Developers requesting feedback: near-term changes to mountsains & mythologicals

[Teal_Blue]

From X4000: And in the end, I'm really not trying to discourage the use of mythologicals.  I know that sounds silly, because that's the angle I keep coming at it from.  But really that's backwards, the more I think about it.  The core issue is that I'm trying to encourage the use of humans.  Use as many mythologicals as you want!  Just use lots of humans, too.  That's I think the main message I'm going for.

You would know better than i, but would having troops being able to counter Myths, be a way to have more troops? 

Or Myths being good against buildings, but having troops be better against bandits?

Just some thoughts,
-Teal

 

[Teal_Blue]

I've gotta say my immediate reaction to the idea of a Master's Mood mechanic isn't that great. One thing that I think makes God Games an interesting sub-genre is the idea that you are allowed to toy with the mortal world practically at will. If I have some God-Boss coming down on me because I want to do whatever then I'm going to turn the game off and go do something else. I think people play these kinds of games because of the promise of ridiculous power and unmatched freedom, not for performance reviews and efficiency reports. Perhaps that can be done without the player suddenly feeling like they've been hobbled, but even if it's just thematic in nature I think you guys could be treading on the appeal of this type of game.

I find the idea of making human units more desirable to use the more appealing path.

Interesting point, you may have something there.
-Teal

[chemical_art]

Part of why the idea of a higher power is not liked is because...well, if you haven't kept track of the alpha, such a entity hardly exists. The few rules of the game, such as no one side losing completely, and score, are not explictly explained for why they are necessary. They just are. Same for woes. They just are.

The idea of chaos, that it just is there, gels for this reason.

The idea of some higher power, appearing only when you are playing a certain way, doesn't gel so well. It's too isolated. If such a theme was more pervasive as a whole it would make more sense.

But right now, things are left vague, allowing players to fill in the blanks, which is a good thing. On the positive media thread, a recent review said the scoring and the not dying thing is a result of you, as creator, wants the game as a source of entertainment so you want  humans to be entertaining both short term and long term, mean  humans fight but don't completely win. There are a hundred potential interpretations as to why these rules exist, and that in the end makes them more palatable in the long run.

Chaos is vague, so you can do a similar thing. For me, they are offerings that keep you in power. For another, it could be for another reason like providing sacrifices to prevent greater evils. Chaos is vague, so either could work.

The idea of some arbitrary thing causing this just doesn't gel with the otherwise vague ideas, so it is not liked as much.

[Logorouge]

On the Master's mood idea:

Maybe instead of being "Don't do this, or else." it could simply be "I could do [special effect] for you if you do X, or don't it's your choice."
A bit like an optional mission to get the Master to spawn something or rain fiery death on the map. Because sometimes you really need raining fiery death.

[Misery]

From Misery :  That being said, the resource-bloating over the course of the game DOES tend to mean that numerous resources become unimportant in the second half as the player has so many that it just doesnt matter.... that's always been a bit of an issue.

Would restricting the resources as we move into the later ages, or difficulties make it more interesting and limit the over abundance of resources typically found in those games? Or is leaving it as is, with the player having the freedom to finally move and place pieces better?

-Teal

I'm thinking that the idea of restricting resources probably isnt the right solution here.  It has similar problems to the idea of increasing costs over time, and just seems kinda arbitrary.

From X4000: And in the end, I'm really not trying to discourage the use of mythologicals.  I know that sounds silly, because that's the angle I keep coming at it from.  But really that's backwards, the more I think about it.  The core issue is that I'm trying to encourage the use of humans.  Use as many mythologicals as you want!  Just use lots of humans, too.  That's I think the main message I'm going for.

You would know better than i, but would having troops being able to counter Myths, be a way to have more troops? 

Or Myths being good against buildings, but having troops be better against bandits?

Just some thoughts,
-Teal

I think if troops could easily counter myth types, that would be a problem;  as I understand it, one of the design ideas is that the myth units are supposed to be these big strong things, able to defeat multiple human units without too much trouble, but that can also go on a nasty rampage if you use them in the wrong way.

