Attack types, or not?

[TorbenBeta]

Then maybe change it to:

Code: Select all

Bow brother 4G 3/3.
Can not be hurt by the following equipment: Bows, Crossbows...

But if you remove different kinds of damage then we have fewer tactical possibilities.

[Q_x]

Even normal/ranged/magical attack would be cool to have. However - I see where it goes and how it will complicate things, and I like uncomplicated more, even if it spoils some initial ideas

[snowdrop]

But if you remove different kinds of damage then we have fewer tactical possibilities.

I know it may often seem that way, but it doesn't have to be true. Take a game of Chess for example: It's not less tactical or strategical because each unit has only one attack type.

It's not about the quantity of attack types. It becomes obvious when you think about a game, and add 10 new types: What happens to that game? Does it really become any deeper? Or does it just take longer time to play? And what happens with it's balance, and so on?

it's really about how several attack types fit into the chosen battle system. (And, to a smaller degree, it's also about how units are recruited: A game where you can counter recruit units freely, like for instance BfW, is easier to design around several damage types than a game where you have limited control of how units are recruited)

Current system I suggest is an indirect one: You don't target creatures. You select attacker, and the other player selects his defenders, if any. In such a system I have a hard time devising a good role for attack types. I simply can't imagine how that would work out, in that battle-system. However, in another system, it might be possible, yes.

If you have a clear and structured idea about an attack system that uses different damage types, it would be interesting reading it. Btw, if using attack types is done, then it might also have implications on the DEF value(s). Question is if it can be done in a way that really brings depth, and with depth I mean something beyond just type 1 ATK doing more damage than type 2 ATK against type 3 DEF.

[TorbenBeta]

Quick post- maybe a more detailed one next week.
A game of chess has only one attack type, that's true but chess does not concentrate on attack types but rather on the position of the figures. And as WT concentrates not on positioning, (then we would have a miniature game), but on the interaction of the cards with each other.
Different attack types would be good as it would increase tactical depth. [Note, that I used tactical depth and not strategical depth. (I think it's a division which would fill it's own topic.)]
But I just red that you are for an indirect system, then attack types really have little sense. But maybe one day we will hear from a derivative with a attack system with multiple system?
A bit disorganised Torben

[pennomi]

With an indirect system, attack types could still come into play. Imagine this:
*Attacker chooses an Elvish Archer to attack. The Elvish Archer has both ranged and melee attacks.
*Defender chooses an Orcish Grunt to block. The Grunt only has a melee attack.
*Attacker states he is using his ranged attack vs. the Grunt.
*The Elvish Archer deals damage to the Orc, but the Orc does not deal damage back.

It might have been better for the Defender to block with his Orcish Bowman, who could have dealt damage back to the Archer.

The reverse is also true; if the Archer was defending, he could deal damage back when either melee or ranged was attacking.

Another situation: Elvish Archer attacks and is blocked by a Dark Adept (only ranged). The Attacker then chooses melee damage type (even if the melee attack may have a lower damage), so the Dark Adept can't deal damage back.

It's not too complicated of a system to learn (it only adds the step of declaring the attack type after the blocking creature(s) are chosen) and it adds tons of strategies and tactics to the game if we use it. Besides, there's still plenty of room on creature cards to add one more attack value.

I'm in favor of multiple attacks for creature cards.

[snowdrop]

Would different attack types also imply different defense types (one against each attack?)

My main objections are twofolded:

1) Having more stats does not necessarily bring more depth to the game. Where and what exactly becomes deeper with 2 attack types instead of 1, or 7 instead of 4? Could somebody guide me through the whole player decision process and pin point where and what you would describe as added depth in it, as a consequence of the added attack types. I think this is perhaps the most interesting part, in proving it's actually adding something, not just claiming it is.

