Terrain Discussion.

[Jingleheimer]

I think most people here agree that there should be at least some floors with different terrain.
Now I imagine that the easiest way would be to simply change the graphics for the tiles.



However, I suggest a more complicated approach:

Keep the tiles as they are, and have the terrain as NPC units.

Things like grass, bushes, trees, boulders, etc. would have hit points and in some cases special abilities.

For example: when a unit kills a tree, the tree would fall over opposite to the killing unit and inflict damage upon whatever is in the tile it falls on.

Another example: any tile with grass that is attacked by a Pyromancer would burn for a set number of turns. Any unit that moves onto a burning tile would have damage inflicted. At the end of the turns, the fire could then spread to any adjacent grass unit inflicting damage on any units occupying that tile.

[kuzal]

Sounds good. I think that there should also be larger arenas where 4+ people could play. Mabey have buildings in the middle or something. Hmm, a 2 story building would be cool, stick scouts on the top floor and anyone who comes too close is hit with a pointy stick...

[jaydude6]

and water so that you can't move there.
that gave me an idea... how about a rain maker? make it so they can make a pool that lasts a few turns

[LondonJack]

I like this idea alot, randomly generated obstructions, has alot of potential. I've heard that terrain is in the making, but that for the time being it will just be window dressing. Personally i would like to see certain units get terrain bonuses as well, such as a frost golem getting more range when a battle is fought in the snow, etc.

[AzN_GuY]

but there;s a level where if you're gonna complain about blocking percentages, you HAVE to complain about random terrain...

*edit* (had more to say)

I think terrain (at least with the falling trees and burning grass) is still awesome... but it's a different flavor of game... not the same...

[LondonJack]

Did i come off like i was complaining about blocking? (there's a chance that comment wasn't meant for me, but anyway) I mean sure i made my computer blush (she's a lady after all) when i lost a game b/c a pyro i really needed to die did a late game side block, but i think blocking is a great dynamic the way its is, wouldn't change a thing.

[AzN_GuY]

no, i was talking in the fullness of everything dude... relating this post to the post about blocking percentages (im in college, we do this crap) :D

[LondonJack]

I too am in college ;) hence my wonder at what connection there was to draw between the two threads with the exception my presence, and the concession that i could be way off base with my conclusion :cool:

(I'm trying to tastefully get rid of my junior, does it show?)

[Hashish_Scout]

Nah. Just a random thought. That would be a chunk of actionscript. So would multiple levels of terrain, like buildings. It would be really cool to see Scouts shooting volleys of arrows at knights storming a tower, while mages tried to destroy the building and a cleric healed up everyone, but...we also have to respect the fact that these guys created this great big complicated game that's online complete with chatting, all in Flash. That's amazing stuff. The tactics core demo was amazing, but it didn't even come close to the awesomeness of this. By the way, creators, wherever you are, there's fire already in the tcd, why couldn't you put it in online? ah well. Great stuff, anyway.

[jaydude6]

never did get a responce from the creators... can i at least get a maybe?

[Xarr]

i love the terrain idea!!
i like buildings too, cause you could have scouts up top and gaurd entrances with knights!

the idea of nocking down trees and buring grass is cool, but there should be big and small boulders.... and maybe units could move smaller boulders if they walked into them. thus creating a bit of defence :)

also stumps and stuffs to help with ranged blocking %age.
i know it would bring a lot of bitching but it makes the game more *tactical* (i know its not the right word, but you get the play on words....)

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by AzN_GuY
but there;s a level where if you're gonna complain about blocking percentages, you HAVE to complain about random terrain...



Eh, not really. I mean, there are some things that you can't prepare for in specific, such as your opponent's formation and (if it's added) terrain. However, you should be ready to deal with whatever is thrown at you in these categories. If your formation is uber-cool in snow but reeks in a forest, for example, it's not a very good formation.

The way I see it, if there's random terrain, when the game begins you've gotta check out the terrain, see what's up, look for chokepoints, sniper posts, etc. This requires tactics. And, furthermore, they should program it such that the board is symmetric, so neither player really has an advantage based on terrain, it's just a matter of who uses it better.

With blocking, it can be grossly unfair if one person is uber-lucky and the other isn't. And you shouldn't have to prepare for your opponent's Witch to side block three times in a row, since it's totally unforseeable.

Anyway, back to the main point, I think terrain would be a great addition, if they could do it well. However, it could take a while: if they add in differing heights, they've gotta come up with new formulas for range and damage of Scouts, they've gotta figure out how high characters can jump, whether some jump higher than others, how high a character can make an attack against, whether some characters can attack higher than others, etc. If they're willing to do this, scorezilla; if not, I completely understand where they're coming from.

