As anyone that has been on the in-game chat or forums long enough knows, I haven't been too satisfied with certain elements of the Manticore inclusions. Namely, the Manticore maps that are entirely reliant on good pulls, rather than strategy, and you'll have to repeat until you get those pulls. [Most notably, the chess one where you've a narrow window of 4 VP stars to work with on shuffling your deck, which ranges from bottom-tier cards to top-tier ones, making for often frustrating retries]. Anyway, so I finally got around to trying one of the newer Manticores, and I was surprised- @BlackVoidDeath and @Scarponi made rather delightful contributions to Manticore 8. BVD's was an interesting exercise in positioning and balancing your forces off of each other, and its somewhat easy play was countered by the victory points [which, unfortunately, the AI didn't utilize as well as it should have, but that's on it, not BVD]. Definitely an entertaining bit of monkeying around. Scarponi offered a clever map design, varied opponents, player abilities that tactically complimented the map layout and team formation, and a challenge based around constant repositioning. It also felt a bit on the easy side, but really felt the most like a 'puzzle' of anything I've played in the game so far [Melvelous aside, which I find too linear in approach to be interesting: Anything you can follow a walkthrough for down to a T just isn't interesting to me.]. Both were very fun- my thanks to you two Okay, then there's the second map. It's actually not unfun, but it suffers the usual Manticore issues. I had to repeat it twice because the first two tries didn't get me a single mindless rage or muscle through, and it's just impossible to win without that. Now, here's the actual point of this post: I'm NOT suggesting we DON'T include those kinds of maps. To the contrary, variety in play is great [for example, while I can't stand the far-too-linear play of Melvelous's challenge, I don't begrudge others from enjoying it]. Rather: For maps based around random pulls, especially ones with only a single player unit where the matter is heavily emphasized, can we have them slotted FIRST in their chain of maps? I get quite irked with having to repeat an adventure that has no option BUT to repeat due to matters out of your control, WHILE knowing that repeating it enough times will force me to restart the chain. It's totally fine to lose due to matters within your own control, but even if the challenge was intended as an extreme 'beat this map with only weak strikes within four rounds' type of affair, it still shouldn't require us to redo OTHER maps trying to beat it. That makes it less of a puzzle or challenge, and more of an extreme trial- which, while that may have its place, shouldn't really be mixed in randomly within more accessible content. Right, thanks :0 And here's hoping our contributors keep up the clever map designs: If I can expect more like the two I mentioned, I may actually start looking forward to new Manticore releases ------------------------ Or putting the matter in MMORPG terms: It's like having to flag for a raid each time you attempt it (ie, through a 'pre-raid'), rather than just each time you run it (or the more usual single time flagging). Noone likes those raids. It's just artificially inflating the length of the raid, forcing more grind, rather than just linking two separate adventures together. Of course, in fairness, in an MMO a pre-raid can often take thirty minutes to an hour and a half, whereas here a single adventure shouldn't take more than 30 minutes at the very most- But then again, raids in MMO are almost always based on party skill and preparation and don't require countless repeats based on randomized elements, so you're less likely to run into any sort of trouble to begin with. So yeah. Annoying
Mauve Manticores probably just shouldn't cost gold to retry. That would help ease a lot of frustrations associated with some of the more random ones. They're supposed to be for funsies anyway.
Well, yes, the hardest map should always be first, and every MM I've curated has held to that principle (Save the Trees!, Malicious Maze, Inner Sanctum, Rustic Rendezvous, Disturbed Monkeys). The problem is the 'hardest map' isn't the hardest for everyone. There's some amount of luck involved and a considerable amount of skill. Some people think that Break Out / Outbreak! is harder than Save the Trees!. So, you know, different strokes or whatever. I've beaten it without mindless battle rage / muscle through. Many, many times. (I think I beat it ~10 times in a row before putting it into MM8—I was doing a lot of testing because I'd tweaked things; the original module as submitted was definitely too hard.) So... I'm sorry that you had difficulty with the module, but to whatever extent it's tricky, I doubt that [being able to beat it at all] is luck-based. Probably there are some card draws that make it rather easy, but no harm in that, right? Anyway, the point of my post is, you're not suggesting anything that we're not already doing. But individuals are going to have highly subjective experience of the MM scenarios. So shrug.
Hehe, yea the ai isnt great at that, but 1/5 times that i'v lost to my map after the MM post was because the elf mage got close enough to the escape and while i was busy with the warriors the elf got into the trees and TP'd to the escape at the end of a round. Agree with the fact that its hard, but it can be done without one of those. This map should have been first for free retry's not mine Then they would turn into farms, though i agree with your idea. It is, right?
