Skyward Collapse Alpha 0.906

[Cinth]

Can you add more rules to placement without it feeling more arbitrary than it already is?  Not that the placement rules are bad, it works (I liked the one massive sprawling city but whatever).  Keep piling on more stuff and it's going to feel off.

And the lobby has break out settings for difficulty, woes and score.

[Mick]

Can you add more rules to placement without it feeling more arbitrary than it already is?  Not that the placement rules are bad, it works (I liked the one massive sprawling city but whatever).  Keep piling on more stuff and it's going to feel off.

And the lobby has break out settings for difficulty, woes and score.

Too many rules are bad yes, but I don't think "your town has to be somewhat close to your other towns" is really that crazy. In fact, if the rules allow you place as far as you want from your own towns, but require a min distance form the enemy, people might interpret that as a bug rather than a rule.

Maybe there should be a terrain tile called 'road' that must connect a new town center to any building of your faction. That kills checkerboarding right there.

Whatever it ends up being, tutorial needs to cover it. Building a new town is basically a surprise to a new player. And at least if there are going to be rules, the tutorial can tell you those rules and explain why.

[Cinth]

We got can't be closer than x to any of your own towns, can't be closer than y to opposite towns, and has to be within z form opposite towns.

I got so much deadspace between towns that bandits just decide to set up camp (by the half dozen).  And about 2/3 the way into the game you have more than half the map that is completely unusable (razed towns/ruins).  If things get any more spread out (forced mind you), the starting fields are going to need to be enlarged (or more tiles per turn) to accommodate it.  It's needless.  You aren't going to catch every edge case in the rules.  It's pointless to try.

[Mick]

We got can't be closer than x to any of your own towns, can't be closer than y to opposite towns, and has to be within z form opposite towns.

I got so much deadspace between towns that bandits just decide to set up camp (by the half dozen).  And about 2/3 the way into the game you have more than half the map that is completely unusable (razed towns/ruins).  If things get any more spread out (forced mind you), the starting fields are going to need to be enlarged (or more tiles per turn) to accommodate it.  It's needless.  You aren't going to catch every edge case in the rules.  It's pointless to try.

I don't suggest it simply because "I want to stop checkerboard." It's really more of the fact it seems WRONG that you are allowed to build a red town way in the far back behind the blue one, but you can't build a red town behind your own red town.

Score-gate objective might do enough to remove the whole "must be close to an enemy town" thing anyway. If you then build only behind your own towns, you're simply not going to get enough points to win. That feels better to me than weird restrictions on where you can place towns.

[Cinth]

That feels better to me than weird restrictions on where you can place towns.

That's what I've been saying.  Yesterday, we almost had that restrictive placement rules lifted, then relaxed (a lot) then the idea was just scrapped.  The reasoning behind it all was discussed yesterday (idea of how the game should be played, aesthetics, cheese).  Keep in mind that score gating is voluntary.

[Mick]

That feels better to me than weird restrictions on where you can place towns.

That's what I've been saying.  Yesterday, we almost had that restrictive placement rules lifted, then relaxed (a lot) then the idea was just scrapped.  The reasoning behind it all was discussed yesterday (idea of how the game should be played, aesthetics, cheese).  Keep in mind that score gating is voluntary.

Oh it may be voluntary, but in my mind "no score" is always going to be "sandbox"

[Cinth]

Score is a secondary for me.  If I want to push my score up high then that's an option.  Most time I just want to play.

[Mick]

Well I just don't want "secondary" to mean "we won't care if score can be achieved in a super lame way". I think the game needs to have a compelling reason to use the more interesting features beyond just "I want to click wacky buttons and see what happens." That's great for sandbox mode, but not so much for "strategy mode".

[Cinth]

That's why I don't make many comments on balance 

I'll be playing without the option once we are out of alpha

[Pepisolo]

I think the whole restrictions on town centers has already gotten far too out of hand, for the sake of stifling a few cheesy tactics. To the extent that is a chore to place them now and not fun at all. Please don't add any more rules on top. It's like being in a strait-jacket as it is, trying to find a space to place one. Isn't the scoring/gating already sorted (haven't played the latest version yet)? By that, I mean, it's optional, but if you want to choose the goal of a gating condition you can do so, with the reward being extra points.

