Not sure about player loss conditions

I’m OK with most of these suggestions. I have had conversations with Eshal on this topic and we tend to strongly disagree on it. I think more complex strategies can evolve out of simpler ones that are amped up, like what happens in hard and nightmare. New abilities tend to completely change gameplay (or change it to a large degree). Instead of making me advance my strategy or find a creative solution to an existing problem, I have to have completely different strategies that may or may not actually be more advanced, just different because the rules are different. I feel this becomes more of a memorization of what units are out now and what to do in that situation instead of a development or emergence of advanced strategy. And often times those abilities don’t scale to make things harder, so once you figure out what to do and memorize it, the only way to make it more difficult is to add new enemy abilities.

Going to the hard game I am playing now. Normal on Wildriver Run for me is now to the point where my strategy has advanced enough I can be offense and use a smaller set of units and abilities. I rarely have to use any melee units or be defensive. I did have to do that a lot when I first started playing, but now I have advanced my strategy. On hard, I am back to having to actually defend instead of being offensive. My Knights, Artillery and resource production are all much more important now, even with my advanced strategy. I will have to tweak it and advance it more if I want to get higher scores, without needing new enemies that makes me adapt simply because the rules are different instead of the situation being more advanced for me. Seeing a few simple rules grow and scale into hard, think-on-your-toes situations is more elegant to me as well.

Going back to my earlier comment, most of these suggested abilities I can deal with. The ones that progressively let zombies get out of what you do is both realistic and good for a boss situation (not so for mindless hordes though) and bad for an out of control situation. If things start to fall apart and zombies slowly become immune to abilities, there is no way to recover with tactics in those situations, you almost always end up needing brute force, which you don’t have. I liked a statement Jay made before in that a large part of the game (though not all of it), is using your heroes to manage and/or take out the stronger zombies because the heroes have abilities/strategy whereas the zombies have mindless force; in a fair fight the zombies would win, but you don’t have to fight fair, you can use tricks. Zombies building up an immunity to your tricks is a problem.

I don’t like the boss tangle mage teleporting to clean wells and blighting them unless we can teleport to unclean wells and clean them, or unless we can fortify a well (I mean to buff it and/or shield it some way, not just dump a lot of guys there and leave them there, although that will need to happen in addition to buffing/shielding, but maybe with fewer units now). I think allowing him to teleport to already blighted wells is a great idea though. It would let him go to areas that have had all of the graves cleared that you probably have moved your troops away from. If there are still some un-blighted towns in the area, then the boss could re-open that front that you thought was done and weren’t defending. I don’t know how often that situation actually comes up though.

I do think that the longer a graveyard lingers, the more that should come from it. I don’t know if it would be a boss though, but it could be that the zombies that spawn have more strength, or the spawn rate increases (either the number of zombies that spawn each time, or how often they spawn) for every spawn roll that passes (meaning the spawn rolls could become increasingly frequent; starting at 12 hours, but then that spawn roll shortens the timer for next time to 10 hours, then that spawn roll shortens the timer for next time to 6 hours, etc.). I’m thinking that a lot of the strategies that help make the game easier involve crowd controlling the strong groups of enemies to stall them until you can deal with them. Maybe if instead of one strong group, they were a dozen weaker groups, your Knight and Tree Whisperers wouldn’t be able to crowd control all of them and enough total strength (in separate groups) would get through to capture those towns you were trying to strengthen. This is definitely not a perfect solution, but it might contribute and it gets the idea across of what I am trying to counter.

I really need to get round to trying the game on harder difficulties before I can comment properly.

The main problem I can see is at the moment its too easy to get into a solved situation where a bunch of units lock down the zombies entirely with no way for the zombies to put more pressure out, i’m unsure of the best way round that, I’m not sure that making it so that zombies don’t clump as much would work at the moment - they automatically combine stacks so you use tree wisperers at choke points and you can deal with the whole army from one race, if they don’t clump up I fear things like dark forest witches I think will just become the stopping force instead of tree wisperers.

I really need to get round to trying a harder game before so I can comment better on it all

Those are good points. The Witches won’t stop the zombies, they will still march on to your settlements, but I agree that it could shrink their numbers enough to make it so that what does make it through just splats on the towns walls instead of being a threat to taking the town (unless you were CC’ing the zombies to buy time to get a unit to an unprotected town; I have seen that a lot and this would still allow that town to fall).

