Game involves too much luck: replace % block with damage reduction

[Shadoww3]

I've played too many games which in the end were going to be decided by one swing, and whether or not the swing blows. I've been blocked from the side by a witch, a 10% chance. In the end, I think that if what side you're hitting from determines how much of your power is reduced(similar to armor) rather than chance to hit, it would make the game less dependent on luck, and more dependent on skill and planning.

Another essential to add is an undo ability between moving and attacking, so that if you make a mistake you can fix it, and also so that new players can see how far they can move a unit while still being able to see its range to attack from a distance.

Other than that, it is a fantastic game, but it makes me not want to play it when I am affected by one of the above problems.

[kuzal]

the whole point is stratagy. If you screw up, an undo button kinda makes the whole experience dimmer. In a war, if you command someone wrong, you have no undo button, they're dead. Also, there IS a damage reduction. It's called ARMOR. It makes luck only a part of the game. Mostly its just good planing.

[Shadoww3]

In a war, you don't accidentally push the wrong button. You cannot make a mistake such as that in real war. In this, if your finger slips, it could cost you the game. I only expect the undo button to work right after moving, to prevent such an accident.

I'm aware of what armor does, I mentioned it in my post. But say you are placed in a situation where you're attacking a witch, a very important unit to kill, from the side. There is a 10% chance to miss, and if you do, she will be given the chance to kill 2 units. That 10% chance is enough to block a strike even against the ridiculous odds, and turn the game around. That's not planning, it's luck.

[Jingleheimer]

Originally posted by Shadoww3
In a war, you don't accidentally push the wrong button. You cannot make a mistake such as that in real war. In this, if your finger slips, it could cost you the game. I only expect the undo button to work right after moving, to prevent such an accident.

I'm aware of what armor does, I mentioned it in my post. But say you are placed in a situation where you're attacking a witch, a very important unit to kill, from the side. There is a 10% chance to miss, and if you do, she will be given the chance to kill 2 units. That 10% chance is enough to block a strike even against the ridiculous odds, and turn the game around. That's not planning, it's luck.

I think Bills already stated that there will be no undo option.

Originally posted by Bills IN THIS THREAD (http://www.tacticsarena.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=102)
There will not be a undo move. No poll needed:)

[Shadoww3]

k... that's not really a big deal, to me it's a distant second to the blocking thing.

[Fifemoo]

The undo thing is a small issue compare to the Blocking shindig. I can live without the undo, cause that's something that's in my power to control. The Blocking however, just seems rediculous at times. So far, blocking has benefited me more than hurt, but when a knight misses an attack on a mage-type from the side more than once a game, that just kind've takes away from the fun.

Plus it's a bit odd to see a homdiggy completely block a sword with a crooked staff. On paper and in numbers, the percent chance of these blocks happening seems low. But it happens too often to be fun.

It's just way to ciritical for your planning to even have that small amount of risk of completely missing a weak raggy unit. A greater portion of damage reduction would be much more satisfying.

I duno man. But i really hate it when a knight runs into my force, puts his back to my units, and keeps blocking my attacks. Meanwhile he kills my Cleric and cackles like a damn gorilla.

Now ask yourself, can you actually sit back and know a gorilla is cackling and do nothing about it? I think not! oh man i've lost my point in this response...

Down with Undo!
Up with less blocking!

[Rexxx]

Gotta agree here with the blocking percentage.

I was in a game that I was trying to use strategy in, but was unable to since an archer kept blocking every attack I threw at him. We even started calling the guy Superman.. and named him the MVP of the game... The first block was ok.. even tolerated the second block... but after about 8 blocks in a row, it got old, and killed any strategy that was being planned.

I agree.. No blocking, instead, damage reduction based on where they are hit from. Add a mobile barrier ward, and you then have STRATEGIC blocking...

[AzN_GuY]

Im going to throw my lot in IN FAVOR of percentage blocking on the grounds that it ADDS an element of strategy rather than removes it.

Yes, i've gone down shouting BLOCK at my units because they perform dismally, but even if i lose, i knew that i had an equal chance on that block. Beyond that, there's also the possibility that i'll benefit from a similar roll of the dice...

But, my main point is this: percentage blocking creates a massive incentive for rear attacks while still allowing HOPE to games where you need it. If everything did full damage always but at fixed rates, the game would lose an element of replayability because there's not the same "well if that one arrow hadnt been blocked..." beyond that though, there's also the case that it creates the need for provisions. If we want to continue the war analogy, a squad of m16 laden GI's isnt going to kill the same squad of whatevers every single time without incident. Accidents happen, luck happens, in war as in life. Thus, percent blocking more realistically simulates damage. Also, it makes the "unblockable magic" dynamic more purposeful.

Open to discussion

[LondonJack]

Personally i love blocking. I can't tell you how many times I've nearly pulled my hair out when a Witch does a frontal, or a Pyro does a side block, but at the same time I've had Scouts and Knights that just wouldn't die, even one Scout that lasted 5 attacks with 1 hp. If blocking was taken away (which has zero chance of ever happening, since it is integral to the games balance and design) the game would lose (as Azn said) alot of its replay value, because the randomness and strategy would be replaced by an exaggerated game of rock/paper/scissors.

[AzN_GuY]

mmmmm exaggerated... london, i love you

[Fifemoo]

On the surface there may appear to be some truth to the claim that the randomness or "luck" factor adds to the replay ability of the game. At first blush one might think that since there is randomness, then the same two situations may have differing outcomes and thus this adds to the longevity of the game by reducing the number of repetitive experiences.

But there are several key reasons why this is not the case: First I will point out that the element of chance that makes a game like Black Jack or Poker is missing from TAO – the “luck” is generated by a number generator and in the long run will repeat – all number generators that use time as their seed will repeat eventually. But events that take place in the real world are more variable in that the factors that cause them are unknown. So that means, in the long run, the random block feature adds nothing to the game. And in the short run all you get is a cheapened win because some of your victory had no part at all to with your skill and a partially unfair defeat because you lost to some extent through no fault of your own.