You missed the point entirely. I don't care what the order of hard maps are, in fact, I note that well-designed maps are too easy for my personal tastes. It's pretty darn easy to figure out which the Over-Randomized maps are. As I noted, the main source of issue in that regard is having a single character- and thus pool of randomization- in the maps most at fault. Between inherent factors and testing, it should have been clear which the most randomized map was of the lot. As far as hard, couldn't care less about the order there. It's not about challenge- that's a thrill to repeat on, and why us gamers that always play on the hardest difficulty settings on games strive to complete more and more exaggerated challenges. When factors are more out of your control- as any map that limits the pool you get to choose from will be- then it just becomes frustrating to take even a single loss, even if that map is inherently 'easy'. Again, it's not about how easy or hard the map is. It's about feeling like the challenge is out of your control. The second map of MM8 is a pretty blatant candidate for first in the chain- it's far more simplistic in map structure and far more dependent on individual pulls than the other maps. The fact that you're trying to arrange maps by hardest to least hardest, something that is clearly subjective and bound to irritate, rather than on most random to least, shows you're definitely not even remotely on the same wavelength as me, my experience in game design, or my preferences as a gamer How easy or hard any of the maps were for you specifically shouldn't have been a factor in the map arrangement at all. That's far too subjective a way to arrange map order. Especially your opinion on difficulty, since it seems to clash with the viewpoints of everyone that hates Manticores. In the numerous chat discussions on the matter, we've all noted hating the exact same maps for the exact same reason: Feeling like the ease of the map is based purely on randomization out of our control, rather than our own skill. You've stalwartly defended those same maps in chat before [based purely on concepts of easy and hard], showing that there's a clear desync between our views. That you seem to have better luck- or even skill- with more randomized maps shouldn't mean we have to repeat them more often because you think they're 'easier' Or, put another way: You've the power and right to arrange Manticores any way you want. No one is arguing that. But if you want to address the complaints of those that have issues with Manticores, you either gotta work on the structuring order so it's based on most-to-least random rather than subjective hard-to-least-hard, or you gotta change how penalizing repeat costs are. That's assuming you want to address those complaints, though But right now Manticores, with their limited rewards and terrible structuring, are too frustrating to bother with. And if there are more maps like the two I mentioned among those then, well, that's just a shame :/ @BlackVoidDeath Maybe I had REALLY bad pulls then, but getting just a single walk each round for three rounds meant I couldn't even reach the VP in time to contest stars. The second time, I barely reached it, and got 6 kobolds dropped on my head and died When I say impossible, that wasn't a knee-jerk-exaggeration Either way, when the core element of difficulty- regardless of possible success or not- is based on randomization rather than more typical tactical adaptability or skill, it just isn't fun to repeat- whether that premise is to make it more balanced on drops, or to make it 'easier', it's still just not fun. Or put in much more relatable game terms- Noone argues that a bad QD draw is worse than a better QD draw, regardless of if you can win with it or not. For maps that don't do any sort of inherent balancing [say by offering multiple units to draw pulls each round] you guarantee a lot more extremes in the quality of pulls per round. How easy or hard it is for anyone shouldn't be a factor in recognizing that such a distinction exists. ;P
That was a lot of words, and very hard to read. I wonder who "we all" is since as I've noted on multiple occasions actually the playerbase as a whole has vastly differing views on which maps are random/hard/easy. Telling me my subjectivity is wrong is a pretty weak argument. I could find you dozens of players who disagree with your ordering of the scenarios, so making it about me seems unproductive. It's not my job to clobber suggestions—I'm just responding with a broader perspective. Take it or leave it. I won't engage in hostilities. :\ Sorry, all the yous made your post feel more personal than I'm sure you meant it to be. Carry on.
You could read it now, looks like you loaded it up within the first half minute of posting. But I'd rather no more replies than ones that seem as though they'd lead to conflict.
If a speed gamer designs a level that is unfavorable toward methodical gamers, that doesn't make the speed gamer's approach wrong. Just unfavorable toward another group. Not attacking, not pointing out 'wrong' or 'right', 'easy' or 'hard'. Just clarifying that [people who have issues with the randomization being interspersed within the Manticores] see things from a different perspective and aren't currently having much fun because of it. If that perspective isn't readily graspable, then as BVD and several others have suggested, changing how the replay fee works for Manticores may the easiest and most desirable approach. I just wanted to take a moment and note that Manticores could be awesome, but their current structure [being based on subjective concepts of hard to least hard, rather than a more objective most randomized pulls to least randomized pulls] turns a number of players off of Manticores. Of course, in fairness, if there was some reward for completing them, people will put up with a lot for prizes Doesn't necessarily make the structure more fun for those of us having issues, but it does make it more desirable to play despite them. And, as BVD noted, the randomization is discussed a lot in chat, and not favorably. How vital that is to other players than myself, or what other considerations they may have, I couldn't say. I just know that in that regard- unlike Melvelous, which gets a far more varied and subjective response when brought up- this seems to be something that bothers more people than it doesn't. And hey, it certainly bothers me; But then, the point here wasn't really necessarily to complain about what's a turn-off for me; It was to note how it contrasts to things that are fun for me [like awesome, complex maps that contrast well to campaign maps in design], and to explain why each thing receives such consideration. If you wanted to take the topic more broadly, it could be considered a request for Manticore8A and Manticore8B, one with randomized maps and one without, to cater to different play preferences. I'm NOT going to request that because it's a silly overcomplex approach; But my point is, this thread is not about complaining (though it is about complimenting!), or asking for maps to cater to specific preferences, no matter how dominant in sentiment they may or may not be; but about how Manticore structure might be changes to potentially cater to more people than it currently does. Could I be wrong about amount of preferences, type of preferences, so forth? Well, perhaps. But rather: If the current approach is so completely subjective, as you yourself have noted it is; then why is doing it by a most-random to least-random approach not at worst equal in worth? If it's all subjective, then an approach that specifically caters to certain objective considerations should be preferable. And if it's not subjective, than all the more reason to use that approach. Of course, if I'm wrong about something, clarify that. Just.. please, no more posts like the last one :X
Because your sorting method is opaque, unquantifiable, and, again, subjective. For instance there are players who find MM8.1 more luck-based than MM8.2. You nitpick and insist I've missed the point when I conflate difficulty with randomness, but actually, I'm literally conflating them. Because ease of success is inherently tied to how luck-based the scenario is. We don't need to be pedantic about this. We're on the same page about what should be the first scenario in an adventure, in theory, you're just disagreeing about the particulars because you judge individual scenarios differently.
I found "Defend the Porch" to be very luck-based, and would have preferred that map to be the first rather than the second in its set. :/
