Darkness Rising Opinion Survey - What did you like/dislike?

[MarbitChow]

Now that Darkness Rising 1.0 is effectively concluded, I'd like everyone who was involved - or even just observing - to help with a post-mortem. What are your thoughts on the game? What do you like about it? What do you dislike? What would you like to see more of? What would you change or eliminate if you could?

[bob the 6th]

archery... seems to be edging on rocket tag. Being able to hit any target on the field makes tactics scary. I guess the cover rules help, but it is still concerning.

[LTDave]

I love the artwork and the detail you put into the scenes. The trouble you go to accommodate the wishes of players is glorious, and you deserve the highest commedation of the internet:

I personally don't like the phases aspect, as I think it needlessly complicates the battles. For my money, a "You Go, I Go" system would work just as well.

Perhaps Archery should have a range, but I think that would complicate matters as well.

All in all, your system is clever and detailed, and your backsotry is very good.

[Nnelg]

archery... seems to be edging on rocket tag. Being able to hit any target on the field makes tactics scary. I guess the cover rules help, but it is still concerning.

Welcome to the Era of Pike and Shot... (c.1500-1600 AD)

[bob the 6th]

Well, the comic really didn't show archery being that big a deal. Except when they are gathered in massive numbers, with a caster duplicating them.

Not to say archers should be weakened to uselessness, it just feels a bit scary as is. Perhapce range penalties? like -1 to damage every 3 squares away? That would take some of the edge off their power... and make slaughtering targets as they enter the hex.

[CroverusRaven]

I like the game, though I agree that phases seem bleh. I mean, if I act late in a phase and we see that after attacking someone, they already did some damage to me, then the next turn I want to retreat but I have to wait till my phase, giving the enemy a chance to kill me. When realistically as soon as I finished attacking and noticed how hurt I was, I'd have moved back on the previous turn so they wouldn't have a chance to kill me.

So, if a person takes only 1 action, and you run almost the whole turn, and they can't expect that you were going to be focusing them with the enemy so hard, they should at least have the chance to make an addendum that they pull back if you decide the enemy units are just going to focus on them.


Have I mentioned that being a PC melee that isn't a leadership doesn't give me a lot of room to RP or do anything truly spectacular in combat other than screen for people and probably die in one of the next fights trying to soak enemy fire.

[bob the 6th]

Have I mentioned that being a PC melee that isn't a leadership doesn't give me a lot of room to RP or do anything truly spectacular in combat other than screen for people and probably die in one of the next fights trying to soak enemy fire.

Other point... You give the option to be non warlords/casters, while those tend to be really simple and NPC grade roles...

[Nnelg]

Not to say archers should be weakened to uselessness, it just feels a bit scary as is.

Ranged has been scarily accurate and deadly for the entirety of military history. More so than it is in this game, even, since real-life battlefields are a thousand times larger than the largest battle we've seen so far.

I think archery is well-balanced as it is, at least in terms of range and damage. If anything needs to be changed, it should be what constitutes a valid target. (So, say you can't shoot a target that's within three squares of a friendly unit. And you can't shoot through friendlies whom aren't adjacent to and in the same Squad as you.)

I like the game, though I agree that phases seem bleh. I mean, if I act late in a phase and we see that after attacking someone, they already did some damage to me, then the next turn I want to retreat but I have to wait till my phase, giving the enemy a chance to kill me. When realistically as soon as I finished attacking and noticed how hurt I was, I'd have moved back on the previous turn so they wouldn't have a chance to kill me.

So, if a person takes only 1 action, and you run almost the whole turn, and they can't expect that you were going to be focusing them with the enemy so hard, they should at least have the chance to make an addendum that they pull back if you decide the enemy units are just going to focus on them.

The actions that occur during a round take place in a matter of seconds. Your character physically can't pull back that fast due to momentum and reflex delays.

And if you want to pull off lightning raids, all you need to do is work with the system a bit. Delay your move/action to the last possible moment, and you'll be able to pull back immediately. (The next phase, when you get a new move/action.)

[Nnelg]

Have I mentioned that being a PC melee that isn't a leadership doesn't give me a lot of room to RP or do anything truly spectacular in combat other than screen for people and probably die in one of the next fights trying to soak enemy fire.

Other point... You give the option to be non warlords/casters, while those tend to be really simple and NPC grade roles...

Hey, why not? Nobody's forcing you to take a "designated NPC" role. If you want to play one, that's your own choice.

[CroverusRaven]

But I wanted to be a caster. I understand the whole "that's determined randomly" even though we should really playtest casters whenever someone is willing to be one.
So I'll not complain about the hand I was dealt there.

Anyway, I'm trying to work with what I have, and I flavored Whump so he'd be cooler and stuff (then he kinda died >.>) so now there's Whump Mark 2, aka Donovan. But I feel kinda like I'm playing wall ball with myself. I can't do anything during downtime like the casters can, I'm NOT interested in pursuing Leadership (and couldn't anyway because I'm a Heavy and only Lv 2) so I'm just a but frustrated because I feel like there isn't any tangible way I can contribute until battle comes. Unless, my RP is doing stuff and I'm just not seeing the benefits of it.

[Nnelg]

so I'm just a but frustrated because I feel like there isn't any tangible way I can contribute until battle comes.

Well then, you're pretty much in the same boat as everyone else. Including some of the casters (not all of them have buffs or spells that are useful for towers).

For now, just RP for the sake of RP, and have fun with it. For instance: despite not having anything tangible to contribute, Nemo's still had plenty to do. He's already established a false persona and begun "mentoring" the gobwin Sto (thus laying the groundwork for a future intelligence network). You just need to find something. (For instance... my future secret service could use a bruiser.)