Consider the game Chess. There is no roll of a die to determine whether a piece can take another piece -- it simply can or cannot depending on position. The longevity of chess cannot be questioned. Plus, two advantages this game has over Chess: the chess field is 64 squares in total, the TAO field is 109 squares; as new units are added to the game with different abilities, powers, armor and movement range the possible combinations of moves and situations is limited only by the growth rate of new units.

Finally I would also like to point out that even Chess has had its revisions. I don't think it’s unreasonable to think that this game could also be improved: if it's good enough for Chess, it's good enough for TAO. Informal Chess even has an undo feature – as long as you don’t take your finger off the piece, you can move it back! Perhaps the designers specifically intend miss-clicking to be part of the game, but it certainly isn’t a fun part of the game.

Moo.

[AzN_GuY]

First point: Random number generators.
While it is true that all RNG's are doomed to repeat in the long run, the actual likeliehood of you playing a game at a point where this reliance on deterministic randomness actually becomes a factor (imagine: "oh, you blocked that exact same arrow that exact same way with that exact same guy at the exact same point etc etc" :)) you're not going to replay the same situation.

1b. It is still to a degree your own fault that you do what you do... you choose the sides, the locations, and what your units do. You take into account (assumedly) the percentages and options of your units. Thus, it's all your design and your command.

Second: Chess
Chess, while similar, also assumes that you kill the person you aim to hit once. The rules of the two games are different, as are the strategies. What works for one isnt necessarily going to work for another. The tie between chess and TAO is therefore not so strong that we can simply deny percentage blocking on the basis of "chess doesnt have it"

Third: Revision
Revision has never been ruled out, that's why we're debating ;)

Fourth: Cliffhangers
Yea, it sux when the witch smokes 3 of your arrows... but it rains on the just and the unjust... it's as fair as it is that I get a loss because the server crashed... Life happens. And it's so fun to put all your hopes on your pyro blocking... and then it happening! ;)

[Angelo]

Sorry, I haven't read all the posts but what about this:

Let's say you and your opponent both have only one knigth left, each one down to 16 HP.
Now the enemy knight moves to the side of your knight and attacks, you block.
Now you don't attack him aswell but move around him and then attack (when you only move, you can use the knight again in the next round). So you would win the match because of your awful strategy skills :D

[jaydude6]

Ok... this is another case of the screaming mobs
i admit, there are some flaws with the game. the archer shouldn't be able to block that good. the random thing might seem unfair in those FEW games.
BUT THAT IS WHAT THAT GAME GOOD!
In real life, there are some times when the impossible happens. you have to consider that in your stradegy.
And also, the knight is suppose to be that good. HE'S A TRAINED SOLDER! he knows how to fight, and has a huge sheild. you don't like it? SEND ONE OF YOUR OWN TO FIGHT IT! they're not alive? TOO BAD! YOUR FAULT, SO DON'T COMPLAIN IF CAN'T BEAT THAT PERSON!
you all say that you don't like the blocking. that's because you don't know how to use it, and keep losing for that! I admit, there will be games that the odds will be broken and something unbeatable will come up. SEND IN AND UNBLOCKABLE!
and one more thing. if you don't like this game... LEAVE!
sorry if i sounded harsh... but the point had to be put in before this got out of hand.

[ultraexactzz]

Even the newest player has a chance to defeat the best player because of random things like the blocking system. That's also what gives the game some replayability. If I'm gold and have a cadre of unstoppable golems, I still know that a newbie with the stock set of units can get lucky and smoke me. I have to play for keeps at every turn, and that keeps the game fresh.

Static blocking would remove the element of chance, and make the whole thing a numbers game. It'd become mechanical.

[Hashish_Scout]

A locked blocking system would take much of the fun out of the game. It would just be a matter of numbers, as he said. That crossing-your-fingers-and-hoping-to-your-favorite-deity-that-your-scout-doesn't-die is one of the best values of the game, it gets your adrenaline up and makes you truly care about what happens next.

[AzN_GuY]

mmmm, the game of the math gods

[Aezeal]

I don't think the blocking should go.. you need to take it into account.. of course it sucks losign cause of a block... but still then you at least have an excuse :P

I know my first loss will be due to the otherone having lucky blocks :P

[Shadoww3]

A couple days later I'm learning to enjoy blocking a bit more... BUT what I do think is that mages and witches have the same blocking rate from the front, but 0 from the sides. It just pisses me off when those 10 and 16 percents actually happen, even when I'm the one doing the blocking.

[AzN_GuY]

lol, thank dem godz

[Killer_kev]

All you people who dont like blocking are probly walk up to my knight, attack the front and curse when you miss. Learn to use the blocking to your advantage, or stop complaining. Sure blocking has screwed me a few times, but i use my skills to comeback and win those games.

peace.

[penguin taco]

im in favor of blocking theres always a chance that theyll dodge or ull miss it shouldnt only depend on armor ur not always gunna hit theres always a slight chance that an archer or sumthin is gunna block u 8 times in a row itll be very uncommin and u should go to the sides or back but theres a chance




Cracker: We can start by agreeing that DOOM is the prettiest and most robust engine on the market. We'd be lucky if every game used it.

Ivan: We can start by agreeing that you are an idiot.

...

