Arcen Games

Games => Bionic Dues => Topic started by: Teal_Blue on October 12, 2013, 01:57:16 PM

Title: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Teal_Blue on October 12, 2013, 01:57:16 PM
Where a player only has the 6 exos in the stall for the entire game, if one gets killed or lost, that's that and we only have what is left? Of the six, if i lose 4 or five through an entire 50 mission game, then i only have the 1 or 2 remaining, or i lose the game? It could make for a pretty intense set of missions.  :)

It doesn't have to be for everyone, perhaps just a toggle, like the ironman, in fact perhaps it could be a part of the ironman mode if you like. Or is this already what ironman is about and i'm rather oblivious of that?

Hope things on the financial front are looking better.

Sincerely,
-Teal

Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Mick on October 12, 2013, 02:00:11 PM
Of course, all equipped items on each destroyed exo would have to blow up with it. ;)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 12, 2013, 02:00:35 PM
One of the optional conducts I want to do for the expansion is "when an exo dies, it's gone forever".  So that'd just be a stall of 4, not 6, but yea :)

And yes, all the gear would go up in smoke too.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Conir on October 12, 2013, 02:02:19 PM
i like the idea, but i would suggest to be able to choose which exos you want to take - so if i want to go with 3 Assaults and 3 Sieges, let me do that. if something pops, its gone :)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Teal_Blue on October 12, 2013, 03:05:50 PM
Well, i am very glad that it seems a reasonable request.  :)  Hoping the sales go well and we can look forward to an expansion.  :)

-Teal

Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 03:52:42 PM
For the record, and devil's advocate, this idea is terrible, and I wouldn't support it all. It doesn't help the majority of players, and hardcore players could simulate this by simply not using champs already destroyed in future missions. It doesn't expand base appeal at all, and I _highly_ doubt the number of players who would not buy except that there is a "super-ironman" mode implemented.


(Yes, that's devil's advocate for you)

Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: nas1m on October 12, 2013, 04:12:44 PM
For the record, and devil's advocate, this idea is terrible, and I wouldn't support it all. It doesn't help the majority of players, and hardcore players could simulate this by simply not using champs already destroyed in future missions. It doesn't expand base appeal at all, and I _highly_ doubt the number of players who would not buy except that there is a "super-ironman" mode implemented.


(Yes, that's devil's advocate for you)
And what hurt does another toggle for those who want it do ??? ? Not sure what downside you see here...
For those who like the idea it is definitely preferable if the game helps out a bit with enforcing the stricter ruleset ;D...
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 12, 2013, 04:26:25 PM
There are plenty of options in AIW that only a few players use, but which add to the perception of the game's overall awesomeness.

And while I agree that it could be readily simulated by the player, if that were a conclusive argument against the game enforcing it (when enabled), then why do we see hardcore/ironman toggles in so very many successful roguelike/roguelite/etc games?  It's trivial to simulate "dead is dead" or "when you die, game over, no reloading", but enough people don't work that way psychologically (who nonetheless want the rule sometimes) that there's a reason such toggles are added :)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Pepisolo on October 12, 2013, 04:39:31 PM
I'm all for the idea. It's the mode I'd play on. I think it could also make mission abandonments more meaningful. Currently, abandoning a mission doesn't really mean anything. It's just a way to quit out of a mission if you're bored. You might as well just fight to the death. However; if fighting to the death meant complete failure then abandoning a mission then becomes a much more tactical option. The mission is going badly -- do you fight to the bitter end or retreat and live to fight another day?




   
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 05:17:22 PM
There are plenty of options in AIW that only a few players use, but which add to the perception of the game's overall awesomeness.

And while I agree that it could be readily simulated by the player, if that were a conclusive argument against the game enforcing it (when enabled), then why do we see hardcore/ironman toggles in so very many successful roguelike/roguelite/etc games?  It's trivial to simulate "dead is dead" or "when you die, game over, no reloading", but enough people don't work that way psychologically (who nonetheless want the rule sometimes) that there's a reason such toggles are added :)
And I will counter that one of the most common FAQ's of any of these "ironman" forced games is "how do I turn it off"

There is a difference between "perception of the game's overall awesomeness" and overall popularity. I don't know many players who say "AI Wars is terrible, but then I discovered hybrids". No. Rather, players like the base game, then a sub group of those players like the harder mode. The vast, vast majority of players of these "harder" modes liked the base game to begin with. Ergo, the base game, and not the extra features, contribute meaningfully to the game's awesomeness.

Harder / more intense /=/ a more popular game. In fact, evidence in the meta sense points to the opposite  ;)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: BobTheJanitor on October 12, 2013, 05:27:36 PM
By your argument, why would any difficulty level above easy ever be worth including?

Just because someone might not want it doesn't mean everyone doesn't. And to reiterate, who is it hurting? I'm not hearing the downside here. Unless you're imagining some situation where a player picks up the game, immediately turns on 'ultra hard death mode', dies, and then runs into the street screaming about how this is the worst game ever?

And you can't 'simulate' it.  Pretending you're in hardcore mode is not the same thing. Don't believe me? What's the difference between playing poker for pennies and playing poker for 10 grand per hand? What's the difference between walking on a rope one foot off the ground and walking on a rope stretched across a canyon? You can make believe as hard as you want, but when you're working without a net, the differences are obvious.

Harder/more intense = a more enjoyable game for some people, which is enough reason to include it as an option for those people, no?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 05:31:50 PM
By your argument, why would any difficulty level above easy ever be worth including?