I agree that games with simple rules can have amazing strategy depth. The problem with games that have simple rules is that the depth of strategy often relies on the number of permutations of game play. For example, it’s easy to program a computer to play checkers - the game has simple rules, but very limited permutations of play. Games like Chess and Go (also relatively simple rules) on the other hand computers have a super difficult time trying to be competitive because programming an AI to actually think strategically takes an enormous amount of time and resources - rather than being able to map the universe of all possible games.

In this game the maps are fixed; not randomly generated. Starting locations of the zombies are fixed; not variable. The rules defining how the zombies behave is fixed. The only variable currently is increasing the size/strength/speed of zombies.

This is the main problem I’ve been trying to point out. It’s very difficult to build a game with strategy depth unless you can also increase the number of permutations; but then programming an AI that can handle those permutations becomes difficult.

This is why adding mechanics is generally more common in game design where the main opponent is an AI. It doesn’t require any extra effort on the AI’s part to understand the mechanics; in fact usually the AI can completely ignore the mechanics. But it forces the players to come up with new strategies and adapt strategies based on what’s going on around them.

Adding a spell resistance to some zombies on harder modes would help with this (it’s a new mechanic), but if I plan to Tangle a zombie group and it fails, now I have to adapt my strategy to work around the new development.

Someone on the internet did an excellent study of the AI used in CIV 5. This is a game that has deep strategy, and many different simultaneous mechanics which work together well, and the AI is relatively challenging. Someone created an 8-player game on a barren map with one human player and 7 computer players. All the AI’s completely fell apart because they weren’t programmed to know how to deal with a completely barren map. What it revealed about the AI was that it was programmed to have a set of its own rules which told it when it should have what units built, how many towns it should have etc… I.E. the AI was only as good as the programmer who programmed it, but in most cases it was acceptable to build a solid game.

Blight is going to have the same problem, the simpler the mechanics the harder it is to build depth and an AI that can handle it. The more/complex mechanics are, the simpler the AI can be while remaining challenging and at much greater strategic depth.

1 Like

You should be able to do this now with the dwarf and troll guy that add fortifications. This boss will probably give a 12 -24 hour warning so you can scramble to get into position. But I do want it to be a problem you have to solve. I want it to be something that will force you to re-evaluate. A consequence for letting the mana well fall in the first place.

I do currently count how many spawn events have occurred at a grave, and the percentage chance of each body getting up is greater with each event.

I’ve had a lot of feedback this week that taking out the graves is too easy. Some have suggested that you should always fight something. Some have suggested you should pay resources.

One thing I planned to do this week was make the zombies get up right away, sooner, but stand around on top of the graves for a while before moving off. That way it’s far more likely you will have to fight something.

About 6 months ago the spawn events happened much more often, but the zombies would not consider moving off the spawn until they were a certain size. I might go back to something like that.

I agree that when those guys spawn you don’t think “OMG were are in trouble” you just sigh because now you have a chore to do which is kill that guy.

I like your suggestions. Here are a few more.

  • All locations produce half gold.
  • All spells cost twice mana
  • All spells have twice as long recharge time.
  • Training units takes twice as long.
  • Deploying heroes cost twice as much.
  • Can’t use the Bazaar to exchange valour for Gold or Mana.

THANK YOU! All of these are great ideas for making the game more difficult without just increasing the number of zombies on the map at the start of the game. I probably wouldn’t use all those tricks at the same time however, You might make some of these global and select a couple at random at the start of the game.

What about if we put them on some new zombie bosses, and and spawn bosses at the start of hard or nightmare games. That way I can keep them as a function of a zombie rather than as a special rule.

I think that would be ok… a couple of things I might also look at…

All the current bosses are all or none, i.e. you either kill it or you don’t. One thing to consider might be creating zombie bosses that can be ‘damaged’ and starts off more powerful; his ability might even scale with how damaged he is. So he might start off as a 100(X)x50(Y) (5,000 strength boss) who makes a strength attack (X) every 12 hours to all mortals in a 1 league radius.