[Choi]

Otherwise we could just all go play chess.:cool:

[Ri'Orius]

Well, I personally would prefer it if blocking were removed, but then again, I'm a very mathematical, think-it-through kinda guy, who would rather be able to, with certainty, plan out my attack than have those emotional moments in which the impossible happens. But if more would prefer blocking, I'm fine with that--I'm weird enough that being the minority is nothing new to me :D

EDIT: Just got an idea for a possible compromise. Take out blocking, but add in a Critical Hit percentage (note that balancing would have to occur--increasing armor to compensate for blocking removal, etc.). This way, there'd still be the fingers-crossed-hoping-for-a-miracle feeling, but you would be better able to predict the outcome of your attack. The luck would be in place, but it would really only hurt you during your opponent's turn, so you'd be able to figure out what your attack will do with certainty.

[Everchanging]

Why not add critical chance percentage in addition with keeping blocking?

I love saying "Block damn you! Block! Block! Block!" to my magicians when a knight goes up beside them... id love to start saying "Head shot! Head shot! Head shot!" to a scout hoping for a critical hit

[xyxaxyz2]

Randomness makes the game less tactical, makes it too easy for a worse player to beat a better player. I think it should be taken out.

[Cybren]

i have to say, it doesn't seem very random when his assassin hits EVERY TIME, when I have a 40% to block, and then I miss EVERY TIME when she has a 35% chacne to block.

[xyxaxyz2]

Exactly. I just played a game where I missed a witch twice. He hit my knight on the side every time with his knight. Still won, but only because he had a bad setup.

[Killer_kev]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Randomness makes the game less tactical, makes it too easy for a worse player to beat a better player. I think it should be taken out.

atcualy it would make it easyer for noobs to win, if you took out blocking. Think about noobs just walk up and atatck your guys frons then turn there backs on you. while the skilled player plays to kae sure that the noobs can never hit his units backs. so taking away blocking would take away half of the games skill ( and emotion)

[xyxaxyz2]

That isn't about who is a more tactical player, but who understands the rules. Anyway, when blocking is taken out there will still be less damage done when someone is attacked on front.

[Killer_kev]

if some doesnt read or understand the rules THEN THEY DESERVE TO LOSE!!!!! anyway the game would be so much more broing without blocking.

[xyxaxyz2]

I disagree, it would make it more tactical, which means I know if I beat you it is my skill that beats you and not my luck. That is more interesting to me.

[Killer_kev]

dont you get it. if blocking left everyone would stand around attacking the fronts of units. WHERE THE SKILL IN THAT. you need skills to use blocking well. some one who has skills with blocking and some luck will always beat those who dont have any. also taking out blocking would make the game so much more repetatived.

[xyxaxyz2]

No one is suggesting that it should be equally useful to attack in front as in back. All we are saying is the luck should be taken out. Right now the knight blocks front 80% of the time. Instead, the damage dealt to the knight from the front should be reduced by 80%.

[AzN_GuY]

there's strategy to luck too yknow... the general calculates for the chances your men will all tumble into a pit the moment they take the field.

[xyxaxyz2]

Yes, but the general needs to take risks and when those risks fail he can lose to someone a lot weaker than him.

[AzN_GuY]

yup. sux dont it?

[Killer_kev]

aaah that did not help your point at all. it just staited the obvios

[xyxaxyz2]

I agree, it is obvious that I am correct.

[Shadoww3]

Killer kev, he's stated twice, clearly, that it would still be of your benefit to attack from the back, rather than the sides, rather than the front, because the damage would be reduced by a set amount.

I'm not even radically for it anymore, I do think it would make the game better and more dependent on skill- that it would not reduce the replayability of the game because, as fifemoo said, people continue to play chess, a game completely reliant on skill. No two games would be the same. But for whatever reason, people do not seem to agree, and it looks like we're fighting for a lost cause.

[xyxaxyz2]

This is even better than chess, because of setups. In chess as in this game there is always one best move, but due to the element of surprise in the TAO setups there is lots of replayablity.

[Warcow]

Well I like the idea of blocking and it does add a good element to the game. However sometimes It just gets ridiculus. Example twice now i have been undone by Valkares Uber witch. Yes the witch may have a measly 20% blocking chance but that didnt stop her from single handedly making 3 critical blocks in a row in both games I played valkare. Lol and yes even a few of those blocks were side attacks. Valkare beat me both times and kudo's to him for being a very good player but i believe it could have been a different game if not for that annoying witch!

[Shadoww3]

Maybe an alternate idea, and this will change gameplay a lot, is if a unit cannot make 2 blocks in a row. Not supporting it much, just raising it as an idea.

[xyxaxyz2]

IRT warcow- perhaps blocking should just be a special ability of the knight- and then decrease their hp a bit.

IRTShadow-
1) Doesn't make sense. There should be an in game reason for all rules.
2)Should two frontal blocks be considered the same as two side blocks?

[AzN_GuY]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I agree, it is obvious that I am correct.

I assume this to be in relation to your post that generals can lose to less skilled opponents on a gamble.

Absolutely, as i said before. But, that is largely the point. It's not a question of the skill level involved with the proposed rule change. Instead, I am saying that there is intrinsic value as both a realism and a tactical warfare issue to the system as it stands now.

xyxaxyz2 and I have both established that luck is a part of warfare, particularly tactical warfare. (though we used strategic warfare, w/e) I argue that the blocking mechanism in place is superior in adding suspense and purpose to the game as it stands. There is no denying the suspense aspect, and purpose can be gleaned from the hope it grants lesser players (and players with "inferior forces") in that they are still in the game plus they are granted the recourse "well if he hadnt blocked"

Another point is that magical units will lose value to their "unblockable" damage status. Though one can argue that the fact they'd always do "full damage" is the reestablishment of the desired value, this is faulty in that ALL units are technically doing "full damage" at all times in the proposed system. There is no relief in the knowledge the enemy cannot block, nor does the enemy have to consider the potential of an unblockable attack on their position. Instead, this is all replaced by computational efficiency and either a tome at one's side (of effective damages) or long time experience. I find this a powerful arguement in favor of the current system. (obviously, the current system relies on itself)

Yes, you will have your miffed moments where the witch stands there and wields her damn staff like a friggen lightsaber, but that stands as divine providence anyways.