Removing their bonus against buildings was the right move I think, but giving human units any strong advantage in fights against them seems like it'd go against their intended design.

[nas1m]

Sounds like the reaction to giving the Master a bit more of a presence has been generally negative, then. It seems like people think that the idea of a "boss" figure would be too overbearing and stifling. The original Chaos interpretation, though, seems to be a bit more popular despite not being as thematic, because it seems simpler to grasp and less complicated overall. OK, I'm down with that. The important thing is that the reactive balance mechanics seem to be fairly popular, at least. I haven't read much negativity about the raw mechanics. It's a slight shame from my perspective, but no biggie. Maybe my perception on this occasion is flawed and the whole Master thing wouldn't play out as cool as I think.

I would like to see the Master take a more prominent role, so +1 for the Moods idea from my side. I think the issue mainly depends on how drastic/understandable his interventions are...

For me its all about the Lore from the Comic. I love it .

[Pepisolo]

I think I've worked out one reason why Mythos at the moment seem a little more useful than humans -- automatic level up. Currently if you plop down a Mytho in the age of Gods it comes out as level 3! When a human unit comes out they start at level 1. This vastly reduces the usefulness of Schools and Universities later in the game, which would otherwise be super efficient at producing strong units versus powered Mythos units. If the player wants a level 4 Mythos then they should have to fork out the appropriate leveling up costs necessary. This would put a greater and far more natural strain on the current incense requirements as I understand it. This is one reason why we are finding people with massive amounts of incense in late game. 

[Winge]

On mountains and lakes, I would give them a very high cost, and some specific affect for a unit on that tile.  For example, units on tiles could be unable to counterattack.  Units on mountains could gain a massive bonus to attack when attacking a unit on a non-mountain tile, or even be unable to attack while on the mountain.

For Mythological units, I agree with Pepisolo that automatic level up seems a little bit too easy.  Alternatively, you could tone incense back a bit--it's a little too easy to obtain right now.

[chemical_art]

Since mythologicals increase in power over ages, can their cost do so as well?

[Mick]

I don't think the level up is the reason they are much better. I don't have much trouble getting higher level human units because it's pretty simple to build a school.

[chemical_art]

I don't think the level up is the reason they are much better. I don't have much trouble getting higher level human units because it's pretty simple to build a school.

But not everyone does though, and it can be a self fulfilling cycle to not use them.

"My humans stink, but mythologicals are really strong! I should invest in making more of them."

The fact there are schools can be completely missed for some players, especially new ones.

[Mick]

Maybe the myth units should come out at the level of your highest school.

(Everyone wants to be on the Minotaur's dodgeball team in PE)

[Pepisolo]

I don't think the level up is the reason they are much better. I don't have much trouble getting higher level human units because it's pretty simple to build a school.

The great thing about schools is that it is a very cost-effective way to get leveled up soldiers -- only problem is if Mythos already get a free double upgrade then what's the point? Cost-effective is nice, but free is always better. This really diminishes the usefulness of schools I think. The ability to plop down a few extra buildings and then get cheap improved soldiers as a result is one of the few advantages that units should have over Mythos -- except they don't because Mythos get the majority of their upgrades for free.

The more I think about this the more ridiculous it is really. We've got this whole issue where Mythos are deemed OP compared to humans and Mythos are the ones progressively getting free upgrades. Crazy!

[Teal_Blue]

I understand Myths being designed to be this big bad unit, so instead of having 1 soldier hurt them and take away some of that power for the Myth, why not have 10 units offer 1 unit of damage to the Myth? So in order to take out a Myth a player would need substantial human units, or a flow of them to keep attacking the Myth. A counter could be that Myths move twice as fast, or twice as far, or both and can easily escape if all goes to heck. In this way there is a check to Myths, and a buff to human units that make them useful in a variety of ways.

-Teal

[Billick]

Currently, human units can get pretty beastly if they are max level and have ruins/token buffs.