Just because someone might not want it doesn't mean everyone doesn't. And to reiterate, who is it hurting? I'm not hearing the downside here. Unless you're imagining some situation where a player picks up the game, immediately turns on 'ultra hard death mode', dies, and then runs into the street screaming about how this is the worst game ever?

And you can't 'simulate' it.  Pretending you're in hardcore mode is not the same thing. Don't believe me? What's the difference between playing poker for pennies and playing poker for 10 grand per hand? What's the difference between walking on a rope one foot off the ground and walking on a rope stretched across a canyon? You can make believe as hard as you want, but when you're working without a net, the differences are obvious.

Harder/more intense = a more enjoyable game for some people, which is enough reason to include it as an option for those people, no?

That argument would hold, except time spent trying to balance . develop toward these harder difficulties is time not spent balancing toward the larger majority. If that is the goal, that some effort will be spent toward the minority, that is fine. However, I will not tolerate glancing over the fact. Be upfront. An disproportionate amount of time is time toward the minority. Again, that in itself is fine, as long as it is not denied it is at the expense (or at least, the ignoring) of the majority. It occurs in AI Wars all the time, it is true. However, I will also argue that is why VotM sales were not...spectacular, given the lack of support the expansion got. Focusing on making a game harder simply doesn't drive sales as much. If that is the goal, fine, but then don't mention disappointing sales in a similar time frame (I'm not saying anyone did, but it does tie in to the "mystery" of how this game didn't sell despite good reviews).

I stand-fast that making certain "challenges" coded will develop a game's popularity a fraction of expanding the base game to begin with. There are plenty of games which I've made informal rules to myself to make the game harder; even then, I would prefer the game developers pursue expanding the game rather then codify my personal rules.

Pick one: Difficulty, or popularity.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Tridus on October 12, 2013, 06:02:06 PM
That argument would hold, except time spent trying to balance . develop toward these harder difficulties is time not spent balancing toward the larger majority.

Seeing as how we're talking about a flag in code, a checkbox on the game setup screen, and a fairly small amount of code to make bots not respond (and the game cope with that accordingly), this argument is absurd. There is no "balancing" going on at all. The game is not being rebalanced in any way whatsoever by this change.

Quote
If that is the goal, that some effort will be spent toward the minority, that is fine. However, I will not tolerate glancing over the fact. Be upfront. An disproportionate amount of time is time toward the minority. Again, that in itself is fine, as long as it is not denied it is at the expense (or at least, the ignoring) of the majority. It occurs in AI Wars all the time, it is true.

Technically time spent working on easy stuff is also "for the minority", since lots of players aren't playing on easy (and pretty much nobody is going to play there more than once).

Quote
However, I will also argue that is why VotM sales were not...spectacular, given the lack of support the expansion got.


You'd argue that VotM sales were not spectacular based on... what? VotM gave the player several new toys. Core Turrets and their "spam these everywhere for virtually no cost" system make the game easier, not harder.

Do we even know if VotM sales met expectations? Have they ever said so? Or did they simply decide not to make the big changes until Keith is working on the next expansion?

Quote
Focusing on making a game harder simply doesn't drive sales as much.

FTL would disagree, and it's a lot more merciless than Bionic Dues is. XCOM would probably also disagree since it's reviving a franchise based on being remorseless about murdering you.  The genre is based on being hard, and you're not going to interest the genre fans if you're not. BD already has a solid difficulty scaling system, so it's got no problem appealing to people who want an easier game.

Quote
If that is the goal, fine, but then don't mention disappointing sales in a similar time frame (I'm not saying anyone did, but it does tie in to the "mystery" of how this game didn't sell despite good reviews).

No, it doesn't tie in at all, because the premise that the game is too hard for people right now is false. You can make this a really easy game if you desire.

Quote
I stand-fast that making certain "challenges" coded will develop a game's popularity a fraction of expanding the base game to begin with. There are plenty of games which I've made informal rules to myself to make the game harder; even then, I would prefer the game developers pursue expanding the game rather then codify my personal rules.

Pick one: Difficulty, or popularity.

Again, that's false. What's made AI War last so long is not that the only time anybody ever worked on a feature, it was applicable to a newbie playing on 4/4. Stuff was added that keeps the game interesting for a long time, which gives it longevity. If you're adding stuff to a game, you need to look at stuff to draw in new players, and stuff to keep the existing players interested. Without them, who is going to tell the new people about the game, or buy expansions?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Tridus on October 12, 2013, 06:07:39 PM
Now then, as for the difficulty idea itself...  it seems kind of overboard. Given how long the campaign is, making a mistake this unrecoverable is going to mean that you could wind up doing 20 days with 2 exos due to an error. If you lose the wrong ones and suddenly don't have enough ammo to kill everything (not out of the question at high difficulty with two exos missing), the campaign is over at that point.

A slightly more forgiving version would be this: When you lose an exo, it's replaced with a new one at the next mission. All equipped parts are lost due to the damage. Even XCOM lets you train a new soldier if you lose one. :) That hurts, but it's more recoverable.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Frumple on October 12, 2013, 06:09:32 PM
Or just let salvage missions bring back a destroyed one, possibly with part of its previous kit (maybe depending on how well you perform during the salvage mission... sprinkle some cyropod-like things around the stage, perhaps). Might give a reason to hit them before you've lost HQ health, even.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Tridus on October 12, 2013, 06:10:36 PM
Or just let salvage missions bring back a destroyed one, possibly with part of its previous kit (maybe depending on how well you perform during the salvage mission... sprinkle some cyropod-like things around the stage, perhaps).

Or that, yeah. :)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 06:22:05 PM
That argument would hold, except time spent trying to balance . develop toward these harder difficulties is time not spent balancing toward the larger majority.

