, -1 minimum Str, -2 minimum Con, while dwarfs get -1 Agi, -2 Int, +1 Div, +2 Con. But all races have the same maximum of 18 for every stat. Having racial minimums not reflected in the maximum actually backfires: they become constraints not bonuses.
[/quote]

I agree, there are issues with the races - I think it's pretty clear that I didn't put much thought into them. It would be nice if there was a bit more variation, but they should at least be more or less equal[/quote]

I decided to try and run the numbers to see if changing the starting maximums to match the minimums would actually help. Let me explain what I can infer about the existing system first. Let's say normal player behavior is to boost Con to 24, before pouring all points into the main class stat. As well as that, it's nice, but not essential to have higher Str (Carrying capacity) and Agi (armor class) as well (I'm assuming Int and Div don't have as much game effect). From this, we can infer a few things: Con and main-stat will both be 18 to start with, and the rest of the points will be spent in Str and/Or Agi. From that, we can create a "heuristic" which rates builds relevant to each other: Only Str and/or Agi will be different between races of the same class, so we can just add Str+Agi as the "rating". e.g. a Dwarf Archer gets 10Str/18Agi/18Con vs Elf archer 7Str/18Agi/18Con. So we rate DwAr = 28 vs ElAr = 25. A simple system, but it's effective.

So let's look at the "different maximums" idea. Now, the choice is dwarf_archer = 9str/17agi/20con vs elf archer = 8str/19agi/16con. The elf is a better shot but with less HP. A problem appears when the characters are leveled up. By level 4 (+9 stat points), both characters will have boost Con to 24. The problem was that the dwarf spent only 4 points on that, putting +5 into Agi, whereas the Elf spent +8 on Con, and +1 on Agi. So we have Level 4 Dwarf Archer = 9str/22agi/24con, vs Level 4 Elf Archer = 8str/20agi/24con. So rather than being marginally better because of more Str for carrying things, this dwarf is objectively a better archer in all ways possible compared to the elf. Therefore the "increasing maximums" idea didn't work, in fact it would backfire. This actually exposed a more fundamental issue with the system of racial +/- amounts.

So what heuristic is good for the "different maximums" scenario? The simplest is "(+/- con) + (+/- class_stat)". For the dwarf archer, that's +2con -1 Agi = +1 "Archer rating" vs the elf -2 Con +1 Agi = "-1 Archer rating". The difference in these ratings is reflected in the 2-point difference in Agi that develops as the two characters level up. If we count the -1 Str that elves get, it explains the 3-point difference in the "important stats" shown in the current system (where dwarf archer = elf archer, except for the +3 str).

Humans are by definition +0 in every class. What we should see ideally is elves being +1 in at least one class, -1 in another class, and the same for dwarves. One problem with achieving that is the -2 Con that elves get. It effectively neutralizes even the big +2 Int that they get as a mage, making them no more suited as mages than humans are. Perhaps the -2/+2 Con values for elves and dwarves should be on other stats. Having such a big +/- on a critical stat like Con effectively gives dwarves too much advantage in ALL classes, and elves too much disadvantage. Maybe they should be +1/-1 on Con respectively. Con is so central to all builds, that just by shuffling the bonuses slightly, the system can be better balanced.
 
Poster: Kothyxaan
Date Posted: 14 October 2017, 05:59am
Re: Changes to game
Probably a little late to this discussion... but... i like the idea of stat maximums in creation as in the racial +/- affecting the maxmimum start for the stat.
The counter argument by Cipheron was good... but then all you would need to do is introduce a maximum for the stats.
Racial maximum * # and/or + #
Then certain races would be more suited for certain classes and still be a little more unique.

For example, if it was decided that the race max was (with racial +/- affecting starting max): creation max * 2 +10 (numbers are just used for the example) was the total maximum:
Humans would have: 18 starting max on all stats, with a 46 total max (18 *2 + 10)
Human: ALL 18/46
Elf: STR 17/44, INT 20/50, AGI 19/48,  DIV 18/46, CON 16/42
Dwarf: STR 18/46, INT 16/42, AGI 17/44, DIV 19/48, CON 20/50