[AzN_GuY]

What if it's a map FILLED with beautful sniper posts but your tactics style relies on armed force rushes or magical dominance? You just got screwed by the computer before you even fired a single bolt off.

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by AzN_GuY
What if it's a map FILLED with beautful sniper posts but your tactics style relies on armed force rushes or magical dominance? You just got screwed by the computer before you even fired a single bolt off.

Then that means you're not flexible enough.

What if your formation relies on your opponent having a symmetrical formation, but you come up against an opponent that's stacked? Same thing: if you're not flexible, you lose.

But the blocking thing isn't a matter of flexibility, it's a straight matter of advantage/disadvantage. If you have bad luck, you're at a disadvantage. There's nothing you can really do about it, because you shouldn't have to plan for the chance that their Witch makes three side blocks in a friggin' row. But you should plan for, "What if the terrain doesn't fit a magical strategy?" Just like, in making your formation, you shouldn't makes one that relies heavily on your opponent to have a certain formation.

Sorry, I really feel that I'm not expressing properly how they're different. English really isn't my best subject (gee, a math nerd playing tactical games? Go figure.). I'll try again later, when it's not late and I don't have homework to do.

[AzN_GuY]

meh, im a cs major, what do i know?

when a witch blocks twice in a row, i get behind it or just let it come to me where i can get behind it. I have two scouts, i can fire off more shots though...

[jaydude6]

well, all i know is that this game will get monotonous after a while... we need a good twist in this... something to keep us guessing. blocking works, but we will need more

[buttmonkey]

GODDAMMIT I LOVE THE TERRAIN IDEA. and expanded battle fields for 4 players is not to shabby either, but might i suggest a team option for the bigger field? you vould have 2 or 3 regular accounts against one experienced gold. might be fun.:D

[xyxaxyz2]

People- you want all these new shiny toys- but they don't really make the game better. They'd be interesting a few times and then you'd be wanting to go back to the simplicity of the original game. Before proposing a suggestion, ask, what makes a game fun . Not what looks good. Not a feature you'd just love to test out. What makes the game fun is the tactical challenge.

I think there should be terrains, because I think the game would look better with them. But don't overdo it.

[AzN_GuY]

lol, a grassy field would be more fun than the gray tiles, but still superfluous if it came down to performance

[Isokora]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
People- you want all these new shiny toys- but they don't really make the game better. They'd be interesting a few times and then you'd be wanting to go back to the simplicity of the original game. Before proposing a suggestion, ask, what makes a game fun . Not what looks good. Not a feature you'd just love to test out. What makes the game fun is the tactical challenge.

I think there should be terrains, because I think the game would look better with them. But don't overdo it.

I agree with what you are saying about making the game more tactical but still a bit of prettyness doesn't go a miss, new tile colours/patterns wouldn't exactly take hours of coding n I doubt that chucking in a rock or tree or 2 wouldn't be that hard either. I'm pretty sure most of this has already been thought about by the creator(s)
-
Iso

[MasterGolem]

Is bills or DR ever gonna come? Oh and i luv this idea. The faling trees and 4 player arena. Maybe a spectator place too?

[AzN_GuY]

Too much and just not tactics... with the trees at least... it's just flowery bells and whistles

[Sacred Cow™]

Fortifications would be nice like a small castle or something of that sort where you can place your scouts to hide so that being hit by them isnt unblockable

[Choi]

Originally posted by kuzal
I think that there should also be larger arenas where 4+ people could play.

I like the idea of a larger arena where 4 people play. Each team could set up on one side of a square area. Odds are that many people would pair up at first, then battle each other.

[DWarrior]

(note: this is a re-write of my first post, since by the time I finished it, my session expired and I lost all that I wrote)

Regarding multi-level buildings: This will become very annoying and unpractical, since the buildings will block units standing directly behind the buildings.

Regarding burning grass: Grass that burns and damages any unit that walks over it is not a very idea since units chose their paths uncontrollably while walking to their destinations, and having the palyer get penalized for that is absurd.

Regarding terrain in general: I, along with many others, agree that terrain will be a great addition to Tactics Arena. However, its implimentation is presents a difficult problem. As I see it, there are four ways to incorporate terrain into the game:
[list=1]
Making Terrain Static - This means that each half-block will have a pre-defined terrain. Every field will be symmetrical and all the fields will be identical to one-another. This is the easiest way to implement terrain into the game, but it is the least innovative, since it adds no elements of surprise, just adds a little more strategy. If the developers are looking for a "twist" to make this game more fun and less monotonous, this is definetly not the way to go!

