After AOD sells ten million copies...

[Vault Dweller]

When you are surrounded, do the attackers get a bonus to hit you as well or do you also get a penalty to attack any of them?

A bonus to hit.

 

[DraQ]

Formations

Why would you need all this crap to be explicit?

Wouldn't it be enough to handle it implicitly? Defensive penalties when attacked multiple times in single turn, facing modifiers, some adjacency checks and so on.

Explicit formations are only good when you need to keep units moving together, or when doing weird shit like "turtle", but even then you might just try to keep it local, fdor example make shieldwalling unit hold the shield up instead if there is allied shieldwalling unit in front of it.

 

[villain of the story]

Ancient people were fighting in formations long before they came up with "weird shit like 'turtle'". Formation = coordinated fighting eg. Greek phalanx or Swiss mercenaries with mixed weaponry; not exclusive to shield walls at all.

Your troops could be standing side by side and still fight individually against individual targets or fight like a single unit in formation, ie. you set a formation and then, you control that formation group as if it's a single unit. I gave simplistic examples of cons and pros.

Another example:

|_|_|_|_|_|
|_|_|P|P|_|
|_|_|P|P|_|
|_|_|_|_|_|
|E|_|E|E|E|
|_|_|_|_|_|

Two spearmen at the back, two swordsmen at the front. Anyone that tries to close in upfront will have both spears and swords do dodge, block, evade, counter attack but the troops in formation doesn't have the flexibility and the reactivity of individuals and so is not a go-to tactic win button by any means. It's a means to a particular end; to overwhelm enemy under the right circumstances but guess what: so can the enemy. Yes, you can still position your troops like that manually and control them individually but that still doesn't address the dynamics of coordinated fighting, that and without explicit execution, that kind of gameplay requires more input and a bit of LARPing from the player because the game doesn't provide the exclusive mechanics for formation dynamics; and if it does, why not make it an easier, more sensible and a deeper experience for the player with an explicit execution? The more combat depth and control to the player, the better.

And also from a RP perspective, if it will provide more tactical layers and RP opportunities, why not? Carrinas has the "strength and willingness to fight no matter the odds, giving him the nickname the Bull" but "his tactics lacked finesse". Sounds to me like he is an efficient killer but perhaps not the kind that would inspire confidence in you while fighting shoulder to shoulder. Perhaps Belgutai, "a hot headed warrior who recently has started considering his next actions", is a better fit.

Sandor Clegane "The Hound" (of Game of Thrones) might be a brutal and efficient killer but he is also a chaotic wildcard. I doubt he would have the skills to fight in coordination nor fight against such a group, much less inspire the confidence in others to have him beside them when they know he could just up and abandon his post because he decided that he has a personal problem to resolve with that enemy archer whose whizzing arrows had the annoying habit of requiring him to lower his head unless he said "fuck the king, fuck the city" and up and left any way.

On the other hand, we have Stannis Baratheon who inspires confidence in his men even after half his fleet got blown out of water. Now that is the kind of guy you want beside you and one far more likely to do well within a tight a group while someone like Clegane would be nearby, picking the strays or countering flank attempts.

 

[DraQ]

Ancient people were fighting in formations long before they came up with "weird shit like 'turtle'".

What part of "explicit" did you not get?

Yes, you can still position your troops like that manually and control them individually but that still doesn't address the dynamics of coordinated fighting, that and without explicit execution, that kind of gameplay requires more input and a bit of LARPing from the player because the game doesn't provide the exclusive mechanics for formation dynamics; and if it does, why not make it an easier, more sensible and a deeper experience for the player with an explicit execution? The more combat depth and control to the player, the better.

Tactics is not LARPing.
If formations serve a purpose they do so because they *work*. They work based on same low-level rules that dictate how you stab someone with a spear and when can he defend himself against being stabbed with a spear. They don't need spearate high level rules, they are themselves a tool to exploit low level rules making situation more favourable to those who use them. If I stick vulnerable units behind a wall of tanks with shields, they don't become more difficult to kill because they get more HPs or arbitrary AC bonus. They become hard to kill because the enemy can't get through the shieldwall and any attacks over shieldwall, whether against unit in formation or not, suffer penalty to range and effectiveness.

Formation do need to be specified in terms of movement and AI, but not as some sort of higher level meta-unit.

 

[villain of the story]

Ancient people were fighting in formations long before they came up with "weird shit like 'turtle'".

What part of "explicit" did you not get?

What? I just explained your question ("Why would you need all this crap to be explicit?"). Are you sure you got anything I said at all?

Tactics is not LARPing.

Anything is LARPing when the player operates on an assumption that isn't realised in the mechanics. You can put two men side by side and fantasize about fighting in formation but unless there are exclusive mechanics that contribute to the concept of "coordinated fighting", and not mere conditional bonuses and penalties where units still act individually and be acted upon individually, then that's LARPing. Group actions are different than individual actions. It can still be a sound tactic but it's not a "formation".