IRT shadoww's idea
I believe that the purpose to the blocking as a percentage is that the dice roll will be random each time. yes, there will be consecutive blocks sometimes, but there will also be consecutive ridiculously against the odds hits too. The reason you see these less is that MOST people dont try for those shots too often. And why not? Because they know the odds.

[xyxaxyz2]

I just don't agree that the value of suspense is greater than that of tactics. When I am better than a player I want to win and when I am worse I want to lose.

The advantage of unblockable magic, as you said, is it always hits for full damage. A knight that strikes another knight on the front is not doing full damage.

As for "computational efficiency" think of the many games which don't have a luck element- chess, checkers, diplomacy, even stratego type wargames.

The game is called Tactics Arena Online not Luck Arena Online.

[Jingleheimer]

Seed likes the blocking system. He is not going to change it.
And I don't think any amount of complaining will change his mind.


Originally quoted by Seed from his site:

Sometimes games are decided by unexpected blocking at the end. This is not a design problem, but a tactics problem.

I think it would be more fun for people to develop counter strategies rather than for me to go change whatever they can't win against.

Knights were designed that way to discourage blind hacking and slashing. They just don't have enough move range to move behind each other, and they have about half a chance to block from the sides. Basically, it's IMPOSSIBLE to predict who wins if you run two Knights at each other. So don't do it!

The "weakest" units, Enchantress and Barrier Ward, are specifically made to counter units like Knights. If all your opponent has are a couple of Knights, and you have an Enchantress and Barrier Ward, then it's your victory almost always, or maybe a draw game.



Originally quoted by Seed from his site:

Alright. Some people may have experienced this, some people have even "complained". BUT, did you know that it's NOT entirely up to luck????

Scenario:
- You're fighting Lord Fury, he has one Knight left that will die in 1 hit.
- You have one Knight left that is at full health.
- You hack and slash at each other but he keeps blocking, while you never block
- You Lose

Counter-Scenario:
- Same units left as above
- Fury's Knight charges and damages you once.
- You move around his Knight but do not attack.
- Fury's Knight is recovering so he passes.
- Your Knight has no recover since it did not attack.
- You move behind his Knight and destroy it
- You Win



Originally quoted by Seed from his site:

Blocking is an element of the tactics. I do not agree that it is a problem.

[xyxaxyz2]

Where is his site?

It is a design problem. It makes sense from a tactical perspective for me to shoot a witch in the front, but if I miss it will often lose the game to me. A tactically sensible decision that still leads to my defeat.

There is no counter strategy. If you were only willing to attack on the back you wouldn't get enough hits to ever win against a player of any skill.

As for enchantress and barrier ward- not true. Two knights can defeat an enchantress and barrier, especially considering that just moving the enchantess has one recovery.

This isn't very complex- Unless you have vastly greater skill, you aren't going to win if your opponent gets much luckier than you.

[darkdelirium]

Look at it this way...

this game was made for fun.

Also as a show of ability through strategy

(TACTICS arena online anyone?)

Random blocking introduces an element of frustration to the game, and also random happiness.

Anger tends to be a BIT stronger than happiness. And theres net anger to happiness, which will run players off. You ever been pissed off at a game and just left?

Plus, the random blocking really hurts tactics and strategy.

I mean, cmon... Pyros or dark magi blocking three hits in a row...
Knights going through 1v1's with another knight never taking a hit, or even just one...

Stuff like this has a major impact on the actual battle, and is completely uncontrolled. personally, i think it sucks. The only problem i see is this does lower the abilities of paralyzer's quite a bit. but, i dont care random blocking has rather pissed me off...

[xyxaxyz2]

Exactly right dark- I just played this newb, beat him easily but that isn't the point, he blocked every side hit, his witch blocked an arrow, his pyro blocked my knight THREE TIMES IN A ROW. And he made nearly every hit he attempted on me. That doesn't increase suspense- its just frusturating.

[Killer_kev]

i must admint that after losing 2 games ina row to blocking luck 1 does feel that it should go. but i still think that it should stay

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by Killer_kev
i must admint that after losing 2 games ina row to blocking luck 1 does feel that it should go. but i still think that it should stay

And after winning a game in which I had ridiculous blocking luck, I'm left wondering if I'd've beaten him anyway.

I really would like blocking to be removed, for all the reasons stated in this thread. Frankly, it seems to me that this issue is not so much a logical, design decision, but rather one of personal preference. Thus, really, the only way to determine an outcome would be a poll, correct?

[xyxaxyz2]

Thats true Ri'Orius- getting good luckk is sometimes as bad as bad luck. I've won games on luck just like I've lost them and I can say the suspense of whether or not my witch will block is nothing like the suspense of not knowing which move he will take.

[Shadoww3]

Just wanted to see what others thought about that blocking idea.

Anyway, I'm glad to see the amount of people that are in favor of the idea is rising.

I use the tactic from seed's website all the time in the end game, and it is extremely helpful in the end-game. Earlier on however, they have more than just one knight, and while in the end game he player would be passing because he can't do anything with his knight, earlier on he would be using his turn with another unit, while you waste it so as to be 100% sure you will take out his unit. Even earlier on in the game I still take the 100% sure route as I'm afraid that, for example, a pyro will luck out, block my side attack, and kill a cleric with his next turn. The point is I shouldn't have to take the 100% sure route. I should be sure from the start. Others don't think you should always be 100% sure, and that's where we disagree. Hope that was clear enough.

Additionally, attacking from the front/side/back won't be EXACTLY the same as having additional armor, since a magic attack wouldn't be affected by where it strikes from. That might have been what xy stated earlier.

[xyxaxyz2]

Yes. Exactly.

[Jeremy]

I for one love this idea.