Seeing as how we're talking about a flag in code, a checkbox on the game setup screen, and a fairly small amount of code to make bots not respond (and the game cope with that accordingly), this argument is absurd. There is no "balancing" going on at all. The game is not being rebalanced in any way whatsoever by this change.

The same could be same of _all_of arcen's games. All sorts of very minor things could be done, but aren't, simply because of limited time. All of arcen's games could use some "easy" thing to make the game better, so that fact given the limited time arcen has is not of much value in itself.

Quote
If that is the goal, that some effort will be spent toward the minority, that is fine. However, I will not tolerate glancing over the fact. Be upfront. An disproportionate amount of time is time toward the minority. Again, that in itself is fine, as long as it is not denied it is at the expense (or at least, the ignoring) of the majority. It occurs in AI Wars all the time, it is true.

Technically time spent working on easy stuff is also "for the minority", since lots of players aren't playing on easy (and pretty much nobody is going to play there more than once).

More players will play on those easy modes then on the hardcores mode. Just ask about the "achievements" on AI war, and how few are done to begin with, and fewer still given to higher difficulties / hardcore plots as opposed to easier ones

Quote
However, I will also argue that is why VotM sales were not...spectacular, given the lack of support the expansion got.


You'd argue that VotM sales were not spectacular based on... what? VotM gave the player several new toys. Core Turrets and their "spam these everywhere for virtually no cost" system make the game easier, not harder.


This is ancedotal evidence. In general, Arcen does there updates based on sales. When sales decline, a new project is done. VotM got by far the least amount of sales, given the amount of support in polishing it got. The majority of the expansion / advertising was for harder things such as the two new brutal plots / other advanced AI features. Core turrets were hardly advertised, if at all, so really didn't factor to sales in my mind.
Do we even know if VotM sales met expectations? Have they ever said so? Or did they simply decide not to make the big changes until Keith is working on the next expansion?

In previous expansions, tons (sometimes bordering on literally) of changes were done after an expansion. VotM in volume got the least from ancedotal evidence. Given just_how_fast its updates stopped (Yes, arcen, I consider VotM not particually polished, in fact, the least polished AI War game since 5.0
Quote
Focusing on making a game harder simply doesn't drive sales as much.

FTL would disagree, and it's a lot more merciless than Bionic Dues is. XCOM would probably also disagree since it's reviving a franchise based on being remorseless about murdering you.  The genre is based on being hard, and you're not going to interest the genre fans if you're not. BD already has a solid difficulty scaling system, so it's got no problem appealing to people who want an easier game.

Was  FTL a runaway success? If they were, they would have an expansion. That is the most reliable sense if a game was reliable, if a game had an expansion. Profits don't lie, nor does the profit motive. Even Arcen of all developers acknowledges this. _One_ AAA game having an expansion does not make a successful genre. And I would laugh at the comparison of XCOM being a roguelike, even as ignorant as I am.
 
Quote
If that is the goal, fine, but then don't mention disappointing sales in a similar time frame (I'm not saying anyone did, but it does tie in to the "mystery" of how this game didn't sell despite good reviews).

No, it doesn't tie in at all, because the premise that the game is too hard for people right now is false. You can make this a really easy game if you desire.

If the game isn't too hard, then what else would explain the game's poor sales? That it is poor to begin with? The game isn't poor according to reviews. Unless you are saying the game simply isn't popular to begin with (that I won't argue with)

Quote
I stand-fast that making certain "challenges" coded will develop a game's popularity a fraction of expanding the base game to begin with. There are plenty of games which I've made informal rules to myself to make the game harder; even then, I would prefer the game developers pursue expanding the game rather then codify my personal rules.

Pick one: Difficulty, or popularity.

Again, that's false. What's made AI War last so long is that the only time anybody ever worked on a feature it was applicable to a newbie playing on 4/4. Stuff was added that keeps the game interesting for a long time, which gives it longevity. If you're adding stuff to a game, you need to look at stuff to draw in new players, and stuff to keep the existing players interested. Without them, who is going to tell the new people about the game, or buy expansions?

What makes AI wars enjoyable is its dynamic AI. It doesn't actively try to be, but the RNG, threat, and overall sense of the AI moving where it seems best is what makes it great. Extra units enhances this base AI, it doesn't magically replace it.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Kingpin23 on October 12, 2013, 06:44:15 PM
Rogue mode sounds awesome.
I like difficult challenges.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Cyborg on October 12, 2013, 06:55:40 PM
What wasn't polished about vengeance of the machine? As far as I can tell, we're still griping over champion missions, champion balance, and penalties incurred by using champions, and that was Ancient Shadows. Vengeance of the machine has a new way to win that provides yet another strategic path to take as well as much LOL from turning everything on and trying showdown devices.


Are you just feeling the contrarian role tonight?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Tridus on October 12, 2013, 06:57:50 PM
More players will play on those easy modes then on the hardcores mode. Just ask about the "achievements" on AI war, and how few are done to begin with, and fewer still given to higher difficulties / hardcore plots as opposed to easier ones

That's true of every game, ever, because even the people who are playing hard are playing easy first to learn the game. Finding out what level people are actually playing at regularily requires metrics in the game, and a single player game that doesn't phone home has no way to report them.

Quote
This is ancedotal evidence. In general, Arcen does there updates based on sales. When sales decline, a new project is done. VotM got by far the least amount of sales, given the amount of support in polishing it got. The majority of the expansion / advertising was for harder things such as the two new brutal plots / other advanced AI features. Core turrets were hardly advertised, if at all, so really didn't factor to sales in my mind.