If formations serve a purpose they do so because they *work*. They work based on same low-level rules that dictate how you stab someone with a spear and when can he defend himself against being stabbed with a spear. They don't need spearate high level rules

Doesn't explain why ancient soldiers received formation training for centuries. There is more to fighting in formations than simply using your martial knowledge. Two men fighting side by side is different to two men fighting together.

If I stick vulnerable units behind a wall of tanks with shields, they don't become more difficult to kill because they get more HPs or arbitrary AC bonus. They become hard to kill because the enemy can't get through the shieldwall and any attacks over shieldwall, whether against unit in formation or not, suffer penalty to range and effectiveness.

You are not making sense. The two sentences contradict each other. If your target is harder to kill because you can't get through the shieldwall or attack over the shieldwall, then that automatically constitutes as an AC bonus of some sort, in addition to whatever other modifiers. Anyone behind a wall of shields will have superior protection compared to anyone who is not, more difficult to kill by mere definition.

Formation do need to be specified in terms of movement and AI, but not as some sort of higher level meta-unit.

Impossible to agree with your lack of distinction between individual units and formations, it's nonsensical rubbish at a very basic level. Attacking a formation would be different than attacking a target side by side with his buddies. Tactics change at simplest.

Don't resist the change, sociopath! Nobody wants to take away the individuality of your units.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Will you buy a lot of potatoes with that money?

 

[Metro]

Vault Dweller

In your quest to sell ten million copies you might (if you haven't already) want to check out Amazon's newly launched indie storefront. Part of it features a Q&A section with developers.

 

[sser]

Probably worthless information, but one of Amazon's marketing managers frequents Reddit.

 

[Metro]

It's the same guy who posts on CAG, Tony something. He's like the assistant head of their digital games department.

 

[DraQ]

Anything is LARPing when the player operates on an assumption that isn't realised in the mechanics.

As long as positionong and facing are realised in mechanics, then so are formations.

Doesn't explain why ancient soldiers received formation training for centuries. There is more to fighting in formations than simply using your martial knowledge. Two men fighting side by side is different to two men fighting together.

You're answering a wrong question here. The right question is whether the mechanics is subtle enough to be capable of distinguishing between formation and group of individual fighters, positioned and moving as if they were a formation.

You are not making sense. The two sentences contradict each other. If your target is harder to kill because you can't get through the shieldwall or attack over the shieldwall, then that automatically constitutes as an AC bonus of some sort, in addition to whatever other modifiers.

If attacks over and around obstacles and, especially hostile troops, are automatically hindered, then whatever bonuses formation would assign are automatically accounted for.

Besides, if you have a wall of shields and dude behind it, would attacking this dude through this wall differ based on him being part of the formation containing shield wall?

Formations are good for handling coordinated movement and facing, but other than that they don't really seem to need any dedicated mechanics.

 

[wergle]

Anything is LARPing when the player operates on an assumption that isn't realised in the mechanics.

As long as positionong and facing are realised in mechanics, then so are formations.

iirc the concept of facing is not modeled in AoD

 

[villain of the story]

You're answering a wrong question here. The right question is whether the mechanics is subtle enough to be capable of distinguishing between formation and group of individual fighters, positioned and moving as if they were a formation.

Good and sensible design = simplify the game logic by leaving the choice up to the player.

Shit and broken design = operate on assumptions that try to predict and guesstimate what the player intends to do.

The former usually succeeds. The latter ALWAYS FAILS.

 

[DraQ]

I respond with non sequiturs because I am retarded.

Yep.

 

[villain of the story]

I'm not low and dishonest enough to twist words just because I don't like an opinion. Enjoy swimming in your own shit.

 

[DraQ]

I'm not low and dishonest enough to twist words just because I don't like an opinion. Enjoy swimming in your own shit.

Ok, how is guy just behind the line of dudes with shields being difficult to hit regardless of whether he's actually formed up with them or just doing whatever "operating on assumptions that try to predict and guesstimate what the player intends to do."?

 

[Deleted member 7219]

You betcha. We've learned so much working on the game... For instance:

- challenging combat is not fun
- heroes kicks ass, they don't die 10 times per fight
- tactics are gay, real men click on enemies until they die
- skill checks suck because they limit my options
- too much text
- where are the motherfucking chests and barrels with loot, aka environmental interactivity?
- why do NPCs lie to me?
- tire textures are wrong

So, our next game, inspired by Bioshock Infinity, will take place in a floating city, up in the sky. We'll keep the Roman theme, of course, so it will be called Sky Rome. You will be able to explore the city and the clouds, which will be filled with chests, jars. Our goal is to create an infinite cloud space, so you will always see more containers with loot up ahead and will never want to stop. The game will have 3 difficulty modes: Easy (enemies die when you approach them), Normal (enemies die when you hit them) and Hardcore (enemies die on the third strike). While some people might be upset to see the Easy mode in the game, they would be able to play the game on Hardcore and experience the ultimate challenge and badassary.

Holding you to this now AoD is almost out. Sky Rome will be a huge success.