It would make the game much more strategic without all of these lucky blocks. Maybe make something like front shots do 50% damage, side shots do 100% damage, and back shots do 125-150% damage. That way it encourages people to hit from the better angles.

Blocking needs to burn. It needs to die a slow horrible death.

[Killer_kev]

i must admint at this time even i think blocking could be dropped for another tatical insentive.

[Shadoww3]

The only negative I could really see is that certain unit combos wouldn't be fixed, like 2 knight hits wouldn't always kill a scout, but that's not a big deal.

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by Jeremy
I for one love this idea.

It would make the game much more strategic without all of these lucky blocks. Maybe make something like front shots do 50% damage, side shots do 100% damage, and back shots do 125-150% damage. That way it encourages people to hit from the better angles.

Blocking needs to burn. It needs to die a slow horrible death.

I like the idea of using blocking percents as increased armor better than one flat rate for all units. You still have the incentive, and you don't have to rebalance units (in theory). Really what the proposed system (% block -> % damage reduction) would do is just eliminate the luck and give you what would happen in the long run, in theory.

[Shadoww3]

Good point, I agree.

[Jeremy]

That sounds good.

Really I just had some pyromancer block 2 flanking attacks in a row. This is ridiculous.

I am seriously considering not playing until this is resolved.

[xyxaxyz2]

You might have to wait a long time. But I think we are representative of a lot more players who might never come to the forums. Randomness has driven me away from other games.

[AzN_GuY]

No, there is a difference between damage Negation and damage Reduction which i find to utterly change the flavor of the game and damage in general.

If you want a sure thing, buy a puppy and a mop, you'll need the second, i guarantee it.

You gain surety, you gain simplicity, you gain the "I know i will win because I can count the number of squares between my assassin and your knight better than you can".

You lose suspense, (at a certain point) you lose the relief value of magic, you lose randomness, you lose risk, you lose gambling, you lose prayer, you lose a whole element of tactics, you lose any purpose to being a newbie, and you lose sense in the game.

Surety: Yes, you WILL do that damage if you go there and attack
Simplicity: No, they wont block, just calculate their next move, you're good to go.
"blah blah": If you know it, you will win.

Suspense: Yea... it's going to happen, you WILL lose that knight and consequently the game, whether he hits your front OR your back
Magic: Yea, you'll do full damage, but so would your knight attacking in the front (on a weak unit)
Randomness: yea, the only unpredictable part of the game is what a player does...
Risk: You can calculate exactly how much damage an enemy unit set will do to you on the way to the enemy cleric... OH, it wont kill you, SWEET, you WILL succeed, no question, no worries. If they come to block you, tough nuggets to them, you can do X damage to them and knock them out of the way with Y damage from yon support unit because they cant block it.
Gambling: see above
Prayer: yea, it's going to happen my way, game's over, dont need to think anymore
Tactics: Tactics games in general incorporate blocking (Tactics Ogre, FF tactics), they seem to do fine. Plus, there's just no worries about blocks. You can run into the enemy knight and do X damage, keeping a friend to cover your rear, but you KNOW he's going to walk right up next to you and do a killing blow back regardless of your tactical use of two units.
Newbie: Yea, like a newbie's gonna be able to know that a side attack on that knight, done at this moment, will do the killing blow needed to allow you to do an about face after your attack and face the oncoming enemies.
Sense: You make chess, you dont make a tactics game.

:D

*edit*

xyx: Randomness is my life, im sorry, i like it.

Jeremy: Run around him :D and next time your pyro blocks twice and you type in "OMG OMG OMG, SWEET THAT WAS SUCH BS WOOHOO", think about it, it goes both ways.

[xyxaxyz2]

1.Surety and randomness: agree with you, that is the arguement.
2.Suspense- Against good players there will still be suspense, on what move they will make, what strategy they will plan. Against noobs there already isn't any suspence.
3.Magic: Yea, you'll do full damage, but so would your knight attacking in the front (on a weak unit)
Not full damage except against those that can't block now. Anyways, magic is still strong because it ignores the new armor bonus.
Risk: Agree. You need to rely on tactics and not on risk.
Tactics: There still is tactics based on where you hit the unit.
Newbie: They don't know now that lightning wards are unblockable.
Sense: Chess is a tactics game. So are a whole lot of non-random tactics games that don't have the complexity of chess or the randomness of TAO but still manage to be fun.

[xyxaxyz2]

I think people with good luck like randomness and people with bad luck don't. Thats what it comes down to.

[Jeremy]

Run around him? Yeah and waste those turns doing so. Also, what if he has the border to his back? or another unit to his back? Any recommendations about that then?

And just because it cuts both ways doesnt necessarily make it right.

[Jeremy]

anyway do the developers even READ these threads?

[Ri'Orius]

Here, I think we've gotta agree to disagree. You'd rather have that suspense in there, the knowledge that you could come from behind due to sheer dumb luck. I'd rather be able to tell with certainty what's going to happen if I do this, if he does that, etc. You probably prefer, for example, blackjack, whereas I prefer, for example, chess. I'd rather be fully in control so I can make tactical decisions, you'd rather have something else in there making the game less predictable.

It's just a matter of preference. So, now that both sides have been heard out, perhaps a poll would be appropriate?