A lot of inspiration here could probably be drawn from D&D; I love some of the abilities the creatures in that RPG can have. One of my personal favorites that could be very applicable to this game is the Corpse Gatherer (Undead (Dungeons & Dragons) - Wikipedia)

I’d like to point out that it would be nice to see zombie bosses as a single facet of building strategic depth.

slightly conflicts with what was said here

I was meaning to run some statistical analysis to see what is really happening, this has just encouraged me to - I’ve never really felt the rate of zombies rising has been increasing (on normal difficulty), I need to investigate it more

The current ideal version of a strategy I have at the moment (ie if i didn’t need to sleep and could be in front of the pc all the time) is

  1. look up when the spawn time for a graveyard is (ie look for when it was destroyed in the event log)
  2. move a unit so that it in the graveyard about 3 hours after that
  3. stop a 5% move away from the graveyard in a direction that is not the one the zombies will move in
  4. do the last bit of movement as soon as the zombies move out

to be clear this doesn’t feel like something the game should be encouraging

I think there are multiple ways to weaken it - off the top of my head
make it so spawn timers are random
always keep some zombies on the graveyard
make it so sometimes the zombies will chase units not cities

also stopping between 2 hexes is extremely powerful for ranged units - is it an intended feature?

Penny was just quoting the starting spaw chances. She may not have looked at the actual code for the resurrection.

    chance = universe.resurection_roll + (universe.resurection_roll * grave.resurrections)

am I correct then in saying its (on normal where there is apparently a 5% chance base %)
1st spawn 5%
2nd spawn 10%
3rd spawn 15%
etc, if so I will be interested to do some maths on that

yep

I see that its changed both from in game & the bug reporter, this seems
a) harder to get perfect scores (probably a good thing)
b) harder to sneak into a graveyard

first reactions I like it

only down side I see is the possibility the it encourages camping outside and logging on often to catch the small window when the zombies are gone, think its a good step in the right direction.

This is a problem statement since many wells are designed to fall to the Blight; you have no way to save them. Or, the map starts with a boss or few already on the map.

I remember a few weeks like this and being happy and upset. It made the roving bands larger, making it harder to mount a last minute resistance, but it made my Tinker, Cyclops Priest and Shaman obsolete (because the graves were in the single digits or fully risen when I reached them, even if I just charged for them).

I do like a lot of suggestions and support their inclusion into the game, despite my many arguments of caution to the change (everything has pros and cons), but I have to strongly disagree with Eshal that the new mechanics add depth and strategy. It just handcuffs you so that your actions are more limited and even easier to decide. Or it often means that I now have a formula to playing. E.g he played rock so I know I need to play paper. Sure it takes me some time to do that, and I had started playing scissors instead, but it still doesn’t require much extra thought to figure out how to beat it, it is just a matter of execution. And, in many games, the next time he is going to play rock again, so I know I am going to play paper again. I don’t even worry about scissors now. Maybe there are a couple of choices instead of one. Maybe there are 100 choices, but I still know exactly what to do once the mechanic appears. I know that is an exaggeration; there are some nuances that can change things, like I have less mana this time so I play wet paper instead, but those mostly come from the existing basics rather than the new mechanics. I also understand that to some extent, that is what happens in the game already, but that doesn’t mean the mechanics add depth, just a bit more time to wait and see which route I am pushed down, but the route is clear. (Again, this is not saying they shouldn’t happen, just that it isn’t depth.)

I think it partly depends what you want out of a game, I feel there are at least 2 types that blight could be made into and I don’t know which one it wants to become.

The first is a kind of puzzle game - given a setup potentially even the beginning of a game you could theoretically figure out the best course of actions and plan a long way ahead (possibly to the end of the game) - to make it more along those lines you want the most minimal randomness possible, though it is possible to have some. The enjoyment for me from them is that you can sit down and plan wildly ahead with a high degree of accuracy and any losses are largely as you haven’t planned enough.

The second is I don’t know what to call it - a more simulationist type of game, with a higher degree of randomness - a much larger part is dealing with the accidents as they happen and while there would be planning to try to make the accidents happen less often - its more lets sort out this problem so we can get onto the next one and hopefully win in the end feel.

Honestly I don’t know what would be more fun for blight. But I think both are viable paths.

I think the fun of Blight (and most games I think), is working out what the scissor solution is to the paper problem. But I think for that to be fun it has to be not obvious.

I’m not sure exactly how to make that happen, but lets work it out together.

I guess a clearer way of putting myself would be should blight (if you are a good player) be about logging in after a day and going
a) everything has worked exactly as I planned or
b) I see x y and z has happened how do I now effectively counter that and continue to move forward

A mix of the two I think.