I'd just like to go over why I think the changes were good. The gist of it is that although the old combat system was more elegant and clean and fun it's ultimately not a tactical combat game but an RPG that has combat in it.
That may be the case, but the old sytem still allows for progression. More shieding, increased damage, increased mobility, waves of enemies. These are al things that could have gone deeper into those much cleaner mechanics that offered a more tactical challenge.
I'd say my game revolves around exploration, doing quests, stacking shekels and giving your party members a good retirement.
Im talking about the combat, not the exploration aspect. But we can talk about that later.
I agree it was fun and not what you see in most RPGs
It was literally the only thing that set your game apart.
As I've said before, the old combat system prevented having character progression, equipment/ability upgrades and fine tuning the combat system.
Not really. You could still implement those things. Also a much more interesting character progression would come outside the combat, as your characters grew more experienced they could get better at travelling around the world, or implement sidegrades, like the ability to wield different weapons.
Like if a level 1 archer does 1 damage and shoots 3 spaces away, what should a level 2 archer be able to do? How about level 5 with a thrice upgraded bow?
Well, you could start with small upgrades that simply save you from fuck ups, like for example a 5% chance to avoid a ranged proyectile, or a 3% chance to shoot again. Things that wouldnt fundamentally change the combat, but would save the player when he screws up. Maybe a chance for your arrows to outright slay an enemy regardless of hp or shielding.
These things are no incompatible with your old system, because the lethality would still be there.
Your shieldguy could probably have a chance to avoid losing the shield if he gets hit while holding it. Your fencer could have a small chance to gain an attack or a movement after attacking or getting attacked.
These while still holding on to the 2 hp 1 damage rules your characters have.
You could also offer consumables, like greek fire.
Enemies with poison attacks could exist, the poison could take several rounds to act but keep acting outside of combat, you either treat it or you pray it doesnt kill you. Diseases would be the same, only over a longer period of time, maybe even having you start a battle with 1 hp instead of 2.
Character progression and weapon/armor upgrades are the staples of the RPG genre, and I set out to create a RPG (that involves combat as one part of it), not some kind of hexagonal battle chess.
That can still exist as i explained above.
Aren't randomized damage and critical chance present in pretty much every RPG? That criticism can also apply to say Planescape Torment or Fallout, and to a much greater degree because in my game there are no misses - the range of randomization is much smaller.
They dont end the game if you die, on the contrary, in some of those cases you die and the game begins.
As for having zero control over criticals, fencer lunge gives you a 3x chance of a critical, sweep gives you a 2x chance and archer shooting from directly behind a team member (using them as a human shield) also gives 2x chance.
Thats not the problem, the problem is that you cant control when the enemy hits you critically, and it can happen, and you feel cheated because you did nothing wrong. A system that literally kills you on a whim cant support permadeath.
Again, as much or more control than in most RPGs, and that's before I introduce equipment/abilities that increase the chance of criticals.
It doesnt matter how much crit chance you have, if the enemy has a 0.000000000000000!% to crit you, it being on the game only benefits them.
Only if you consider combat to be the core of the game. The choice was either have a game with the enemies and party members the same strength throughout the game (eventually 30+ hours of gameplay) or change combat to allow progression and make combat more like in other RPGs.
Make it a good 5-10 hours instead of a grindy 30.
My original vision is for players to hire party members, help them meet their goals and get rich and then retire them, while playing through an overarching story where the adventuring company is the main focus.
If thats the goal have the main character have infinite resolve. Because it simply does not feel like an overarching story if no one of the ones that was at the start is at the end.
I am well aware that many RPG players just want good tactical combat and I think my game provides that (at least it's no worse than many other RPGs)
Your game post beta provides with nothing of the sort. If you added active abilities, magic, an inventory, etc. Then maaaaaaaaaybe, but as it is right now you just attack.
You can escape pretty much every random encounter now with money or special abilities or both, plus you can retreat at the start of combat. If I were to add bribes to remove a few enemies, that would be just another type of bribe for which I'd have to write new text content, like when you meet a band of natives, how do you bribe only a few of them? And how would that text content differ from bribing cultists or deserters? And how much would all that extra work contribute to the game?
Yeah, no. Im not wasting hours of play time because you thought itd be funny to send a random encounter where i stand no chance of winning.
Also your game became unfun. All the characters do is attack eachother, its literally a turn based game where you can only attack, and you turned it into one where all you should do is attack, movement hardly matters anymore, so instead of bidimensional combat is now onedimensional. Also most rpgs offer strategical choices, yours offers none besides the 3 guys you recruit.
Your gear upgrades are linear, leveling is linear, and combat in your game is simple and repetitive without the tactical layer it used to have.
The resolve is there to punish players who walk around without supplies (I'd like such players to uninstall my game as soon as possible) and to enforce turnover of party members.
I have never, ever ran out of supplies. I do the fights at the arena, get the 2 animals, make sure i have a guy in my team that can deal with storms. In both versions of your game i was walking around with max supplies, every upgrade and 3000 money before the second hour. Max supplies with the animals 5 minutes into the game.
Resolve mechanic used to be there to punish you for making rash judgement in a fight and getting hit. Now it goes down because the enemy got lucky with a critical, every other fight. Only time i saw it go up was after beating an "epic" fight, and then after beating an even harder encounter i got shit for my trouble. Its just all around bad if you are going to lose resolve that you cant recover simply because RNG gonna RNG.
In the next update every unique mission and a few chance encounters (like meeting refugees) will have the potential to increase the party's resolve. That said, you should keep in mind that party members are meant to be transient. I realize that flies in the face of most RPGs but I liked how it worked in Darklands where if you lose a guy, you just get a new one.
Resolve was annoying pre beta, after the beta its just infuriating, aggravating and offensively stupid, a way to punish players for their bad luck.