[x4000]

Pulled the middle ss since it was pointless.  Check the tile placement TT in the remaining ss.  I moved the tile one spot and the TT changes.  That shouldn't happen.

I'm not sure I follow what the issue is here.  Can you elaborate?  I opened the save, but it looks different from your ss.  The other issue with overspending I have corrected; thanks.

[Pepisolo]

"and has to be within z form opposite towns"

Couldn't we remove this rule. Is it really that important? Surely if a player builds a town away from the action then bandits and woes would still be around to cause them grief. They are also not going to get rewarded in terms of score by keeping out of the action.

[x4000]

"and has to be within z form opposite towns"

Couldn't we remove this rule. Is it really that important? Surely if a player builds a town away from the action then bandits would still be around to cause them grief. They are also not going to get rewarded in terms of score by keeping out of the action.

I really don't think so; it's absolutely, positively, cheesable in the sense that you can make it so that you never ever lose with it.  Keith demonstrated this with ease over and over again.  In terms of the bandits, it's random where those show up so they may never be a problem back there.

And even in terms of score, sure you could be rewarded: sequestering your resource production means that you can have more fighting on the front lines with bigger expenditures of life and property without ever threatening your means of production.  So, exploit city in other words.

I really don't see removing or changing that requirement anytime soon.  Roads are somewhat of an interesting idea, but those would be complicated and in general probably would be cheesable, too.  I will work on making the interface for where you can and cannot place town centers better, though.

[Pepisolo]

I really don't think so; it's absolutely, positively, cheesable in the sense that you can make it so that you never ever lose with it.  Keith demonstrated this with ease over and over again.  In terms of the bandits, it's random where those show up so they may never be a problem back there.

I'm obviously not understanding this to the extent I need to be then.  WIsh I could review Keith's tactics and see how it worked (or didn't work) first hand. I'll still review his writing on the issue, though.

And even in terms of score, sure you could be rewarded: sequestering your resource production means that you can have more fighting on the front lines with bigger expenditures of life and property without ever threatening your means of production.  So, exploit city in other words.

If it is as cheesy as you say then OK, understandable. Otherwise I guess this would be just reward for the player.

I really don't see removing or changing that requirement anytime soon.  Roads are somewhat of an interesting idea, but those would be complicated and in general probably would be cheesable, too.  I will work on making the interface for where you can and cannot place town centers better, though.

Hopefully the new interface will do the trick then and I can find that one space on the board that might be a viable position -- doesn't really give me much variety of choice in the matter at the moment, though. You might as well just click build town and a random one would pop up in the correct location. At least, that's the way it feels.

[x4000]

I really don't think so; it's absolutely, positively, cheesable in the sense that you can make it so that you never ever lose with it.  Keith demonstrated this with ease over and over again.  In terms of the bandits, it's random where those show up so they may never be a problem back there.

I'm obviously not understanding this to the extent I need to be then.  WIsh I could review Keith's tactics and see how it worked (or didn't work) first hand. I'll still review his writing on the issue, though.

And even in terms of score, sure you could be rewarded: sequestering your resource production means that you can have more fighting on the front lines with bigger expenditures of life and property without ever threatening your means of production.  So, exploit city in other words.

If it is as cheesy as you say then OK, understandable. Otherwise I guess this would be just reward for the player.

Basically, you build a town.  Build a line of swamps or fields or whatever straight back from the town.  Build the next town.  Repeat.  Nothing can touch those outlying towns.

I really don't see removing or changing that requirement anytime soon.  Roads are somewhat of an interesting idea, but those would be complicated and in general probably would be cheesable, too.  I will work on making the interface for where you can and cannot place town centers better, though.

Hopefully the new interface will do the trick then and I can find that one space on the board that might be a viable position -- doesn't really give me much variety of choice in the matter at the moment, though. You might as well just click build town and a random one would pop up in the correct location. At least, that's the way it feels.

It's actually quite a bit more freedom than you think, I'm positive.  However, the interface is frankly bad at tell you your options, so I understand why you feel the way you do.