[AzN_GuY]

lol, good luck is oh so wonderous *dances in the streets*

Surety and randomness: I suppose we're arguing different flavors of ice cream, seeing as both have their tactics, but I still argue that surety at the level being suggested is improper for this game.
Suspense- There is NO damage negation, one attack equals one damage (figuratively). A unit's life is not preserved, rather moved a notch towards death, inexorably. Great for a life analogy, not a game.
Magic: The case is that you wouldnt have to disrupt your formations by moving out a melee unit to a weird spot to get a kill shot. With this proposal, there's no inconvenience to the defender. The game becomes defense.
Risk: Even good players rely on SOME damage negation. You kill off clerics, not knights first. Knights do more damage, they hurt stuff, why not kill them first? because they're not mobile, they'll get blocked, they wont dish out the damage.
Tactics: But a weak unit becomes useless. You wont be able to heal the thing, and at a certain level of weakness (which current damage balances are designed to create)(e.g. units with like 4 hp) all sides of a unit become the same thing. There is no unit under the current system that will survive with 4 hp an attack from the front, the side, ANYWHERE.
Newbie: Granted. but if a newbie wanders into a battle with me, i tell them. Newbies are welcomed to a world of statistics, not tactics though.
Sense: Chess IS a tactics game. So are a whole lot of non-random tactics games that don't have the complexity of chess or the randomness of TAO but still manage to be fun. But so are the other games i mention. TAO isnt chess. TAO is TAO. It entirely redefines the game to make damage reduction. Rebalancing has been proposed, etc. TAO runs on its own current internal sense. Things like paralysis are granted value on the basis of blocking.

Consider the knight. The knight is a TANK. I love the knight (fear it too). You dont attack the front of a knight. you just dont, unless you dont have a choice. Consider a knight going toe to toe with another knight, say it's trapped between a barrier ward and another knight (with walls around it). In the current implementation, this is a standoff requiring other units (like a sneaky scout or a mage) to resolve with any decency). In the new, the knight with more hp and the first turn wins. Neither had tactical superiority. Second, consider said knight. It's powerful because it just doesnt take damage, and when it does, it doesnt take much. If every unit could damage a knight as it walked up, it's dead before the second cleric healing round. At the current time, a knight survives this trip because he negates the damage and people just dont want to waste their attack on the enemy's front. The formation splits and runs around him, kicking him from all sides, making the knight good. If everything does a specific damage, you'll know exactly how much damage you can do, and where to do it, there's no value to the knight. You can fire a pistol at a tank all day and it's not going to stop UNLESS YOU GET REALLY, REALLY LUCKY.

But yea, my luck and unluck balance out, i just ignore the bad luck :D

[AzN_GuY]

I play chess a lot actually... I suck at blackjack

Jer: but it's balanced :)

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by AzN_GuY

Consider the knight. The knight is a TANK. I love the knight (fear it too). You dont attack the front of a knight. you just dont, unless you dont have a choice. Consider a knight going toe to toe with another knight, say it's trapped between a barrier ward and another knight (with walls around it). In the current implementation, this is a standoff requiring other units (like a sneaky scout or a mage) to resolve with any decency). In the new, the knight with more hp and the first turn wins. Neither had tactical superiority. Second, consider said knight. It's powerful because it just doesnt take damage, and when it does, it doesnt take much. If every unit could damage a knight as it walked up, it's dead before the second cleric healing round. At the current time, a knight survives this trip because he negates the damage and people just dont want to waste their attack on the enemy's front. The formation splits and runs around him, kicking him from all sides, making the knight good. If everything does a specific damage, you'll know exactly how much damage you can do, and where to do it, there's no value to the knight. You can fire a pistol at a tank all day and it's not going to stop UNLESS YOU GET REALLY, REALLY LUCKY.

The knight will still be a tank. Think about it: a knight is attacking another knight head-on. A knight has 22 power. Take off a quarter for the knight's armor: down to 17 damage. Now take a fifth because of 80% damage reduction: that's three damage. With fifty HP, it would take 17 attacks to kill one (34 turns due to delay), assuming you've got the most powerful blockable attack going after him from the front. You still won't attack a knight from the front, unless he's so close to dead already that he deserves to die from a frontal attack.

[AzN_GuY]

Whole system needs rebalance then though:

Current:
80% knight block = 1/5 to hit
5 knight shots = 17 damage (assuming ideal randomness)

Proposed:
80% Knight frontal damage reduction
5 knight shots doing 3 damage a pop = 15 damage

not bad right?

Current:
40% knight block = 3/5 to hit
5 knight shots = 51 damage (dead knight)

Proposed:
40% damage reduction
5 knight shots doing 10 damage = 50 damage (dead knight)

excellent right?

During each of those blocked hits, the knight had full or whatever its current hp was. Assuming a non-isolated unit (tactics), that knight is SIGNIFICANTLY better off as a useable unit than the unit taking steady damage.

Also, what if el cleric decided it was time to step in? The steadily damaged unit suddenly leaps for joy, his HP is slowly dropping, so he's fine. The current unit may or may not need that healing, opening up avenues for further tactical maneuvering. The first unit, on the other hand, is nigh invincible, as healing can be administered at fixed rates to ensure "maximal surivival". The current knight (in line with the current balances) Does NOT benefit entirely from a single healing round (being 5 hp down) in a balancing move designed to keep long standoffs from happening. A cleric can not sustain any unit taking damage at 3 turn intervals alive (except a pyro'd knight... and shame on you for worrying about that kind of case)

[xyxaxyz2]

No Ri'Orius. You are wrong. I would be for luck if it was given out somewhat equally. If someone hits my knights in the front six out of six times in one game, I'm not going to be for luck. If I miss someone's witch 3 times and lose, I'm not going to be for luck. If I can never hit a pyromancer except in the back, I'm not going to be for luck.

And the worst thing is, I only get bad luck when playing good players. When I'm playing newbs, I always block front. I usually hit witches. Side hits on pyros tend to make it. But when I'm playing someone of slightly less skill--everything goes wrong. Thats why I'm against luck.

Its never fair.

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by AzN_GuY
During each of those blocked hits, the knight had full or whatever its current hp was. Assuming a non-isolated unit (tactics), that knight is SIGNIFICANTLY better off as a useable unit than the unit taking steady damage.

