Difficulty, Balance and Replayability

  • 598 Views
  • Last Post 4 days ago
Spolokh posted this 15 July 2017

Hello Julian & other team.

I would like to share an Idea that can improve game replayability, provide us (game fans) more fun and broke game development routine. There are three topics to be discussed:

- Save/Load exploit as game mechanics

- Rich mechanics on high difficulty levels

- Balance as difficulty level

Usually difficulty levels differs in strait way, monsters are nor tough and resources are more rare. I propose to differentiate difficulty levels by different/orthogonal approach. 

 

Save/Load exploit as game mechanics

First I would like to talk about game difficulty and save load mechanics. Ironman mode usually comes as different difficulty dimension. Some people, including me, never use this option. I do not think ironman is a good option to be integral part of game difficulty, especially for games like XCOM, where mechanics is not 100% transparent.

On the other hand I think save/load mechanics must be limited to avoid exploit, and planning of where and when game should be saved must be a part of game strategy on non basic levels. It makes game exploration more attractive if you can undo some action and see what can happen if you behave in a different way without repeating whole the way.  otherwise exploration is a tricky way and games looses this dimension in my eyes. For example such problem appeared in Darkest Dungeon. A single mistake ruins whole the game and I just feared to improvise. This exploit is good for the basic level where game mechanics is learned, but on high difficulty it should be limited. For example two saves per game month or 3 saves per 10 battle turns

As far in forest the more tough are partisans or give us more rich mechanics on high difficulty levels

It would be nice for game to force player to challenge high difficulty levels by making game mechanics more common. Just more epics on high difficulty levels. Youy skip the rest of chapter you you understand what it is about. Otherwise "stay and listen" (C) D.Cain.  Let me explain it on example.

Let say that game could provide to player an access to epic weapons as psionic or high-tech via some events. Player has to fulfill some strategy to make those events happen. 

On base difficulty level those abilities are redundant/Not vital and thus those events are very rare.  Not vital I mean that game is easy without them and player can skip this mechanics to reveal the main plot, (yet some scenes could be missed). In other words plots that allows epic weapons are just for fun and to expose this mechanics.  Even more, on this difficulty both development ways ( to find psionics or find high-tech weapons) could be even forbidden to happen in a single walkthrough. Anyway p[layer should be so bored when he achieves them both so he should finish the game as fast as it happens.

On middle level  those strategies are vital, and player have to seek an access at least to one of them. So access to them is less depends on random. I mean that player should not waste his attention to make those event to happen. The game should be balanced such way that player should rush for game end once any of the epic abilities are reached. There could be no time to explore another way.

On high level player must have them both (psionic and high-tech)  and thus have to fulfill both strategies. Even more, once both abilities are reached, player can find that there is a synergy and epic weapons are multiply power of the team instead of simple sum.

And for the impossible levels the following dimension should be used 

Balance as difficulty tool.

Game should be balanced - is today dogma. That is a good rule. Especially in the multiplayer. In single player this rule is a good one, but in a game where player straggle with unknown, I think it should be broken on extreme difficulty levels.Why? Because victory strategy should be determined in the game and not the outside. On this difficulty level player should decide by himself in every walkthrough who is the most dangerous enemy and what is the most powerful soldier class instead to get from the forum that each squad must have a medic and canoneer.

Yet,  there could be some preset balances. For example one for melee units and other for ranged. Additionally they could be hidden until game with this balance is won. User can have option to select"
-  already "opened" balance,
-  any of hidden
- just random and look for clues to find out  what is the current balance

 

 

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Spolokh posted this 15 July 2017

Additionally and I think it is most difficult one - truly random. It is clear that in such way there could be a lot of easy games, but some of them could be really tough and even impossible. It is important that every such balance is well-defined and reproducible, so players could share them in community. 

 Thank you for attention

 

 

Mazy posted this 16 July 2017

Regarding Ironman mode, IMO this is an integral mechanic to any X-COM style game, ideally it would be 'ON' by default (with the option to turn it OFF). Playing without Ironman on kinda defeats the whole object of the game, it's pointless playing it if you can go back and 'undo' mistakes.. Permadeath is vital.