Maybe those features just aren't sellers in general. If you look at what previous expansions added, they tended to be bigger things. Champions (like them or not) are a big deal that can really alter how the game plays. Light of the Spire adds a whole new campaign. No offense to the Shark Plot, but a whole new campaign mode with alternate victory conditions is a bigger selling feature.

Quote
In previous expansions, tons (sometimes bordering on literally) of changes were done after an expansion. VotM in volume got the least from ancedotal evidence. Given just_how_fast its updates stopped (Yes, arcen, I consider VotM not particually polished, in fact, the least polished AI War game since 5.0

Wouldn't argue about VotM, it really got halted fast. I mean the dev version is halfway through implementing hacking. It doesn't sound like it's going to resume anytime soon either. But that doesn't mean sales were bad, maybe they changed development direction and now want to focus on new projects first.

Maybe Keith will tell us, since he's reading this.

Quote
Was  FTL a runaway success? If they were, they would have an expansion. That is the most reliable sense if a game was reliable, if a game had an expansion. Profits don't lie, nor does the profit motive. Even Arcen of all developers acknowledges this. _One_ AAA game having an expansion does not make a successful genre. And I would laugh at the comparison of XCOM being a roguelike, even as ignorant as I am.

They said FTL was a success. I don't know what they're making now, they may have moved to something else. It wasn't a game that really needed anything else. When you're as small as a two man indie team is, sometimes it's better to just take the money and move on rather then keep going to the well.

As for XCOM, it's not a roguelike, but it has the element we're talking about in this thread. When your super powered psychic max level soldier gets sniped and dies, he's gone. Hope you levelled up some others to fill the empty space, because you're using a rookie if not! The game is unforgiving even at normal difficulty, and extremely so on "classic" difficulty. It was a selling feature.

Quote
If the game isn't too hard, then what else would explain the game's poor sales? That it is poor to begin with? The game isn't poor according to reviews. Unless you are saying the game simply isn't popular to begin with (that I won't argue with)

That we don't know what caused it doesn't mean it's too hard. No reviewer has said it's too hard. No person is here complaining it's too hard (except maybe you). No people on other forums are talking about it saying it's too hard.

When *nobody* is talking about it being too hard, it's probably not too hard. Casual difficulty is a total cakewalk, and easy is really easy. I've seen more chatter that normal is too easy than that it's too hard.

Not making the featured rotating banner on Steam for Windows (the overwhelming majority of the market) probably has a lot more to do with it. Beyond that, who knows?  I think releasing games at this time of year is a crapshoot at best given how many AAA games (and new consoles) are coming out right now. There's a whole lot competing for the attention of gamers right now. February is a much quieter time of year. (Hell, one of the main reasons cited by Stardock as to why Sins of a Solar Empire was successful is that it was released after Christmas when there was no competition whatsoever for a month. It's a lot easier to get peoples attention with a good game when there isn't 40 other ones coming out at the same time.)

Quote
What makes AI wars enjoyable is its dynamic AI. It doesn't actively try to be, but the RNG, threat, and overall sense of the AI moving where it seems best is what makes it great. Extra units enhances this base AI, it doesn't magically replace it.[/color]

The AI only takes you so far when the game is otherwise the same every time. AI War has a lot of options to shake things up when starting a game, and that's why it's still being played this many years later.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Tridus on October 12, 2013, 07:00:32 PM
What wasn't polished about vengeance of the machine? As far as I can tell, we're still griping over champion missions, champion balance, and penalties incurred by using champions, and that was Ancient Shadows. Vengeance of the machine has a new way to win that provides yet another strategic path to take as well as much LOL from turning everything on and trying showdown devices.


Are you just feeling the contrarian role tonight?

Well, the way that the core turrets work is just weird and doesn't fit well with the rest of the game (primarily the "if you use this you can't use any other turrets on the planet" problem). It makes several of the turret unlocks a complete waste of time if you can get to the core controller instead, and it's the only case in the game where picking up an irreplacable builder actually flat out nullifies a knowledge unlock.

That's the most annoying example to me, but the way that Showdown and FS just don't play well together at all is also an issue. The Showdown is so absurdly hard with FS played to any length that it's something you want to avoid doing.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 07:01:59 PM
What wasn't polished about vengeance of the machine? As far as I can tell, we're still griping over champion missions, champion balance, and penalties incurred by using champions, and that was Ancient Shadows. Vengeance of the machine has a new way to win that provides yet another strategic path to take as well as much LOL from turning everything on and trying showdown devices.


Are you just feeling the contrarian role tonight?

Both of the added plots feel like sledgehammers, and the changes to anti-starship weapons are frankly stupid (it has been so long since I've played AI Wars, I gave up due to frustration). there are plenty of old wounds though, as you admit. Showdown devices in most cases simply are inferior if you play anything aside from vanilla of the time aside from bragging rights (this is an example of the quest for bragging rights has left the majority behind).
Zenith-siege (forget name) units are simply unusable in FRD mode.  The changes to exo waves have made me regress from my start of using minor factions, because they simply are not useful enough to deal their exo-waves with them when they stack with a CPA wave. I could go on.
When I first played AI Wars in 4.X I would give it a 8- 9. Now? A 7.5- 8.5 due to lack of polish.
The game, honestly, doesn't feel as polished as a whole, even as individually things has been smoothed out compared to 5.0. At least then I could claim I could win a 8.0 game vanhilla without that much cheese. Now? I would have to cheese a unit/ hacking to do so.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Misery on October 12, 2013, 08:29:26 PM
There are plenty of options in AIW that only a few players use, but which add to the perception of the game's overall awesomeness.

