BLANDCorporatio wrote:Now you want large epic battles in which loads of units are lumped together in depersonalized squads. Meanwhile, you are stuck with "legacy" warrior/archer characters that by right should just be cogs in formations, as opposed to the rare and individualized (so naturally PC material) Casters. There's a new limit to entering the game as caster because of those legacy characters (if all of us were casters, that limit would not be as useful).
It is tricky to balance legacy characters, true. The game has changed- a lot- in feel.
"Call the shot"- ok, this fixes the Will situation, thanks. Keep in mind the above though, I think there's some value in that rant. A game with masses of uniform units "favors" the oddballs in terms of playability; those are the casters. But the game didn't start out that way.
I guess part of the problem is that I haven't made it clear enough that the old game is over. Darkness Rising has concluded. DK - The New Batch started playtesting the 2.0 rules in a small scale, and immediately exposed a host of problems. We've spent weeks discussing those issues, as well as issues with rules we haven't playtested yet. But the vision I see for the game isn't caster ('interesting') vs. military ('cookie-cutter'). Casters are unique by definition, but I think all of the military units that have been created are also unique. I see the breakdown of character types like this:
There are casters that create and augment units (dollamancers & croakamancers). Cities create military units, and military builds can augment units (leadership, paragon). (Units in these categories are the most influential.)
There are casters that specialize in damage-dealing (shockamancers). There are units that do that as well - archers and fliers. (Units in these categories are moderately influential.)
There are casters that specialize in defending (healamancers). There are units that do that as well - heavy bodyguards. (This category is the 'least interesting' from a tactical perspective, since they often have little to do.)
The game is now introducing units that gather and obscure information: Foolamancers, scouts, Dark Archons. This category may end up being the most influential yet, although I'm going to do what I can to keep it balanced.
My theory is that just as casters expand their powers by getting new spells, military should expand their powers by getting units under their command. Leadership, Inspiriation, training, mounts, etc. all allow the character to increase their sphere of influence. Bill makes Uncroaked. His value isn't in what he does directly, it's in the units he creates. The same is true for Vinny. Tod can now 'create' advanced-experience spearmen. The archer and the shockamancer are both dealing insane amounts of damage, relative to other units, and if you pair them up with the right unit combos, they can do even more.
I want to expand the Military role as much as I can, and as Tenebris captures more cities, I anticipate that Military players will take city management upon themselves, and there will be enough complexity there to match what the Casters are seeing.
Maybe if I opened up the game to allow everyone to play any caster they want, and almost every current melee unit switches to caster, more people would be happy. But in my mind, that runs counter to trying to capture the Erfworld feel. Maybe I should restrict the number of players, so that everyone who does play can be guaranteed a completely unique position. I intensely dislike the idea of turning away anyone who wants to participate, though. I know that I can't make everyone happy. As we add more caster rules, I'll probably allow those who are most dissatisfied with their character choices to switch. The more information I get about what works and what doesn't, the better I can tune the game, which is why I posted looking for feedback. Some provide it in overwhelming quantity; others say hardly anything. I can only work with information I know, so please, continue to provide feedback.