OOC:
And for what it's worth, I'm sorry about Whump. I feel like it's my fault, since I'm the one who sent him in there without proper support.

(Of course, Nemo would never admit to seeing any unit as anything other than a tool...)

[Werebiscuit]

Akin to everyone else the amount of detail and work that you've put in is what has impressed me the most. ( I've already said so on a couple of occasions). Your willingingness to go that "extra" mile and your inventivness in balancing challenges are what gives the game lasting appeal and makes it seem co-ordinated instead of a series of scenarios.


Downsides..again archery. Targeting is just too deadly the way it works. And just too "calculable". Especially now that all archers will have support and co-ordinate there is no chance of missing. anything that is deemed a target will be hit.. yes I realize archery was probably deadly in battles. Massed archery. But even it couldn't pick out specific targets. Having said that I don't know what to do about it. Adding ranges and miss chances just seems to add complexity. Dodging and cover help but again seem so "calculable". It seems like battles will only become engagements once one or both ranged forces have been wiped out.
And the likely loser is the side that has had its ranged force eliminated.

[Nnelg]

Well, historically the side with inferior ranged capability tried to close the gap between the lines as quick as possible, so as to render it ineffective.

The biggest offender here is the LOS rules. As it is, I could have 50 archers behind a line of 10 tanks, and such a formation would be nigh-unbeatable. Even if accuracy and power were nerfed, this tactic would still be gamebreaking.

So, as I suggested: No Firing at units within 3 squares of a friendly unit. Friendly units which aren't adjacent and part of the same Squad block LOS. No change to any other rules (for now).

That way, archery will still be powerful... but also counterable.



Oh, and by the way... Until any changes are made, I still have a few Foolamancy spells that would render enemy ranged a non-issue.

[MarbitChow]

No Firing at units within 3 squares of a friendly unit.

The reasoning here is, I assume, that you don't want to risk hitting your own side, but that's not the case when uncroaked and constructs are on the field. It seems too forced as a rule to me.

Friendly units which aren't adjacent and part of the same Squad block LOS. No change to any other rules (for now).

This seems quite reasonable. I'd drop the 'friendly' modifier as well - if you're firing on a squad, you've got to drop the guys in front first. I'd also note that units at a higher elevation still get LOS; fliers and units on walls / towers have a distinct advantage in that regard.

Also, as we add tunnels / indoor encounters with more obstacles, the terrain itself acts to restrict archery, but that's not really a balancing issue, since it won't apply in all cases.

[Nnelg]

No Firing at units within 3 squares of a friendly unit.

The reasoning here is, I assume, that you don't want to risk hitting your own side, but that's not the case when uncroaked and constructs are on the field. It seems too forced as a rule to me.

Well, how about adjacent to a friendly unit (including constructs)? The reasoning is that getting in close combat would make a clear shot difficult if not impossible, and just forbidding the shot is easier than adding a rule to randomize who you hit.

I figure that this, combined with the LOS change, would allow maneuvering to mitigate the tactical advantage ranged power provides, thus balancing it (in a historically accurate way, no less).

[WaterMonkey314]

No Firing at units within 3 squares of a friendly unit.

The reasoning here is, I assume, that you don't want to risk hitting your own side, but that's not the case when uncroaked and constructs are on the field. It seems too forced as a rule to me.

Well, how about adjacent to a friendly unit (including constructs)? The reasoning is that getting in close combat would make a clear shot difficult if not impossible, and just forbidding the shot is easier than adding a rule to randomize who you hit.

I figure that this, combined with the LOS change, would allow maneuvering to mitigate the tactical advantage ranged power provides, thus balancing it (in a historically accurate way, no less).

Though what if someone wanted to run the risk of friendly fire (e.g. poor Antium)?

[Nnelg]

Though what if someone wanted to run the risk of friendly fire (e.g. poor Antium)?

Doesn't really matter... The guy who's risking it acts as a human shield of sorts just by standing there. Of course, we could add a rule to allow randomizing hits, but that would be overly complex when just forbidding the shot is enough (and more realistic).

[CroverusRaven]

OR, give the enemy a small defense boost in that situation, and maybe make critical failures hit the ally instead of doing minimal damage?

[MarbitChow]

The problem I see with forbidding shots is that you end up discouraging hand-to-hand. I want to make the melee units feel more useful, not less, and if closing for HTH means blocking your archers, they're going to stay back.

I'm not especially concerned with correctly modelling real-world warfare at all. I'm deeply concerned with making sure every unit contributes and can be fun.

----

Throwing out an idea here... since Casters are Players only - you can't choose to pop one as an NPC - and all casters are command units, what does everyone think about PC-only Military units getting basic Leadership for free? Any units that have already spent for would get those 3 AP back, so they could customize their combat build however they want, but that would enable all players to be more actively involved. (They'd still have to pay for advanced leadership ranks.)

My reasoning here is that casters automatically get to be 'special'; they're unique units. Military units were chosen initially because they were necessary - NPC grunts weren't available in the first scenario. Units that took leadership early on have been rewarded - Tod's CW now, and no rules adjustments would change that. Units that joined later are now forced to be military to limit the number of casters. Military PC units should also be special. The Paragon rules are an attempt to establish that, but those aren't available to new players yet, due to level restrictions.

From a game balance perspective, enemies have as much power as I choose to give them, so I'm not really worried about an ability escalation; I'll continue to keep tailoring the scenarios to the players.

Thoughts?

[CroverusRaven]

Certainly would make me feel like I'm contributing more if Donovan is leading a group of heavies into battle and ACTUALLY leading them.