2) Having more than 1 attack type and/or defense type in an indirect combat system locks up the game: Just imagine a game with 3-4 creatures on each side. Each has two-three different attack types. You choose the attacker, but not the opponents defender. Since there are so many attack types and they vary so vastly there will always be something that can kill of your creature. You have to take into account at least 2 times the combinations of attacker-blocker, if not even 3 or 4 times. It all only results in the same conclusion again and again: If I attack now, then something will be able to kill me. No matter what unit I have, no matter what unit she has. Adding attack types adds this "passive truce" since the system is indirect. Situations where you can attack and have a clear understanding of what will happen and it is to your benefit will be very few. It also take a lot more time to go through all this in every attack of the game, which just prolongs it further.

[pennomi]

Would different attack types also imply different defense types (one against each attack?)

No, I don't think it should. While it's relatively easy to add melee vs. ranged, it does make it too complex to add in things like multiple defense values, such as modifiers from pierce or fire damage. That should not exist in WTactics.

1) Having more stats does not necessarily bring more depth to the game. Where and what exactly becomes deeper with 2 attack types instead of 1, or 7 instead of 4?

You are right, complexity is not equal to depth. In fact, I suggest there should be only 2 types of attacks, melee and ranged, no more than that. Too many types just obfuscate the rules and confuse and drive away the players.

Could somebody guide me through the whole player decision process and pin point where and what you would describe as added depth in it, as a consequence of the added attack types. I think this is perhaps the most interesting part, in proving it's actually adding something, not just claiming it is.

I'm glad that you are asking that I prove it's adding something. I have no proof now, but I will playtest everything tonight and tell you what I find out. I have a suspicion that you may be right when you say that it may lock up combat.

But the idea is this: if there were melee and ranged attacks, it would allow one to consider building a deck heavy on melee, balanced, or heavy on ranged. Then, you could supplement that deck style with abilities and spells granting bonuses to melee or ranged attacks.

Also, if the enemy has a strong melee firststrike type creature, you could still get past it by attacking with a strong ranged unit, since if the enemy blocked you with his melee unit, you would choose ranged as the attack type. He would lose his tough unit, or if he decided to not block, he would take serious damage. This post is already too long, so I'll test it and get back to you.

[snowdrop]

Would different attack types also imply different defense types (one against each attack?)

No, I don't think it should. While it's relatively easy to add melee vs. ranged, it does make it too complex to add in things like multiple defense values, such as modifiers from pierce or fire damage. That should not exist in WTactics.

But isn't that normally half the point with using different attack types? Different resistance against different types seems like the most basic concept and one of the primary reasons for why one would ever bother with different attack types.

I'm aware that this doesn't mean we have to replicate it that way even if the answer would be "yes" (and I honestly believe it is), and that using different attack types could be done for other purposes in WT.

I'm glad that you are asking that I prove it's adding something. I have no proof now, but I will playtest everything tonight and tell you what I find out. I have a suspicion that you may be right when you say that it may lock up combat.

Do it like this: Just create about 7-10 unique creatures for each player, with a very mixed spread of meele/ranged damage, using all kinds of numbers. Nevermind naming the cards or giving them gold cost or abilities or anything. Just let each card have 3 values on it: Meele/Ranged/Def.

Then line up a combo of these on each players side of the table. Try to attack now. Draw a conclusion. Redo with another scenario, with different lineup. Rinse and repeat. In the end you should get a pretty good understanding of how it works out or not.

But the idea is this: if there were melee and ranged attacks, it would allow one to consider building a deck heavy on melee, balanced, or heavy on ranged. Then, you could supplement that deck style with abilities and spells granting bonuses to melee or ranged attacks.

What you're saying here is, I think, a very common fallacy, one which I have made myself guilty of several times around The above quote can all be translated into this:

"If we have variables x and y (instead of just x), it will allow us to build decks around them both."

It's undeniably true that it is so. However, this is true no matter what extra variable is added on the card. Meaning, it does not really have to be a variable that involves the combat system. It could,for example, be a subfaction belonging, it could be sex, it could be religion, or why not class?

