New Ideas of eliminating luck (fair game)

[buddy903]

I have a VERY good idea for the Admins of TAO.

Listen, there are LOTS of people got pissed off when they meet a DMW which blocks four times in a row, knights which block 6 times in a row.
I am talking about "side block". 4 blocks in a row? What the...
It's the wrost thing of this game.

To improve this flaw, to maintain the ideas of "tactics", I suggest there should be a "shield breaks", which means if like a knight blocks, he loses his shield (as it is broken when it gets hit, make sense). If a DMW blocks, she loses her staff. But...without a staff, she can't use any magic.....so...we might ........think something else for DMW, it can be..."crack on the staff". It can also be "crack on the field" for the knight.

---
lol, there may be another problem. If you hit from the front, after hitting once, you will be able to kill a unit from the front.
NO WAY! isn't it? So I think the idea above should only be used on "side" block.

One more thing, if the Admins find it difficult( whatever ) to change a knight with a shield to a knight without a shield, there's another suggestion. There can be a ...ar........"alert message"
on that "box" or little screen" shows up when you move your mouse to a unit which says "shield cracks".

Ofcoures, it will be "shield good to go" (whatever, I am a Chinese >< hard to think of a ...proper..."word") when the knight hasn't been hit yet.

I believe my suggestions can improve the game ALOT.

Vote for it! And I will be glad if you have any other ideas for the Admins. Thanks~
:D

[plusminus]

Shield breaks are an interesting idea, but I don't think I like how you would choose to implement them.

A better idea, IMO, would be that each character has a number of times they can block before they get a shield break. (can I say guard break instead? I'm used to fighting games...) Call these guard points. A knight would likely have lots of guard points whereas a DMW would only have one or two. Every time a character blocks an attack, they lose some guard points. (Possibly, attacks blocked from the side would lose more guard points than those from the front.)

So if someone runs out of guard points, it's a guard break, and they wouldn't be able to block the next attack. Then, they would get their guard points reset back to full after being hit. Also, if a character is left alone he/she will gradually regain guard points (possibly one for every turn they're not recovering?)

A large part of this game really is luck and I don't think that's going to change, nor would I want it to. However, I agree there could be some system to balance the luck out a little bit.

[BKoT]

The fact that blocks occur isn't a "flaw", it's just the luck of the draw. Sure, a DMW has a low chance of blocking, but there is still a chance and four blocks in a row isn't unheard of.

But, I will admit that shield breaks would add an interesting twist to the game.
Say, for every block made by the DMW, her staff becomes a little weaker. First block, her range drops to three squares, then two, and so on. Same for the archer and so on for other ranged units.

Then, while I like the idea of slowly regenerating shield points, how about another character similar to the cleric? Having a blacksmith type character with the ability to recharge every unit's shield points. Not too many people would go for dropping an offensive unit in exchange for another logistics unit, so the blacksmith would have to be able to attack as well. Being a blacksmith, he would probably have a very high armor value, but his attack skills would be very low.

[Snork]

First of all, it's a bad idea imo.

Second, you posted the same poll in the general forum as well.
Polls only need to be posted once. Or because it got such a bad response over there, are you just going to keep posting till people tell you what you want to hear? :)

Third, this belongs in the suggestions forum, not in the two you posted it in.

[Aro23r]

Originally posted by BKoT
The fact that blocks occur isn't a "flaw", it's just the luck of the draw. Sure, a DMW has a low chance of blocking, but there is still a chance and four blocks in a row isn't unheard of.

But, I will admit that shield breaks would add an interesting twist to the game.
Say, for every block made by the DMW, her staff becomes a little weaker. First block, her range drops to three squares, then two, and so on. Same for the archer and so on for other ranged units.



Removing a range like this would render any and all units useless. It should be kept as it is. Each unit is balanced and fair. Removing any stat from any of them would throw them out of whack and make the game less fair, and therefore, less fun.

[plusminus]

Originally posted by BKoT
Say, for every block made by the DMW, her staff becomes a little weaker. First block, her range drops to three squares, then two, and so on. Same for the archer and so on for other ranged units.

No no, too complicated, too much change in strategy, too much damage to those units. The game is, for the most part, good the way it is. The only thing a guard break should facilitate is that if you keep attacking a unit, eventually you'll be guaranteed a hit. Nothing more.

[LondonJack]

I had this long drawn out, heart wrenching post about why blocking shouldn't be messed with, but instead i'm just going to butcher some Pink Floyd.

We don't need no shield breaks

We don't need no bland gameplay

Blocks are chasms in the classroom

Teachers leave those Blocks alone

[xerent]

I posted this reply elsewhere... but here goes.

I have found the PERFECT solution to the blocking conundrum. Anyone who thinks any different is wrong.

Impliment a 'rage' factor in each of the units, or something to that effect. For every block, and consecutive block thereafter, the rage variable would exponentially increase. The higher the rage value, the higher the 'countermeasure' against blocking opponents would be. For instance, after three consecutive blocks, Rage might be equal to something like 50. What this does is give a negative 50% blocking status to a unit... so if you were trying to hit a knight from the front, you would have a 30% chance of being successful (80% natural blocking, -50% rage = 30%) You could also have raged units deal extra damage. AND you could also have rage increase your own blocking chances.

However, when you have a successful hit, your formation's current rage value either drops dramatically, or goes back to 0.

This would also be ideal for introducing new units, like 'Blood Shaman', who can give the entire formation +20 rage and +3 damage or something like that as long as he (it?) maintains focus.

Or... you could keep it like it is. Either way, I want to see something new SOON!