Making Terrain Dynamic - This means that each time a game starts, terrain will be randomly generated (perhaps, as some suggested, generated symmetrically to even out opportunities for both players). This definetly makes the game less predictable and certainly adds more elements of challenge, surprise, and in-combat strategy (by that I mean that players will need to evaluate terrain and come up with best tactics without having the time to prepare beforehand). This is certainly an interesting idea worth considering. Its major flaw really comes out if the fields are not generated symmetrically because of the possibility of one player getting into an extremely disadvantageous situation and basically losing before the game even begins.

Making Terrain User-Defined - This means that every player will have the opportunity to set up his/her half of the battleground just like his/her army. This will probably have to be done from a separate "pool" so a player will not have to chose between a Scout or a Tree. This means tightening up the Settings layout to make room for a whole another collection of units. Also, it doesn't add as much element of surprise as the 2nd method and adds more pre-combat strategy instead of in-combat strategy. The biggest flaw of this is the possibility of one player forming a wall around a powerful unit, thereby creating an impenetrable bunker. However, the ability of units to destroy terrain (such as trees falling and grass burning) would fix this issue, and in some cases even make such a possibility disadvantageous to the unit bunkered inside.

Mixture of three previous methods - An alternative way to implement this would be for the game developers to design several pre-defined fields (at least 3), each being advantageous to a particular strategy, and have the player defind which one of them he/she wants to use. This certainly adds elements of surprise and in-combat strategy, while preventing the previously-mentioned potential for disadvantage due to random generation, or bunkering of units.
[/list=1]

Personally, I like option 4 because unlike option 1 it's not "boring", unlike option 2 it's not too unpredictable, and unlike option 3 it doesn't flood the player with too many choices to make about board setup.

[zachattack13]

i think there sould be serveral u shaped bunkers (3) ona regular size field and two towers on each side where only one unit can ocupie and it would give them a 2 tile more attack range when in the tower
but the tower only has 40 or something hp so after a few hit on the base it would be gone
there should also by 14 floors the
10-12 = same size with the stuff i just talked about
13= the same butt bigger floor space with more of the stuff i talked about and took 3 player all for all
14=levels and all the mest stuff with another arena on the side for the seconed level
15?

[AzN_GuY]

Tower: not everyone uses archers, and beyond that, making the archer stronger by just encouraging people to sit behind ramparts isnt going to make the game any more fun.

I like Dwarrior's thouroughness, but I think that the intrinsic problem with terrain that has an effect on the game is that it WILL screw someone over. "symmetrical" terrain with advantages will still often screw someone's strategy over. Yes, there will be the same number of archer spots, but if the player's army is stacked to the other side, it's not going to benefit. You could argue "well, then they should be flexible" but the player should NOT have to conform to the computer's arbitrary terrain limitations when creating a tactical plan in the planning phase.

[deathcall12]

terrain is somthing a game like this really needs. i really liked the falling trees and burning grass ideas. and then terrain that gives some units a bounus while others get disadvantages. i dont know about buildings though.

[Lord Wevilspore]

I say no multi-level buildings. These are supposed to be arenas. A simple structure like the following should be the extreme limit of the building size. +W+3+W+
++W323W++
+++WW1WW+++
+++12321+++
++++121++++
+++++1+++++
+ = Empty Space
W = Wall
# = where a Pyro has to stand to target the corresponding white # or less
The idea is that Pyros can't throw spells through the walls. They have to toss them through the entrance. The same should be applied to the other units as well. The one unit's ability that should be unaffected by the walls is the Mud Golem's Quake attack.

Wall
Life: 60
Armor: 25
All other Stats: 0
Ability: Impede all actions past the wall.

[Ri'Orius]

While necroposting a useful topic can be good, this topic has been beaten to death so much that this thread should've been left dead.

As it says in the sticky (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3154):

7. Different terrain on the playing field. Whether it is different terrain for each square individually, or for the whole field.

[LondonJack]

Please do not suggest any of these ideas anymore, or, if you feel the need to comment on one of them, please do not make a new thread, but rather, search the forums for the thread applying to the idea, and post it there. Do not simply make more threads about things that have already been suggested.


Actually i'm thinking this is a case of someone reading the sticky and following it's advice. Granted this is an old thread, but still it's better then making a new topic on terrain.

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by LondonJack
Actually i'm thinking this is a case of someone reading the sticky and following it's advice. Granted this is an old thread, but still it's better then making a new topic on terrain.

Well, yes, but the fact remains, terrain has been suggested so often that to even bring it up again is to beat a dead horse, you know? Therefore, while it's not a sticky violation, it is a useless necropost.

But good catch on that thing in the sticky about posting on the old threads--I didn't remember that it actually said that...