And while I agree that it could be readily simulated by the player, if that were a conclusive argument against the game enforcing it (when enabled), then why do we see hardcore/ironman toggles in so very many successful roguelike/roguelite/etc games?  It's trivial to simulate "dead is dead" or "when you die, game over, no reloading", but enough people don't work that way psychologically (who nonetheless want the rule sometimes) that there's a reason such toggles are added :)
And I will counter that one of the most common FAQ's of any of these "ironman" forced games is "how do I turn it off"

There is a difference between "perception of the game's overall awesomeness" and overall popularity. I don't know many players who say "AI Wars is terrible, but then I discovered hybrids". No. Rather, players like the base game, then a sub group of those players like the harder mode. The vast, vast majority of players of these "harder" modes liked the base game to begin with. Ergo, the base game, and not the extra features, contribute meaningfully to the game's awesomeness.

Harder / more intense /=/ a more popular game. In fact, evidence in the meta sense points to the opposite  ;)



The simple thing about all of this is:

If someone doesnt like it..... they dont have to use it.  If the devs like an idea like that at all and think it might be good to put in, then by all means, it should be put in. 

The only concession that would need to be made is that achievements should probably not at all be attached to such a mode, simply because it's the sort of thing that a smaller number of players would use.  It's the same reason why the Misery difficulty level in BD has none associated with it.


And yes, I know, harder games get less sales, but..... feh.   THAT logic is why I dont do console gaming anymore, because MOST (all) of those publishers think that way, and it's bloody boring.   Besides, that's not really a problem here.  One thing I like about Arcen's games is that they always put such a very wide array of difficulty modes into their games; I can get my super-high challenges, but those that want a more casual experience can easily have one.  It's a very good thing for any developer to do, and there's so very many of them that get this one dead wrong.   The "harder games sell worse" only truly applies to games that are ONLY hard, and have no easy modes, and such as that.  And it goes the same the other way around; players that need a challenge, such as myself, wont touch games that are only easy.  You put in both ends of the spectrum as much as possible, and you cater to more players.   


But the bottom line is..... again, it'd be a totally optional feature.  Nobody HAS to use it, it's their choice.  They can utterly ignore it if they'd like.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 08:31:53 PM

But the bottom line is..... again, it'd be a totally optional feature.  Nobody HAS to use it, it's their choice.  They can utterly ignore it if they'd like.

Nobody has to get achievements either, based on misery mode or this mode, but you yourself admit they shouldn't be based on this mode.

I simply find this line of logic...not a defense at all. It doesn't defend anything, it simply assumes "no harm, no foul" except the harm is time spent doing other things.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Time spent on an unpopular feature is time spent away from popular features.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Cyborg on October 12, 2013, 08:47:48 PM
Sounds like the game just got too hard for you, and you didn't adapt very well. Sorry?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Logorouge on October 12, 2013, 09:06:15 PM
Time spent on an unpopular feature is time spent away from popular features.
I'd rather they decide if a feature is worth adding depending on how good it is, not how popular it is.
This "Rogue Mode" for example, offers a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding even more replayability to the game without needing any major rebalancing. Even I would be doing a playthrough with it if they add it.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 12, 2013, 09:11:52 PM

I'd rather they decide if a feature is worth adding depending on how good it is, not how popular it is.


They could also do an expansion to AVWW 1, doesn't mean it would be a good idea.

Of course they can do whatever they want. Making the game more replayable implies players already have the game...it inheriently acknowledges it doesn't get new players, which this feature won't. It would be fine if the game met game sales goals but...
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Logorouge on October 12, 2013, 09:37:50 PM
Of course they can do whatever they want. Making the game more replayable implies players already have the game...it inheriently acknowledges it doesn't get new players, which this feature won't. It would be fine if the game met game sales goals but...
I always check information on a game's replay value before I buy it. It's a very important criteria when I choose a game. Is that just me?

As for AVWW 1, Arcen already said they consider it done/complete and that additional content/features would most probably go into AVWW 2 instead. But I see your point. Still, you can't compare the work of an entire expansion and a tiny can't-revive-your-exos mode.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Cyborg on October 13, 2013, 12:20:34 PM
Bottom line is, adding Ironman modes is friendly to people play this genre without much development cost. We could sit around all day long arguing about what would generate income and what is just friendly to the players, but I'm going to say that one of the reasons I have every single title this company has ever made is because of how player friendly the games are. I can play every single one of these titles, and they have tons of options and details designed to make it friendly and fun for everybody. You can make it as hard or as easy as you want. If all we are going to do now is make a game and drop it every three or four months, that's going to lose more income because everyone's going to notice that the company doesn't care about the titles, and if it's broken they will not fix it.

Obviously not the case here, thank goodness.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Winge on October 13, 2013, 04:21:24 PM
So, erm, back to what Keith was talking about:  I was thinking of a similar, less punishing method:
1.  Exo damage is only repaired by 10% each mission.
2.  If an Exo dies, it is unavailable for the next mission, but fully repaired afterwards.
3.  If the player runs out of Exos during a mission, it is a failure, their HQ loses an HP, and their Exos are fully repaired.

I call it persistent damage, and yes, it would be an optional toggle not considered for primary balance.


As far as the discussion between some forum members here:  there is another reason so few people have those achievements, and it's not just difficulty.  Each game of AI War takes a long time (especially for me; I move very slowly in that game)--I just don't have the kind of time anymore.  Valley 2 and Bionic Dues are a bit easier on my schedule as the 'missions' function as a small part of the game that I can finish in relatively little time.  That has nothing to do with the difficulty of the games; it's simply what my schedule requires.

Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Pepisolo on October 13, 2013, 04:41:00 PM
Quote
So, erm, back to what Keith was talking about:  I was thinking of a similar, less punishing method:
1.  Exo damage is only repaired by 10% each mission.
2.  If an Exo dies, it is unavailable for the next mission, but fully repaired afterwards.
3.  If the player runs out of Exos during a mission, it is a failure, their HQ loses an HP, and their Exos are fully repaired.

This is far too weak for me. I'd prefer Exo gets destroyed -- that's it. Although, I wouldn't mind a new mission type that grants a single random new exo upon completion.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 13, 2013, 04:49:58 PM
Quote
So, erm, back to what Keith was talking about:  I was thinking of a similar, less punishing method:
1.  Exo damage is only repaired by 10% each mission.
2.  If an Exo dies, it is unavailable for the next mission, but fully repaired afterwards.
3.  If the player runs out of Exos during a mission, it is a failure, their HQ loses an HP, and their Exos are fully repaired.
I don't think that really gets at the desire, and is actually more complex.  But a separate one I have in mind is "ammo, health, stealth, etc do not recharge after winning a mission, only after you lose".  There's some complexity in how to handle the situation where your max ammo or whatever changes due to customization, but in the spirit of unkindness it could just leave your current where it is (unless the max is now lower, in which case it lowers it) ;)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 13, 2013, 05:02:54 PM
For the curious, here's the list of conducts I have for the potential expansion list:

Quote
- "Tunnel Vision": cannot switch exos (still auto-switches on death)

- "No Points In Subtlety": cannot stealth

- "Dead Is Dead": any exo that dies, dies permanently

- "Who Designed This Circuit?": triple power consumption of everything

- "On Your Toes": if you take more than 5 seconds to execute an action, the game picks "wait" for you

- "AWOL Quartermaster": lost health, ammo, stealth, etc carries over from one mission to the next, until a mission is lost (then they refill)

- "Picky Scavenger": automatically sells any item green or lower

- "Dead Reckoning": no sensor coverage outside line of sight (basically means no sensor stat at all, except for whistle or whatever)

- "Unionized Maintenance Crews": game auto-equips your exos after each mission (or store purchase) and you're not allowed to change any of it.

- "Trigger Happy Bots"  lets them get a free shot after moving if it brings them into range.

- "There's No Team In 'I'" You only get one exo.

Not sure if all those would happen or what.  But I think there's plenty of pain in there ;)  And simply alternate playstyles.  Playing on Casual or Easy with "No Team in I", "Dead Is Dead", "On Your Toes", and "Unionized Maintenance Crews" would potentially be quite a romp :)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Winge on October 13, 2013, 06:39:22 PM
Sounds pretty fun.  AWOL Quartermaster is akin to what I was going for.  Out of curiosity, would that mean dead Exos stay dead until you lose a mission?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 13, 2013, 06:43:06 PM
Sounds pretty fun.  AWOL Quartermaster is akin to what I was going for.  Out of curiosity, would that mean dead Exos stay dead until you lose a mission?
Probably, yes, otherwise it poses kind of an odd question at the end of each mission: do I kill off this exo to get its health refilled, or do I get the piece of loot from keeping it alive?

Though I imagine that one would interact strangely with Rey.  And others will do so with other commanders, too.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: AnOddRadish on October 13, 2013, 10:43:13 PM
As a hardcore roguelike fan, I was just thinking about how much I would love an "Exo dies, tough beans." mode. Just an FYI, I had assumed that the game would include it, seeing as it was labeled roguelike. After futzing around with hard for a few mins, I realized that I hated being able to reload saves, (gonna fess up here, I'm a super compulsive cheater. If it's easier to cheat and still get the achievement/goal that I want, that's what I do, and I hate every minute of it.) and deleted my saves and started an ironman mode. Breezing through hard/Ironman ATM, but for the record I for one would LOVE a hardcore mode. As for whether it should be implemented, I think with the right advertising you could draw in a lot of the nethack/ADOM/Dwarf Fortress/TOME players, as long as the game was balanced around it, and it wasn't just thrown in as an extra mode as a lot of people have suggested. Whether that would be a wise use of time is up to the people with the people who have that time.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: BobTheJanitor on October 13, 2013, 10:49:20 PM
People like hardcore permadeath roguelikes. As anecdotal evidence, I present Dungeons of Dredmor. That game took most of the traditional bits of the roguelike genre and made them casual and accessible (along with friendly graphics) and rocketed up the Steam bestseller list and sat there for quite a while. It did have the option, though, of playing with permadeath on or off. But I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that having permadeath in there was one of the things that made it so popular for so long, instead of just another forgotten indie title gathering dust in Steam's basement.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: chemical_art on October 13, 2013, 11:50:17 PM
I don't know what you are driving at. Was the game successful because it made the genre casual and accessible and unique, or because it followed the most hardcore and common aspect of the genre? Which of these aspects made the game not another forgotten indie title gathering dust?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: nas1m on October 14, 2013, 04:10:22 AM
Quote
So, erm, back to what Keith was talking about:  I was thinking of a similar, less punishing method:
1.  Exo damage is only repaired by 10% each mission.
2.  If an Exo dies, it is unavailable for the next mission, but fully repaired afterwards.
3.  If the player runs out of Exos during a mission, it is a failure, their HQ loses an HP, and their Exos are fully repaired.