Not if the current knight took the hit on the first attack. With blocking, in theory every five attacks the knight is hit once. At the end of those five hits, either knight has about the same HP. After only three hits, however, the steady damage knight would've taken 9 damage, whereas the current knight might have taken 17 damage, in which case it's worse off than the steady rate knight, or it could've taken 0 damage, in which case it's better off than the steady rate knight.

Also, what if el cleric decided it was time to step in? The steadily damaged unit suddenly leaps for joy, his HP is slowly dropping, so he's fine. The current unit may or may not need that healing, opening up avenues for further tactical maneuvering. The first unit, on the other hand, is nigh invincible, as healing can be administered at fixed rates to ensure "maximal surivival". The current knight (in line with the current balances) Does NOT benefit entirely from a single healing round (being 5 hp down) in a balancing move designed to keep long standoffs from happening. A cleric can not sustain any unit taking damage at 3 turn intervals alive (except a pyro'd knight... and shame on you for worrying about that kind of case)

Assuming ten turn intervals so we can assume one hit with the current scheme (five attacks occur in ten turns, due to recovery), we have knight A with blocking and knight B with damage reduction, attacking head-on. Every ten turns, A has taken 17 damage, B has taken 15. A cleric can heal, if it doesn't move, once every four turns. Thus, in one "round" of ten turns, a cleric can heal twice, for 24 healed HP. Since this is greater than the damage either sustain, both can be perpetually restored. I don't know where you got that the blocking knight can't be.

[Ri'Orius]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
No Ri'Orius. You are wrong. I would be for luck if it was given out somewhat equally. If someone hits my knights in the front six out of six times in one game, I'm not going to be for luck. If I miss someone's witch 3 times and lose, I'm not going to be for luck. If I can never hit a pyromancer except in the back, I'm not going to be for luck.

And the worst thing is, I only get bad luck when playing good players. When I'm playing newbs, I always block front. I usually hit witches. Side hits on pyros tend to make it. But when I'm playing someone of slightly less skill--everything goes wrong. Thats why I'm against luck.

Its never fair.

In the long run, it is. That's what random numbers and probability do: in the long run, a knight blocks a head-on attack 80% of the time. It may seem unfair to you, but in the long run (taking into account everyone, not just you), it's fair.

[xyxaxyz2]

1. Again, I have suspense on which move the player will make.

2. You can write all you want about rare occurances. For the most part, though, an offensive strategy is almost always worth it, unless you have a cleric and a lot of weak units and they have a bunch of strong units.

3. I don't like risk. I like tactics. Thats just me, I guess. I'm a glass half empty type. I only remember the unlucky moments.

4. Yes, its true what you say about units with 4 hp. You have to use them right. Attack someone who is in recovery, for example. Or use your other units.

5. I can agree that TAO isn't chess. I don't want it to be chess. I do want it to be less random.

6. You can give me specific situations all day. So can I. Consider if the knight did hit in the front. No tactics there either, just good luck.

[AzN_GuY]

Originally posted by Ri'Orius
Assuming ten turn intervals so we can assume one hit with the current scheme (five attacks occur in ten turns, due to recovery), we have knight A with blocking and knight B with damage reduction, attacking head-on. Every ten turns, A has taken 17 damage, B has taken 15. A cleric can heal, if it doesn't move, once every four turns. Thus, in one "round" of ten turns, a cleric can heal twice, for 24 healed HP. Since this is greater than the damage either sustain, both can be perpetually restored. I don't know where you got that the blocking knight can't be.

In a fishbowl, sure... again, i was assuming a non-isolated (tactical) situation. Someone comes in at round...iono...6 and starts fighting, blowing the math to annoying levels, there is a signifigant difference in where the two knights will be at that point.

Cleric's cant keep a battle of tangling knights (assuming they keep hitting eachother with rear attacks) alive either way in either system, but the point i was trying to make was that one where the battle is interrupted.

[Jeremy]

The random element needs to be purged.

[AzN_GuY]

I love you Jer, i'd rather argue with you than xyx any day.

[xyxaxyz2]

Yeah, you're right. He hits my knight in the front 6 times in a row, makes it every time. I get my knight hit in the front six times, doesn't block at all. On average, luck is fair.

[AzN_GuY]

lol, this is all junk, Blocking is cool and fun, annoying at times and going to ruin many people's records. You will lose to someone's luck sometimes, so will I. It IS possible not to lose to luck, it IS possible to get screwed every single time by a jedi witch... It's just a flavor of the game, that's really all i have to say about it. I like the game the way it is, others do not.

I believe that the game should stay the way it is because I like it and it fits my view of the game. Others do not, that is the way it is. It's just nice that I happen to like the way it is, because... well, that's the way it is, so i benefit :D oh I AM the lucky one :p

[AzN_GuY]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Yeah, you're right. He hits my knight in the front 6 times in a row, makes it every time. I get my knight hit in the front six times, doesn't block at all. On average, luck is fair.

You're the anomoly in the matrix that makes up for all the games where a knight blocks the front but never gets hit there because the game ends or the knight is hit in the back... i pity your soul ;)

[skribe311]

I havent been following this post from the start, I just figured I'd throw in my stance on the blocking % = luck issue. If you want to relate it to reality, go ahead. Sometimes you hit your opponent, sometimes you don't. I for one am all for blocking. When it works to your advantage, do you complain? No! Sometiems blocking forces you to rethink yuor strategy, therefore keeping the game interesting, and most of all tactical. That makes sense to me, for a game called Tactics Arena anyway...

[xyxaxyz2]

Yeah, lets just relate this game to reality. That leaves us with, lets see, maybe three knights. Real fun.

[AzN_GuY]

?

[Jeremy]

Blocking is evil.

Blocking needs to die!!

Hey lets all boycott.

Who wants to go on the pickett line with me?

[skribe311]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
Yeah, lets just relate this game to reality. That leaves us with, lets see, maybe three knights. Real fun.

I meant for the chance of blocking vs the set damage arguement... not every aspect of the game.