Playing without Ironman on makes it a non permadeath mode, this allows you to go back and regain lost soldiers/lost battles.. as such, a non Ironman run isn't very interesting or rewarding when you can just replay any turn or do-over any mission (it generally leads to unrealistic end game stats to).

NoWorries posted this 16 July 2017

Personally, as it's a single player game, I believe players should be empowered to play it however they gain the most pleasure. If they want to stomp all over the aliens or save-scum every potential tactical or strategic outcome, then let them. Or if they want to play an insanely hard mode they are likely to lose unless they're lucky, then let them. Of course, variables on difficulty are contingent upon a real solid balance being found, and so I'm all for that, too... as an option. 

That said, the new alien mutation gameplay mechanic is an interesting twist on the genre, as the aliens will adapt to how players succeed. And new types of strategies might arise which, while they seem like exploits, are actually sound military tactics for a desperate humanity. E.g., sending rookies out to get slaughtered by aliens who you have the tech to overcome easily just so that the Pandoravirus might keep those aliens on rotation a little longer. Even so, finding easy, moderate, and challenging gameplay balances for this new mechanic likely will take a fair bit of playtesting. So yay to beta backers!

  • Liked by
  • Chapter of One
Spolokh posted this 16 July 2017

Ironman is a suitable difficulty for XCom style gamy, but, IMHO, it is to heavy. In games like XCom a single mistake could vanish the whole squad. There is no partial sucess. So the most mission either flawless or the whole team is wiped. 

If the mode is turned on and save/load is exploite - all the missions became flawless and player just miss some mechanics. 

 

It would be nice to have something in a middle by a partial Ironman mode as it described by the topic starter.

  • Liked by
  • Brucaliffo
Ped posted this 17 July 2017

for me playing in ironman mode is a must, without it there'd be no tension, emotional investment in any actions or events or even challenge, if something doesn't go your way you just roll it back and try something else, or even worse try the same thing over n over until the roll goes your way. 

But everyone likes different things and plays games for different reasons so I definitely think it should be optional, wouldn't have a problem with default to on though. 

One point though, I've never really found a single mistake will destroy an entire playthrough, if your 'A' squad gets wiped and your 'B' squad is a bunch of rookies then IMO you've not been planning properly. Never run a mission with full A team, always have 1 or 2 lower rank soldiers that you're leveling up with the help of the top dogs to keep them out of trouble.

I'm not sure about the need for a middle mode though, you either play ironman or you don't, if you only want to save scum 3 times a month then do so at your own discretion?

  • Liked by
  • Mazy
Spolokh posted this 17 July 2017

Ped said:

for me playing in ironman mode is a must, without it there'd be no tension, emotional investment in any actions or events or even challenge, if something doesn't go your way you just roll it back and try something else, or even worse try the same thing over n over until the roll goes your way. 

But everyone likes different things and plays games for different reasons so I definitely think it should be optional, wouldn't have a problem with default to on though. 

One point though, I've never really found a single mistake will destroy an entire playthrough, if your 'A' squad gets wiped and your 'B' squad is a bunch of rookies then IMO you've not been planning properly. Never run a mission with full A team, always have 1 or 2 lower rank soldiers that you're leveling up with the help of the top dogs to keep them out of trouble.

I'm not sure about the need for a middle mode though, you either play ironman or you don't, if you only want to save scum 3 times a month then do so at your own discretion?

You are, but I look on the middle mode as advertisement. It should encourage people that scum save/load to try a new game aspects. They missing some game mechanics and it is a way to allure them. Especially in case high difficulty levels will provide more epics

Julian Gollop posted this 20 July 2017

This is an interesting and fundamental discussion. Our objective should be to make sure the game  is fun for all players at all levels of capability. This means if the lowest difficulty level is the right challenge level for a player, it should be as much fun to play as for a more skillful player on a higher difficulty setting. There is also the idea raised by Spolokh of having a difference experience for each difficulty level based on game elements or content which may or may not be exposed to the player at different difficulty levels. My inclination is to focus on the fundamentals first - get the game fun for everybody. We are still considering some adaptive difficulty adjustments to avoid the 'spiraling into oblivion' feeling that you can get with complex strategy games.