This is far too weak for me. I'd prefer Exo gets destroyed -- that's it. Although, I wouldn't mind a new mission type that grants a single random new exo upon completion.
This sounds like the optimal solution to me. Seconded.

Changing salvage missions to allow recovery of a replacement exo definitely sounds like a good idea to me - especially to prevent mid/late campaign failure simply because the wrong exo has been lost.

Having them provide a *random* exo could be interesting, but also has the potential of being very frustrating (e.g. if only science exos get dropped when you are looking for an assault exo replacement). Having your team composition change midgame is definitely interesting, though!

A compromise could be to let a given salvage mission state what kind of exo it will provide on mission success *and* tweaking mapgen so that each type is available at least once. That would allow for one possibility to restore the original team composition, while enforcing a different playstyle in case the replacement exo is lost again (which would be a good thing, imho).
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: nas1m on October 14, 2013, 07:10:07 AM
For the curious, here's the list of conducts I have for the potential expansion list:

Quote
- "Tunnel Vision": cannot switch exos (still auto-switches on death)

- "No Points In Subtlety": cannot stealth

- "Dead Is Dead": any exo that dies, dies permanently

- "Who Designed This Circuit?": triple power consumption of everything

- "On Your Toes": if you take more than 5 seconds to execute an action, the game picks "wait" for you

- "AWOL Quartermaster": lost health, ammo, stealth, etc carries over from one mission to the next, until a mission is lost (then they refill)

- "Picky Scavenger": automatically sells any item green or lower

- "Dead Reckoning": no sensor coverage outside line of sight (basically means no sensor stat at all, except for whistle or whatever)

- "Unionized Maintenance Crews": game auto-equips your exos after each mission (or store purchase) and you're not allowed to change any of it.

- "Trigger Happy Bots"  lets them get a free shot after moving if it brings them into range.

- "There's No Team In 'I'" You only get one exo.

Not sure if all those would happen or what.  But I think there's plenty of pain in there ;)  And simply alternate playstyles.  Playing on Casual or Easy with "No Team in I", "Dead Is Dead", "On Your Toes", and "Unionized Maintenance Crews" would potentially be quite a romp :)
Cool stuff! Those should keep the game fresh for a *long* time! Really looking forward to all of them :D!
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: FrostyThePyro on October 14, 2013, 08:53:13 AM
For the curious, here's the list of conducts I have for the potential expansion list:

Quote
- "Tunnel Vision": cannot switch exos (still auto-switches on death)

- "No Points In Subtlety": cannot stealth

- "Dead Is Dead": any exo that dies, dies permanently

- "Who Designed This Circuit?": triple power consumption of everything

- "On Your Toes": if you take more than 5 seconds to execute an action, the game picks "wait" for you

- "AWOL Quartermaster": lost health, ammo, stealth, etc carries over from one mission to the next, until a mission is lost (then they refill)

- "Picky Scavenger": automatically sells any item green or lower

- "Dead Reckoning": no sensor coverage outside line of sight (basically means no sensor stat at all, except for whistle or whatever)

- "Unionized Maintenance Crews": game auto-equips your exos after each mission (or store purchase) and you're not allowed to change any of it.

- "Trigger Happy Bots"  lets them get a free shot after moving if it brings them into range.

- "There's No Team In 'I'" You only get one exo.

Not sure if all those would happen or what.  But I think there's plenty of pain in there ;)  And simply alternate playstyles.  Playing on Casual or Easy with "No Team in I", "Dead Is Dead", "On Your Toes", and "Unionized Maintenance Crews" would potentially be quite a romp :)


as a note if a rouge mode (or dead is dead) was done, it would also need to deactivate certain terminal hacks, namely terminal explodes and cover explodes.  Those two almost universaly kill the exo hacking it, and with terminals being unknown untill hacked thats a bit much.

And here is an idea for another one

"Loud Thrusters"  bots within x range of an activated bot are activated. 
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: keith.lamothe on October 14, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
as a note if a rouge mode (or dead is dead) was done, it would also need to deactivate certain terminal hacks, namely terminal explodes and cover explodes.  Those two almost universaly kill the exo hacking it, and with terminals being unknown untill hacked thats a bit much.
Do the unknown-potions implementations in roguelikes never have a kills-player potion?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: mrhanman on October 14, 2013, 10:00:05 AM
as a note if a rouge mode (or dead is dead) was done, it would also need to deactivate certain terminal hacks, namely terminal explodes and cover explodes.  Those two almost universaly kill the exo hacking it, and with terminals being unknown untill hacked thats a bit much.
Do the unknown-potions implementations in roguelikes never have a kills-player potion?

It seems like in Brogue I've imbibed a potion or two that set me on fire, or somesuch.  Death quickly followed.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Penumbra on October 14, 2013, 10:47:01 AM

It seems like in Brogue I've imbibed a potion or two that set me on fire, or somesuch.  Death quickly followed.