[xyxaxyz2]

Why pick and choose.

[xyxaxyz2]

I actually like randomness right now.

[Jeffery]

I hate blocking, and always seem to end up on the wrong end of the luck stick.

BUT, luck is part of most good strategy game. In most games it comes down to a roll of the dice (as it does in this game)
In life it comes down to whether the gun jams, the bomb doesn;t explode, or a soldier trips and falls. Luck is part of life, and is part of strategy. The ability to have a 100$ fullproof plan fall completely apart makes the game interesting. If you are assured a win 100% of the time, how long would you bother to keep playing? It is the chance you might lose that makes you work an a better setup. To tell you the truth, I think even Magic Attacks should have a fail percentage.
TAO is closer to Warhammer and Mardheim that any other game out there. And both of those games use luck to decide several factors, including if you actually hit anyone.

Well, 'nuff said.

[Office_Shredder]

Well put Jeffery... to expand upon your argument, let's look at some specific examples of how blocking goes "bad." One of the most often cited "bad blocking" examples is when a pyro makes four side blocks or something. Now, why does this seem to some people as being bad for the game? I mean, sure, you may have lost because of bad luck. But you could have just positioned your guy to hit the pyro from behind. If he is in the corner, just force him to come out of the corner, by sniping him with your scout until you hit. If there are too many other units for you to do that, just attack the OTHER UNITS! WHY IS IT SO HARD TO REALIZE THAT IF A UNIT GETS A LUCKY BLOCK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP ATTACKING IT INTO OBLIVION! GGAAAAAAHHHH!!!:mad: :mad: :mad: :( :( :confused: :confused: :mad:

[complex]

i agree with no blocking and the damage reduction thing it would be better
its more strategic blocking is more chance

cuz in real war when u block u still do get hurt

[fragdemon]

cuz in real war when u block u still do get hurt
My counterpoint for that one is really easy:

If you get hurt, that isn't considered a real block. The only way you can get hurt in blocking is if you block with your actual body parts (your arm), but no unit blocks with their body parts anyways, so it's a moot point.

[complex]

when u block with a shield there is an impact u can get hurt form it
wether it be jus a minor hit it will still hurt

[Office_Shredder]

But the damage is... negligible. That's kind of the point of the shield, i mean, even one damage in this game is a bit more than a bruise, which is what will happen if someone hits your shield with a sword... or arrow...

[Aro23r]

complex has no idea what he is talking about.

The blocking adds not only adds more fun to the game, it also makes it balanced and fair.

If blocking only reduced damage, knights would become less good, as would ALL other units that block, namely pyros.

The removal of blocking would make it so that one unit would never last as long as he would currently. Scouts can be life savers because of their blocking. (60% IS more than half the time anyways). With no blocking, those people with less units would always lose the game.

The blocking adds more fun to the game (and that is what you're aiming for right?) and it also makes it more balanced, giving each unit with blocking a much longer life expectancy.

[BoBo The Fool]

man, this issue of blocking wont die eh?

Well, just in case anyone's taking a surrvey, i'm pro-blocking, and i personally think that anyone that wants blocking out of the game is short-sighted or wants to play a different game. Blocking is one of the features of this game that define it, and by taking out blocking, you're not just revising the game or tweaking it, you're changing the game completely. It's like someone suggesting that chess pieces should have hit points and could survive more than one attack. If you change chess that way, it wouldn't be chess anymore.

[Agent Smith]

ok, im not shur i can phrase this as well as others have, but blocking really does add a level of strategy to the game. using blocking to your advantage is part of the strategy, since it allows you to use units with better blocking (knights) to protect weeker units. imagine how unbalanced a scout would be if no one ever blocked, he could snipe knights to death easily.
and for those who dont like witch blocking, 10% is alot, thats 1 out of every 10 times you attack, and since u generally have to hit a witch 2 times, that means unless one of those is a back attack theres a 1 in 5 chance of the witch blocking an attack. if both of those attacks are from the front, theres 2 in 5 chance of the witch blocking. not bad odds really if you think about how many times you've attacked a witch playing this

[smegma]

Anyone reading this thread anymore? Probably not. Anyways, I think you all have overlooked an important downside of blocking that can be resolved while maintaining blocking.

The ends of games, the supposed climax point, when fought between melee units is the most uninteresting, strategically dry, anticlimactic, and random part of the game. Somehow this needs to be resolved.

Clerics are in the game to balance damage and support attacking, and even compernsate for bad luck and "regroup". I propose some sort of minimal self heal feature where units can choose to wait 2 or 3 turns, or add a turn or two to their after attack waiting period to heal a small amount of damage. It is possible that this would unbalance the game, but the game needs something to make a knight to knight standoff, or two knights, or 3 knights, or throw in an assassin or a scout standoff more interesting.

[BoBo The Fool]

i don't undertand how this relates to blocking. I don't think it's a good idea to add any sort of self healing thing, and the last part of the game is still exciting BECAUSE of the blocking. True, tactics are this point are minimal, but it's a time to let the dice roll and see the results of your previous tactical play.

[smegma]

it relates to blocking because blocking makes people run around in circles for hours at the ends of games because whoever makes the first attack has the other person run around behind them and hit them. And I'd say the ends of games are the most frustrating least interesting parts of games. I think most of the adverse effects of blocking come in when there's no one to heal and the randomness and lack of tactics make it a free for all. The minimal healing might add some tactics to the game to compensate for the randomness of blocking. Thus blocking could be happily preserved.

[Agent Smith]

i like the ends of games. also, the tactics part is what units u keep in reserve for just this time. example: u let all ur units but a pyro get killed off vs. ur opponents full hp knight. no contest. but if you save a knight and a barrier ward, your in very good shap for knight vs. knight.
adjust your strat a bit so that getting killed in endgame because of blocking isnt so much of an issue