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
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

[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.