91stCataclysm posted this 20 July 2017

I'd be interested in a New X-Com 1 style "Bronzeman Mode", where you cannot save during missions but are free to restart a mission that you feel you screwed up fundamentally. The reason for this is that that I (and i imagine many other players) simply don't have the patience and free time to sink hours into a playthrough only to have it almost irrevocably lost due to a couple of bad decisions (or worse, a couple of bad RNGesus outcomes), but we do not want to be tempted to save-scum to perfection every turn.

 

Thus, the ability to "Ironman" an individual mission BUT still be able to retry it if it goes catastrophic due to a moment's incaution/inattention/stupidity would be a happy medium to me.

  • Liked by
  • Chapter of One
woah77 posted this 20 July 2017

Personally, I don't really like having an iron or bronze man mode, because I like to save whenever I want to. Sometimes I just need a break, and I like to take it when I want to.

Ped posted this 20 July 2017

woah77 said:

Personally, I don't really like having an iron or bronze man mode, because I like to save whenever I want to. Sometimes I just need a break, and I like to take it when I want to.

you can still save whenever you like with Ironman mode, it's just that it always overwrites your last save from this playthrough so you can't savescum. But in terms of taking a break, it puts no limitations on you.

  • Liked by
  • Grimlock
woah77 posted this 20 July 2017

Well the bronzeman mode they described only lets you save inbetween missions, not during them.

Spolokh posted this 20 July 2017

Julian Gollop said:

Our objective should be to make sure the game  is fun for all players at all levels of capability. 

I would like to drag attention once more that light version Iron-man mode (as I described above) could serve this purpose due to the following reasons:

1. Save/load scumming can hide some game mechanics from players. From example their soldiers will never hurt. That leaves out of their experience the whole game layer. Those solders should be kept in safe positions untill end of the mission. Those soldier had to be healed after. Rest of the team can pass traning at this time. For example in XCOM2 Long Wart thay can be Resistans leaders and pass AWC and officer traning.   

2. It is a little bit hurt to start a regular Iron-man game because one mistake can ruin entire game. Light Iron-Man version can help to deal with it and can learn how to deal with such problems without a fear that they can loose the game that was half won. 

Ped posted this 20 July 2017

woah77 said:

Well the bronzeman mode they described only lets you save inbetween missions, not during them.

I'm not sure of the exact wording of what's been said, but I would imagine the implementation would be more along the lines of you can save whenever you like, but you can only create alternate restore points inbetween missions, anything else would be crazy.

kompan posted this 21 July 2017

Being a casual (read: lazy) gamer I'm voting for save/load without any limits, at least on easy/normal.

However, on the battlescape - and on higher difficulties - instead of "Save game", you can have the "Report your status to HQ" option. This reporting/saving would cost some resources, be it money, equipped radio batteries or simply gold action from your support soldier, who has the radio/satellite/comm link skill (or equipment). No comm specialist in your squad? Well, on larger maps you can put some abandoned radio stations that may serve as checkpoints to report your position from.

I know, it starts to look like some action-rpg with savepoints and mana crystals But in my opinion it would provide extra layer of managing your resources, preparing support soldiers, communicating with base and planning routes to capture radio station in the middle of the map.

Mehukannu posted this 21 July 2017

Ironman mode would be pretty neat. I am currently playing openxcom: tftd with ironman mode enabled and my aquanaut death toll is ominiously nearing 100 by now. Sort of looking forward to have somewhat similiar experiences in Phoenix Point.

Though some obvious problems from ironman mode is the occasional fatal misclicks that you can't undo, so just from that point of view I don't see any reason to force players into an ironman mode and ironman to me has always just been a challenge mode basically and should be treated as such.

CaptainGeneral posted this 21 July 2017

Well I play Ironman mode when it's in a game but really I haven't save-scummed in 20 years or so of gaming- there's no challenge to me if I complete a game reloading when things didn't go my way. I start at the beginning again. People should be allowed to play however they like though, and if people are going to 'cheat' they're going to 'cheat'... and there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to. Optional Ironman mode is nice but generally just there to look nice in steam achievements.

woah77 posted this 21 July 2017

I like the *option* of ironman mode existing. I dislike it being forced upon me. Ironman is usually an option that you can select and that's the way I like it.