My point is that if the reasoning is that we should add yet another variable on all cards because it givs us yet another thing to build decks around and take into considerationw when trying to create combos and balance or nische in a specific deck, then any such variable could be added.

However, our cards have some variables that are always present and some thet are added only by need. Always present variables right now is the ATK/DEF values. They exist on all creatures, because they're a part of the core of the game. Let's call them "core variables". Gold cost is another example of such a variable, and cardtype is yet another.

I think that each core variable that's added affects the game in a very permanent and defining way that is present all the time.

Example, one could do it like "a game of thrones", and let each creature have 0 to 3 values. When as player attacks there he selects one of his characters, he then selects one if it's values ("military, power, intrigue") and then the opponent gets to do the same with his defender, if any. If I select value A it is compared against my opponents defenders value A. There is no separate defense value. This can all be said to be a system with 3 attack types, no defense value since defense equals the attack type, and a flexible amount of attack types on each creature (a creature can have maybe just one of the attack types, or all three of them etc).

I haven't actually played a game of thrones myself and don't know how this doesn't lock up the game. I know the system looks exciting and I would love to try it out (for free), but lack the cards. Maybe they're somehow available in LackeyCCG or some other (legal?) way. What I'm almost certain of is that the system is an indirect one, which, if it works, suggests this can all be done. I guess one explanation for it might be that they ditched the exclusive DEF value(s) - it makes the process smoother. Another thing I remember vaguely is that there is only a limited number of attacks allowed per player and turn in AgoT. (Somebody please correct me here...) But, that also has some implications on deck building, swarm decks etc.

Also, if the enemy has a strong melee firststrike type creature, you could still get past it by attacking with a strong ranged unit, since if the enemy blocked you with his melee unit, you would choose ranged as the attack type. He would lose his tough unit, or if he decided to not block, he would take serious damage.

This is all a part of the problem, and shows why the game could be locked up and passivity become the norm

[pennomi]

Okay, here's my results, and I'll admit they are mixed. I created the entire Elvish faction from BfW, using a couple of equations to scale their stats from the unit .cfg files to a CCG.

First off, I found that using melee and ranged attacks increases the amount of sheer brainpower required to play the game. It gives the players an exponentially greater amount of options in battle. It would be easy to be an indecisive player. It also increases the chances of a player making a stupid move, and thus losing the game. Kind of like chess - those who aren't thinking of all the possibilities are bound to make a stupid mistake.

On the contrary, I found that it does not slow down the progression of the game. The reason this is is because the attacker gets to choose the attack type after the defender is chosen. In most cases, that means that either the attacker won't die or the units kill each other. I found that since the attacker has this great advantage, the game keeps moving. If the attack type were to be declared before the defender was chosen, yes, the game would lock up.

Placing the opponent in the situation of making a decision between losing a good unit and taking a lot of damage is good gameplay, in my opinion. Think of chess, (again). One of the standard tactics is called a fork, where you threaten two valuable pieces at the same time. The opponent must choose between them. This makes for good strategy.

Despite it not theoretically slowing down gameplay, I feel that the mental strain would probably slow down the battle and would be adverse to most of the players. Therefore the system should either be revised or scrapped. (Of course, snowdrop was right )

Edit:
This morning I tried out a concept like you mentioned about "a game of thrones". That eliminates the mental stress and the game proceeds normally. By eliminating defense values and just comparing melee or ranged values, things move nicely.

[snowdrop]

First off, I found that using melee and ranged attacks increases the amount of sheer brainpower required to play the game. It gives the players an exponentially greater amount of options in battle. It would be easy to be an indecisive player. /../
On the contrary, I found that it does not slow down the progression of the game.

I'm not sure there's not a contradiction there...