In Brogue (and others) the bad potions aren't instant death, usually. The fire potion you mentioned, if still a possibility, should be drunk near water so that you can put yourself out. Since the terminals can't move, all we can do is choose when we use them, not where. I can't think of a mechanic that would allow you to be "prepared" other than, hmm... virus'ed shieldbots?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: mrhanman on October 14, 2013, 12:11:06 PM
You also have the option to throw the potion at something, rather than test it on yourself.  But what fun is that?
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: ScrObot on October 14, 2013, 01:02:14 PM
For the curious, here's the list of conducts I have for the potential expansion list:

One more to echo some previous suggestions:

In conjunction with the "if the exo dies, it's gone forever" mode ("Dead is Dead"), a new "Big Garage" or something modifier that randomly picks 2 exos (not of the type of any in your selected party) that will take the place of any killed exos. This would effectively give you a pool of 6 exos, though you still only have 4 out at a time.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: AnOddRadish on October 14, 2013, 02:11:06 PM

In Nethack/Slash'em/ADoM/DFadventure, there is no instakill player potion/scroll afaik. It would make players too reluctant to try to ID anything under any circumstances. I second the notion that in hardcore, there should be no explodes terminal/kills exo (that one made me VERY upset to find  :'( ), but I see no issue with explodes cover, because it's so easy to deal with.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: BobTheJanitor on October 14, 2013, 08:24:28 PM
You guys know you can just hack any potentially explodey terminals with a ninja and escape unharmed, right? Unless you don't have a ninja, in which case I feel bad for you, son. I got 4 exos and a ninja is one.  8)
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: AnOddRadish on October 14, 2013, 08:43:54 PM
Does that work for "kill exo"? I thought ninja just avoided splash damage.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: BobTheJanitor on October 14, 2013, 08:48:09 PM
Does that work for "kill exo"? I thought ninja just avoided splash damage.

Nope! So that one probably would need to be changed to be more fair. Maybe a time bomb or something. Instead of instant death, you get X turns before that exo dies. So you could at least just put it in storage and not get it back out or something.

And yeah, roguelike games usually do have potentially bad potions, but I don't think I know of any that are just 'potion of you die instantly'. Poison, bursting into flame, freezing, acid, sure. Cursed items as well (an area that BD hasn't explored yet... oops there was a virus in that part, and now you can't uninstall it!). But they were always potentially escapable bad things. Sure, you may not be likely to escape it unless you were standing next to water with a heal potion in your other hand, but there was no always-die potion that I can think of.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Teal_Blue on October 14, 2013, 09:39:00 PM
as a note if a rouge mode (or dead is dead) was done, it would also need to deactivate certain terminal hacks, namely terminal explodes and cover explodes.  Those two almost universaly kill the exo hacking it, and with terminals being unknown untill hacked thats a bit much.
Do the unknown-potions implementations in roguelikes never have a kills-player potion?


I believe they do have a kill player effect on occasion. Which is the whole point of course for permadeath in roguelikes.  :)  at least the traditional ones. 

-Teal

p.s.  actually as i am a newbie at roguelikes i take that back. I 'assumed' that permadeath was a part of potions that insta-killed. Part of the danger actually, take a risk and survive, or take a risk and have to lose and have to start over. But with BD that would be lose the exo in question and go on. I still don't mind such a mechanic. I think it would add quite a bit of spice to getting through an entire game still alive, much less the final battle, haha.  :)



Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: BobTheJanitor on October 14, 2013, 11:03:11 PM
My roguelike experience is admittedly rather slap-dash, but from what I've gleaned from some play here and there, you're not likely to run into any all-or-nothing choices. A standard trope of the genre is that you don't know what anything does until you test it. That swirling green potion could be a full heal, or it could be poison. Drinking it and finding out it's poison is usually pretty inconvenient, but it usually doesn't insta-kill you. If it is going to insta-kill you, then there is going to be some other option: a merchant who identifies things for you at a price, or you can try throwing the bottle at enemies to see what happens, or you can feed it to your dog first (sorry rover!) or whatever. But never do you get a choice of 'do this and die, or don't do it and you have no other game mechanic to ever find out what it does'. That's not fun gameplay, that's just flipping a coin and deleting your game if it comes up heads.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: doctorfrog on October 15, 2013, 08:01:05 PM
My roguelike experience is admittedly rather slap-dash, but from what I've gleaned from some play here and there, you're not likely to run into any all-or-nothing choices. A standard trope of the genre is that you don't know what anything does until you test it. That swirling green potion could be a full heal, or it could be poison. Drinking it and finding out it's poison is usually pretty inconvenient, but it usually doesn't insta-kill you. If it is going to insta-kill you, then there is going to be some other option: a merchant who identifies things for you at a price, or you can try throwing the bottle at enemies to see what happens, or you can feed it to your dog first (sorry rover!) or whatever. But never do you get a choice of 'do this and die, or don't do it and you have no other game mechanic to ever find out what it does'. That's not fun gameplay, that's just flipping a coin and deleting your game if it comes up heads.

Given how old-school roguelikes have such staying power, it's easy to conflate their effects with modern ones.

Nethack, for example, has dozens of ways to simply execute you if you don't know precisely what to do. A good example of that is "stoning." (http://nethack.wikia.com/wiki/Stoning) Dealing with stoning is a guaranteed death unless you have special knowledge that the game only reluctantly gives up.

Modern roguelikes, if they want any sort of mindshare, don't do this. I'm not saying that the hilarious and nigh-on unpredictable collision of unfortunate events doesn't happen, because boy howdy, this is also a major requirement for a good roguelike. It's just that, when it does so happen that you guzzle a Potion of Horrible Things, and you meet your end shortly thereafter, you can just about always blame yourself for it, because you have been given enough information to know better, or, as you slap yourself on the forehead, you realize exactly what inventory in your possession would have let you avoid it.

edit: for the record, I would be for an Iron Rogue setting.
Title: Re: Could We Make A Rogue Mode... ?
Post by: Teal_Blue on October 15, 2013, 08:36:12 PM
Ah... well, then if not a insta-kill option on the terminals, then perhaps we can arrive at a kill slowly mechanic or something, where your exo will only last say, 5 or 10 minutes and see if we can make it until the end of the mission before then? And have the terminal effect wear off at the end to the mission?

-Teal