  • Liked by
  • Chapter of One
Wormerine posted this 22 July 2017

Iron man isn't, and has never been intergal part of XCOM. It wasn't present in UFO: Enemy Unknown. It was introduced in Firaxis remake. I like Ironman. I forces me to live with my mistakes. I do, however, like what you are proposing. Similar system was introduced in Invisible Inc. I was against it at first, but it is a great addition. Inv. Inc. was a one save game. It is still that way but they added "rewind" - at the higher difficulty levels you can rewind back one turn up to two times. While I don't believe that dice rolls are an issue (if you are in a situation where missed 95% kills you it was YOUR fault for bad planning). However, games can be buggy. I would play XCOM2 on ironman if I could rewind whenever game breaks. Or you can misclick. For those limited "rewinds" are perfect.

the other ideas not so much. Cutting off gameplay mechanics from players just sounds like a bad idea (you want to play on easy? You won't get fun toys!). I think I understand the idea (making game difficult via complexity, not higher stats/numbers) but I don't think it works that way. Higher difficulties should force you to engage more with the mechanics (creating smarter combos, minmaxing, smarter team compositions) but artificially adding this experience by literally cutting out content for lower levels sounds silly.

Xcom has never BEEN balanced. Alien forces are always in bigger numbers and more capable than your soldiers. Then tables turn. That was XCOMs arch and from what we have heard PP will go the other way (superior humans and mutations catching up to them). That said Firaxis Xcom felt way to controlled to me. You have to be careful as some of the bull**** thing which would happen in UFO just won't pass today. And it's a good thing. Hopefully the procedural generation of aliens will be robust enough to get free many thrills. Please be careful about using word "random". You really really really don't want ANYTHING in your game to be completely random;-)

Spolokh posted this 22 July 2017

Wormerine said:

 Cutting off gameplay mechanics from players just sounds like a bad idea (you want to play on easy? You won't get fun toys!).

Men, you totally miss an idea. Nobody are being cut from nothing. There is always a possibility you will get fun toys. All my proposition is that you can get more fun toys on high difficulty level

Wormerine posted this 22 July 2017

Spolokh said:

Wormerine said:

 Cutting off gameplay mechanics from players just sounds like a bad idea (you want to play on easy? You won't get fun toys!).

Men, you totally miss an idea. Nobody are being cut from nothing. There is always a possibility you will get fun toys. All my proposition is that you can get more fun toys on high difficulty level

 

haha Did I? It seems like two sides of the same coin: you get less stuff on lower difficulty levels/you get more on higher difficulty levels. Lets use an example of XCOM Enemy Within to see if I got it right and, please, correct me if I am wrong:

I play on normal and I get usual soldier classes to play with. On classic in addition I get access to soldier mutation, which are required by higher difficulty level. On Impossible I get all of those plus mech. Isn't that the idea? If yes, than what is the point of cutting those features from lower difficulty levels?

Spolokh posted this 22 July 2017

Wormerine said:

haha Did I? It seems like two sides of the same coin: you get less stuff on lower difficulty levels/you get more on higher difficulty levels. Lets use an example of XCOM Enemy Within to see if I got it right and, please, correct me if I am wrong:

I play on normal and I get usual soldier classes to play with. On classic in addition I get access to soldier mutation, which are required by higher difficulty level. On Impossible I get all of those plus mech. Isn't that the idea? If yes, than what is the point of cutting those features from lower difficulty levels?

You missing a differens between "cut off" and "recieve in lower probability"

I had just describe the example you mentioned, lets use your terms.

1. There is an ordinary soldiers classes

2. There is soldiers mutations

3. There is mechs

As you understand [and not what I mentioned] on lower difficulty levels there is no access to 2 and 3. You correct. That is a bad approach. I agree. So I proposed another idea. I propose that 2 and 3 appears after an event of some kind. For example:

 

Spolokh posted this 22 July 2017

4. Solder can pass a mutation after it is heavily wounded by thinman poison and cured. On lower level probability of such event is 1%, i.e in average after 100 such case (unit is heavily wounded by thinman poison and cured) such mutation appeared and then could be investigated and reproduced in the lab. Once it appeared we can start to produce mutated soldiers

 

 5. Mech could be created after soldier suffer fatal injury, fell unconsiouse and was rescued from battle field. On lower level there is 1% probability that following event will appear - soldier limbs was so damaged that it cannot be restored and had been decided to replicate it with artificial instruments. Usually such attempts fails, but this one was a success. After this case investigation we can reproduce this success and  at last we can manufacture cyborgs non-stop.