[LondonJack]

Originally posted by xerent

I have found the PERFECT solution to the blocking conundrum. Anyone who thinks any different is wrong.



There is no conundrum, there are just some people that don't like the way blocking works. Seed the developer of the game isn't included in those people. He's said repeatedly that blocking will not be changed, so there is really no question of how to fix blocking, since it's not considered broken by the people with the power.

[xerent]

Hey now... that's a PERFECT SOLUTION! It's so perfect, it deserves CAPS! There is no argument against it. There is only harmony with the idea.

Besides, I never said blocking needed to be fixed. Hell, this idea dosen't even fix blocking, it just introduces a new theoretical ability to deal with blocking that may be implimented by those people who wish to circumvent it by other means then always attacking from the back.

[Jazierel]

Xerent...

Nice avatar, nice signature, but your idea isn't prefect sorry :(

Originally posted by xerent:
...so if you were trying to hit a knight from the front, you would have a 30% chance of being successful (80% natural blocking, -50% rage = 30%)
That would actually mean a 30% chance to miss the kight, equaling a 70% chance to hit. Besides that flaw, I think your "rage" idea needs some finessing, unless if a language barrier is prohibiting you from expressing your idea clearly...

But I give you a final point for creativity and all around uniqueness :D

[xerent]

Jazierel

Doh! You're right... I meant the 30% chance of blockage.

And the numbers and stuff do need to be tweaked, but the general JIST of the idea is so perfect that I had to capitalize JIST. ^_^

Thanks for the clarification.

[xerent]

Oh, and double thanks for the compliments on the Avatar and Signature!

^_^

[Jazierel]

If your signature didn't have your name on it, I'd steal it ;)

j/k

You might get good response by posting your "Rage" unit idea in the "Create-A-Unit" forum along with explaining your rage concept... I think a lot of people might respond!

[Snork]

Originally posted by Jazierel
If your signature didn't have your name on it, I'd steal it ;)


That's all that's stopping you?
Use paint. :)

[Siquo]

I hate the idea that luck is involved, I mean, we don't throw dice at chess either.

I'd say, add the blocking precentage to the armor.
Knight has 80% more armor from the front, 40% more armor from the sides, and 0% more armor when hit from the back. You just deal a lot less damage when you hit it from the front.
This also relieves you of the total frustration of e.g., a one-hitpoint scout blocking every side-attack that you do... :mad:

[Megabyte]

leave the blocking alone. Everyone hates it when their opponents units block, I don't see anyone complaining how their own DSM or Witch blocked 4+ hits or anything like that. Blocking is all part of the game. Strategies are based around how well units block. I fail to see the problem, removing blocking would make ALL the melee units a lot less useful. Assains would be as easy to kill as casters, Scouts would suddenly become easy picking, and the knights would be reduced to a dmg shield.

Just leave it alone, there is nothing wrong with the blocking, the units were designed to be balanced with blocking in mind, any change to the way blocking is done would mean you have to redesign all the units in order to rebalance them out.

[Siquo]

Blocking means that an inexperienced n00b player can win from someone with superior tactics and strategy, just because his units can only be hit from the back side, and he can hit the other units from every side.

plus that sometimes the entire game depends on one single block. That sucks as well.

[fragdemon]

Impliment a 'rage' factor in each of the units, or something to that effect. For every block, and consecutive block thereafter, the rage variable would exponentially increase. The higher the rage value, the higher the 'countermeasure' against blocking opponents would be. For instance, after three consecutive blocks, Rage might be equal to something like 50. What this does is give a negative 50% blocking status to a unit... so if you were trying to hit a knight from the front, you would have a 30% chance of being successful (80% natural blocking, -50% rage = 30%) You could also have raged units deal extra damage. AND you could also have rage increase your own blocking chances.
That's ridiculous.

What I could keep on doing is attacking a Lightning Ward, my own lightning ward if it really matters, to build up my rage. Then I can attack regardless.
_____________________________
Blocking means that an inexperienced n00b player can win from someone with superior tactics and strategy, just because his units can only be hit from the back side, and he can hit the other units from every side.
Maybe. But experienced players should know when and where to attack from. In real combat, people do miss, but smart generals work with statistics to make sure:

1) They have a very small chance of missing.
2) A miss doesn't mean much.

I've had a game where I was about equal to my opponent, and the opponent won due to blocking. But I've never had a game where I was definitely better than the person, but the person massacred me due to blocking.
____________________________

I'd say, add the blocking precentage to the armor.
Knight has 80% more armor from the front, 40% more armor from the sides, and 0% more armor when hit from the back. You just deal a lot less damage when you hit it from the front.
Reducing the impact of blocking in the game also reduces the usefulness of DMWs, Pyromancers, Lightning Wards, Dragons, and all Focus units.

Because even the Magic units have to contend with armor. So then, DMWs, with their limited speed and maneuvering power, would be a total waste of a unit.

Plus, people should remember the significance of armor in the game, which is to choose how effective heals are. If heals are variantly effective or not... the game changes.
___________________________

But, I will admit that shield breaks would add an interesting twist to the game.
Say, for every block made by the DMW, her staff becomes a little weaker. First block, her range drops to three squares, then two, and so on. Same for the archer and so on for other ranged units.
I would then continuously attack the archers from the front early on. Three attacks blocked, and they'll be more useless than Pyromancers (who can hit up to 4 squares away... and can hit multiple squares)
____________________________

Overall, if you take out blocking, you take out an entire layer of strategy. Choosing where to face doesn't matter much anymore. The use of mages don't matter much anymore. And maneuvering to the back of an opponent doesn't matter much anymore.