The reason this is is because the attacker gets to choose the attack type after the defender is chosen.

a) That's un-intuitive. But, I won't use that as an argument as anything can be explained (away) with lore. Even if 99% of the games around would let you announce attack type BEFORE the opposing player should point out a defender.

b) It also seems all out annoying: As a defending player it will be common in many situations to know that whatever you defend with, the player will just select the seconds attack type and still slaughter off your creature. Sure, that's one of the points in the game, but it seems to very often put the defender in an disadvantage even if it's an indirect combat system (which usually tends to favor defender more than a direct combat system).

In other words, defense will more often lead to defender dying in this system. That could be both a good and a bad thing. What it implies is that the game is pushed towards aggression though, and striking first. I'm not certain this is true, but if it would be, then it would be a problem.

c) This system, with the attack type selected AFTER the defender has been declared, moves the thinking and lockup bottle neck to the defending player. That's where most of the thinking and time waste will happen. Wouldn't it? Especially since it knows the attacker can announce any attack type?

Placing the opponent in the situation of making a decision between losing a good unit and taking a lot of damage is good gameplay, in my opinion. Think of chess, (again). One of the standard tactics is called a fork, where you threaten two valuable pieces at the same time. The opponent must choose between them. This makes for good strategy.

Forks in chess are gold. Yes. But I don't think the analogy holds true here, even if it's very creative

You're right that letting the players make choices is usually a good sign though. However, that would be equally true in current attack system And if anything, I'd suggest this would make the defending player usually have angst choices instead of "fair" choices.

Cause really, wouldn't you agree this system seems unfair to the defending player? It puts him in a really strange position, over and over, every battle: I must block, but with what, because the attacker has ATK x and ATK y, and whatever I choose, it must have a DEF that is GREATER than each and one of those values?

If that's true, and the logic can be broken down to that above question, then it doesn't seem that deep: You just defend like you would in current system. But instead of comparing your DEF with attackers ATK, you compare it with his ATK 1 and ATK 2. If your defender can survive any one of them, then go ahead - block. If not, decide who or what to sacrifice.

Also, attacker shouldn't die to often: He will see who the defending creature is. See it's values. Then it can even, on purpose, select an ineffective attack type that WONT hurt the defender. Why would he do this? Because, if the defender has a high value in the attack type you originally wanted to use in your attack, and your opponent selected exactly that specific defending creature, you are now in a position as the attacking player to make the following choice: Should I go ahead as planned with my attack, or should i DEGRADE to my inferior attack type that will acomplish NOTHING in order to force the defender to use the same back on me, in orde for my attacker to survive?

So, and this is major I think and I didn't see it previously in the thread: This, the ability for the attacker to "back down" in an attack and turn it into a "fake attack" will only lead to one single effect or two: Stalling the game, prolonging it. And in return just make it boring and the battle system less exciting when people can get away with stuff like this.

Despite it not theoretically slowing down gameplay, I feel that the mental strain would probably slow down the battle and would be adverse to most of the players. Therefore the system should either be revised or scrapped. (Of course, snowdrop was right )

I argue above that, if I understood your suggestion properly, the slowdown will happen one way or the other, not only in theory, but seemingly in "real life" I may be mistaken though, I still haven't tried this out. Personally, I love being wrong, cause I always feel like the sour-puss wherever I show up In the end it doesn't matter what person suggest something in the project. What matters is we help each other out and refine the ideas as far as possible and opt for something that's inline with the design document.

This morning I tried out a concept like you mentioned about "a game of thrones". That eliminates the mental stress and the game proceeds normally. By eliminating defense values and just comparing melee or ranged values, things move nicely.

Could you create these test cards in LackeyCCG, and I'd be happy to playtest them with you during saturday or sunday. Even if you didn't have the time releasing them as a PDF or Lackey-patch would make it easy for the rest to try it out and draw some conclusions. =) (Also, did you use a 3-variable system like in Thrones, or just the 2?)

I think it's very important that we all test out the very same cards with identical values, and that the info is somehow exchanged between us.