 

My proposition is that for middle difficulties such probability should be less rare and for the high levels almost common. 

 

In case there is a synergy  between cyborgs and mutants - we can have another game layer on high level, that id VERY RARE on lower level. By the way such approach used for example in Diablo III - high difficulty levels gives you more die rolls and that lower a probability you will not get an epic loot.

Spolokh posted this 22 July 2017

Wormerine said:

Xcom has never BEEN balanced. Alien forces are always in bigger numbers and more capable than your soldiers. Then tables turn. 

You correct. But balance has another meaning - how you balance your effort to achieve the goal. For example:

1. what is the proportion of melee/ranged units in squad?

2. How many healers required ?

3. Should every unit carry a medikit or 2 medikits are enough for the whole squad?

 

That is the balance I talked about. Usually those number are known at the game start. I am talking about a game where you have to find it out in the process. Espesially in games of XCom style, where you fight with unknown. The only problem with it - such mode is VERY hard to play, so I talkked how to make difficulty levels difference not such shoking

Spolokh posted this 22 July 2017

So the balancing I mentioned is not about XCom vs Aliens relations but for example power of ranged weapons and melee ones. It can give a lot to game replayability. POne game will be based on melee unit classes and other on ranged. 

SlipperyJim posted this 22 July 2017

Personally I don't know why any developer would deny players interesting game mechanics based on what difficulty level they choose to play.

I would advocate modifying xp/item chance based on difficulty but not fencing off features.

Just my thoughts.

Regards,

Jim

===================================================
Forum Moderator and Chaos Reborn Stalwart. The Battlemage!

  • Liked by
  • Grimlock
  • SpiteAndMalice
woah77 posted this 23 July 2017

SlipperyJim said:

Personally I don't know why any developer would deny players interesting game mechanics based on what difficulty level they choose to play.

I concur.

Grimlock posted this 24 July 2017

SlipperyJim said:

Personally I don't know why any developer would deny players interesting game mechanics based on what difficulty level they choose to play.

 

I also think that low difficult level shouldn't hide any game mechanics from the player.

The way I see this is that the low level should be more forgiving to mistakes that the player could make in order to better understand the mechanics/fundamentals and what shouldn’t do, but at the same time it should offer an adequate challenge to improve and put that new knowledge in use.

That way the player could learn how to play the game and what tactics could use but without a “you win” button.

In higher difficult levels the player will need to be more precise and make less mistakes (it would be harder to recover from bad decision, you would have less resources, enemies will use more effective tactics or the mutations will appear more often in response to player decisions...)

If you add a complete new mechanic/s that the player don’t have any clue, even when he/she has finished the game once or maybe more in a low level difficult, could be seen as unfair or even as a cheap way to increase the difficulty of the game.

I’m going to put two personal examples, these are more related about the difficult not about the hidden mechanics.

When I started playing Sin and Punishment 2 (wii game, its a shooter on rails just in case you don’t know it) I did it in normal mode and I was having problems to advance in the game, so I decide to start again in easy difficult. While I still had some problems at first I was able to learn how to move and how to use the weapons properly (you have the same two weapons for the entire game, no upgrades, except at the end) and I beat the game.

Then after 2 or 3 times playing it I decided to come back to normal and I was able to complete the game several times. Now I did understand the weapons and how to use them but I had to be faster, accurate and agile while playing.

Just for fun I decided to start the game in easy to see how I would do and I finished it without dying. It was obvious that I improved.

Last time I played it I did on hard difficult. It was a really great experience not just to play the game but also to improve as a player, and this motivated me to try new things and challenge myself.

Now the second example, Bayonneta.

At that time I had never played a game like that, so my first contact on normal was “not good”.

Like with Sin and Punishment I started an easy difficult game to learn the game (after some time playing in training mode to learn some basic combos, timing etc) And at first it was bad.

For some reason in easy mode the game autotargets by default, a mechanic you normally use in higher difficult levels. Fortunately I found that you can deactivate it and I did it.

But after playing for a while I discover that the game still was too easy, I could beat a lot of the enemies just mashing the buttons or with very little effort.

When I finished it I was disappointed. I don’t think my gameplay was improved at all like with the previous example. For me the easy mode was useless, no challenge no improvement at all.

Conclusion and TLDR version: I think easy mode should be use to help the player to better understand the game and all it’s mechanics and at the same time, like Julian said, it should offer an adequate challenge for the player.

 

SpiteAndMalice posted this 24 July 2017

Ideally any game should cater for a variety of target audiences when it comes to difficulty level. There's no particular way in which a game 'should' be played, and once you start to impose things like x y or z saving system on players you start to run the risk that the game will attract less players than it would do otherwise. 

It's a single player game, let player A save scum if that how they want to play, let player B play ironman if that's how they want to play, and let player C have something in the middle if that's their preference. 

I think content should be a separate factor, (where again, certain things could be turned on or off, but that should also be based on player preference) setting up a system where players on lower levels of difficulty experience less of a game will imho just put them off the game as opposed to motivating them to play it at a higher difficulty level, and why should they have to play at a higher difficulty level if that's not their preference? Imagine how it would be if things were the opposite way around, and there was a proposal to say that you got less content on the higher difficulty levels? 

  • This week I have been mostly playing Chaos Reborn.
Anjovi posted this 24 July 2017

I for one really hope the death toll nears towards the old xcom then the new xcom (referencing julien mentioning an inbetween the 2 approximation) 

Alot of good tension came from not knowing when a baddie was around the corner waiting to eviscerate a trooper. Though i can appreciate that with the emphasized rpg, customization of aesthetics, etc. that this could trivialize customizing a hero, who'd die in the next mission.

SpiteAndMalice posted this 24 July 2017

Julian Gollop said:

This is an interesting and fundamental discussion. Our objective should be to make sure the game  is fun for all players at all levels of capability. This means if the lowest difficulty level is the right challenge level for a player, it should be as much fun to play as for a more skillful player on a higher difficulty setting. 

I know that within the context of your post that you're not meaning to say that one player is more or less capable than another, but I think it's worth noting that it's not necessarily about capability when players choose to play games at different difficulty levels. It can be as much to do with preferred game-play experience and/or time availability.

I'm playing Temple of Elemental Evil at the moment and I'm heavily save scumming. It's not that I'm not capably of playing the game on Ironman, but rather that (and putting aside the fact that it apparently does work well on ironman if modded) I'm wanting to explore on this play through and see how the different quests can plot out, I'm therefore not playing the game in a linear manner, but instead going back and forth a little between different saves. I may when I've done that, (if I have the time) then go back and have another go whilst setting the game up to be as difficult as possible, but that would give me a totally different experience. TOEE has for me got the right approach, it's letting players play the game how they want to do it. 

  • This week I have been mostly playing Chaos Reborn.
CaptainGeneral posted this 24 July 2017

Anjovi said:

I for one really hope the death toll nears towards the old xcom then the new xcom (referencing julien mentioning an inbetween the 2 approximation) 

Alot of good tension came from not knowing when a baddie was around the corner waiting to eviscerate a trooper. Though i can appreciate that with the emphasized rpg, customization of aesthetics, etc. that this could trivialize customizing a hero, who'd die in the next mission.

 

I'm glad they've decided to not have pods as in the recent xcoms. It made tactical combat feel more balanced but meant any horror or suspense elements were completely lacking. It became very formulaic as well. If they can capture the old TFTD feel of map exploration and hunter/hunted dynamic it'd be so much more atmospheric. Human factions sure, have squad tactics but the Aliens should be more like xenomorphs.

Solomani posted this 2 weeks ago

Being able to configure your own difficulty is what I would want.

Because I know how, I modified Long War 2 to have elements of Impossible difficulty with elements from Veteran. I didn't like how quickly Advent ramped up in difficulty at Impossible, but I hated how easy Veteran was. Playing at Commander level was ok, but not optimal either. So I did a lot of tweaking in the config files to get it to what I want. Ideally, these should've been in the UI.

And I agree with others that Ironman mode is absolute must. It's a completely different feeling when you know you can't back out after a battle turns against you. Do you 'P' out or soldier thru and try to turn it back to your favor? Three of your best soldiers are gone and you have your other two top tier soldiers surrounded.

silver1974 posted this 2 weeks ago

Spolokh said:

Ironman is a suitable difficulty for XCom style gamy, but, IMHO, it is to heavy. In games like XCom a single mistake could vanish the whole squad. There is no partial sucess. So the most mission either flawless or the whole team is wiped.

Hi sorry to interrupt an interesting discussion. This bold part is something important to consider if you ask me. There should not always be black or white results in warfare. You could have a marginal victory, a marginal defeat, an overwhelming victory, a crushing defeat,  a "draw" result even etc. This will be a very good tactical change from previous versions. You could try for everything, but at some point settle for less. This will make you revise your strategy not only to achieve your *single* objective but also reconsider your tactics during the mission depending on progress and casualties, re-evaluating the situation to achieve something less optimal but more feasible. For this (certain) missions will probably need to have primary and secondary objectives with varying levels of success.

Vathar posted this 2 weeks ago

woah77 said:

Well the bronzeman mode they described only lets you save inbetween missions, not during them.

It's a misunderstanding then. Bronzeman is more or less Ironman on the tactical layer (you only have one autosave and can't save manually, you can only "save and exit", which allows you to stop playing at any point) and no restrictions on the strategic layer.

A couple of other remarks :

- If a single squad wipe makes you lose a campaign, then your strategic game is lacking. It's called "putting all your eggs in the same basket"

- Players have a flawed definition of what is "a ruined game" and may drop the towel just because a mission went south while the campaign could still be won. For example, I saw someone saying that a single mistake can ruin a game in Darkest dungeon, which is absurd. You may make a mistake and lose a team of veterans along with their gear, which is annoying for sure, but since the game has no time limit (outside of game+ mode) and you can always recruit four rookies to do a gearless low level dungeon, you can ALWAYS recover from a wipe and it won't be harder than starting a new game.

- While I understand that game-enforced Ironman can be good for players who can't resist savescumming, any dedicated player can impose a no-reload policy on themselves. I often favor "honestman" when playing heavily modded games where game breaking bugs can occur. That said, "ironman" mode is becoming more and more common across a variety of genres and I fully expect FP to offer the option and be balanced around it (ie. accepting losses and pushing on, with a game being winnable despite a few setbacks)

SpiteAndMalice posted this 2 weeks ago

You should keep difficulty level and access to fun toy and two entirely unrelated aspects of a game imho.

Once you start saying 'oh you only get this on hard difficulty' or 'you only get access to that on ironman' all it serves to do is piss off the majority of the playerbase who don't especially wish to play on that difficulty level.

Replaying a game at a higher difficulty should be something a player chooses to do because they enjoy the game and want further challenge. It shouldn't because the developer is holding their arm up against their back and it being the only way that that player will get to experience the full contents of a game that they've already paid for.

  • This week I have been mostly playing Chaos Reborn.
Vathar posted this 4 days ago

SpiteAndMalice said:

Once you start saying 'oh you only get this on hard difficulty' or 'you only get access to that on ironman' all it serves to do is piss off the majority of the playerbase who don't especially wish to play on that difficulty level.

Mostly agreed, with a few minor exceptions :

- "True ending" cinematic in higher difficultys acceptable in my books. Worst case, people who don't feel like playing said higher difficulty will watch it on YT.

- Unlocking minor cosmetic option for future playthroughs by finishing a harder difficulty. 

 

Those are examples of things "I can live with". They are in my opinion mostly unnecessary but if a studio feels they need to appeal to elitist gamers in that way, it remains acceptable.

Brucaliffo posted this 4 days ago

I think your suggestions about a middle way between full Ironman and save scum is the best way to go. 

Even for example saving allowed only at the beginning of a Mission would be nice.

One save per week or month will be good too.

A Soft-Ironman solution will be the best IMHO.

 

Close