[FEEDBACK] Ally's No Longer Targeted in Step Attacks

I agree with DragnHntr 100%. Good change.

 

I would suggest that if the step cards should now be treated as attack cards, i.e. they won't work unless you have a valid target within range of the step as the change has removed a big chunk of strategy from the cards, IMHO.

 

I like that idea, no stepping unless you can attack somebody.

 

Why not leave it as it was before and make it so if you end your step with nobody in range you just stab yourself instead -.-

Speaking of step-attack changes, when hovered over they should show the range of the move, not the range of the attack if you don't move.

 

I agree with the change. I think the old way added annoyance more than strategy.

 

Add my vote to adapting the Cautious Sneak code so step-attacks can't be played unless there's an enemy at the end of the move (or ally if you ctrl-click).

 

Count me on the "This was a good change" side of things. Being forced to attack an ally isn't "depth" or "tactics". It's "taking the player's suspension of disbelief and bending it over a barrel and molesting it with a frozen stick of butter."

There's just no -- absolutely no -- way to justify a skilled warrior getting an extra little lunge out of his moment of action...only to wontonly stab his ally in the gut. Mechanics should make sense in context, and that one flat-out didn't.

 

I'm all for not damaging your allies with step cards. Really though you should not be able able to use them unless there is an enemy in range. It just makes more sense that way. As it is steps can be used as just another move card. While that does make them slightly more versatile it kind of defeats the purpose.

I completely agree with DragnHntr about this.

 

I like the idea that you can't use a step except where there is a valid attack, but it runs into a collision with the mobility rules. As things stand, you don't know how far you can move before you try to.

 

I can't believe some people are arguing against this change. The way it worked was dumb, thematically and tactically, it was inconsistent, and it was punishing. It was one of my biggest complaints of the game, and felt more like a bug than anything else, and I'm very glad it was corrected.

The fact that people are actually arguing against the change makes me fear for the devs that the beta feedback forum has become a self-selecting echo chamber. A place where only the hardcore are willing to post, and they like things that will make the game less appealing to the masses in general, and also like the game as-is, which defeats the entire purpose of this forum on two ends: it makes the game less likely to succeed, and it also makes the feedback seem like it's "DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING DAMMIT YRRHGHRHRH"

Not possible, since you don't know how far you can move until you try to do so.

Personally, I think the strategy of the cards as they are now becomes, "do I waste a move-attack card just to move?"

 

I'm surprised the thread went this long without someone bringing up this argument.

With a bug fix, even one as good as this, step attacks become even more valuable and flexible for Warrior play. This is going to reinforce the requirement for Halt and Encumbrance to exist in all builds looking to minimize step effectiveness.

What?

 

I really just flat out hate this change. If it restricted you from using them as a move card if you couldn't attack i would be fine with it. But now its just a move card and a attack card or either and that is flat out silly. The point of having to attack if you could was to stop people from just using them as moves in the first place i assume. It worked well in that way and made you actually consider if it was worth taking the hit to move giving it more depth. I get that new players had a problem with it but guess what everyone was new at some point and they adapted.

 

As previously mentioned, that's not really possible, since you don't know how far you can move for certain before you do it.

The reason was because you had to attack if you played an attack card. That wasn't true, though (move somewhere where there's no one to attack), so they removed the contradiction with this change.

Furthermore, it used to be either an attack card or a move and attack card, given that you're not required to actually move when you play it. You were okay with a card that was either move & attack or just attack, but you're dead set against move, attack, or move & attack? Not to mention that it always was capable of just moving - if you didn't end your move within attack range. How does that make any sense whatsoever? The cognitive dissonance there is sizable.

More complicated != more depth
More complicated != better game

Tell you what - let's make all move cards require that you discard a card. Let's make all attacks cause you one point of damage. Let's make attacks that get blocked make you discard a card. Let's make attacks that get completely negated by armor heal the wearer for 1 point.

Now when players move, they'll be forced to weigh whether or not it's worth losing a card to do so. When players attack, they'll have to consider whether or not it's worth taking damage to do so. When they attack, they'll have to weigh the probability of getting blocked against losing a card. When they attack, they'll have to weigh the probability of armor negating their attack against the target getting healed.

More things to consider! More depth! Better game!

I swear to you, you are trying to kill this game. You may not realize it, but you are.

It amazes me, but there are people who will protest any change, no matter how good.

 

Incorrect, Cautious Sneak has this functionality.

If you attempt to use Cautious sneak while you are encumbered (for example), it will still show you where you could go but then it will allow you to do nothing as your movement has been altered. Step cards could potentially do the same thing.

That's because opinions on changes are subjective. You may think this change is better for the game, but that does not mean it is nor does it mean people should agree.

In this case however, I reluctantly agree. This change brings the ability more in line with the other hybrid abilities:

Step-Attacks are an anomaly, because they're the only Hybrid Movement ability that gives you additional functionality in addition to the movement portion. If you use a Step-Block, you always forfeit the block portion. If you use a Step-Armor you always forfeit the armor portion.

Now, if you move with a step attack you may forfeit the attack portion if zero postitive opportunities are present. this change brought the ability away from never forfeit the attack portion if any target is available.

This makes Step attacks significantly superior to other hybrid moves.

This is great from a simplicity standpoint, as people won't have accident moments of attacking your own team, and reduces frustration and burden-of-knowledge design. This is simultaneously bad from a depth stand point, because after the initial learning curve scenario tradeoffs make choices and choices are an important point of balance.

 

Well that's interesting. The FAQ had lead me to believe that wasn't possible, but apparently such is not the case.

Well, without going into a philosophical tangent, I disagree. Some changes are objectively good, and some are objectively bad. You can have whatever opinions you want on them, but that doesn't mean your opinions are correct. If the devs changed the game such that when any enemy played an attack card against anyone, your entire party died immediately and all of the characters were deleted, that would be an objectively bad change. In reality, things are not so clear, but this change is pretty damn close to being objectively good for the game.

I never considered step attacks even in the same class as "move or block"s and "move or armor"s (assuming we're talking about cards like Thick Hide Armor) because cards like Thick Hard Armor are "OR" cards, and step attacks are "AND / OR" cards. Big difference. They're not the same as other hybrid cards, so yes, of course they're superior to them. I don't see that as being a problem in the slightest. The game sort of revolves around the fact that some cards are better than others. It's a big part of why you hunt for loot.

Completely disagree on the depth standpoint. I refer you to my earlier post: more complicated != more depth. You can put five trade offs on every single card in the game. You can add additional choices to every facet of the game. It doesn't make it better. It often makes it worse.

 

Just to clarify, you are forced to discard cautious sneak in this instance, right? Otherwise it would go against the reasons for not being able to cancel movement cards, having possibly revealed cards.

So you are saying that rather than the current changed system of step-attack cards, if one clicks a step attack but is then unable to end their move next to a target (that they would then be forced to attack) that they must instead do nothing, discard the card and forfeit their turn, and that this adds more depth and makes the game better?

 

Sorry, that was a very obscure Dungeons of Dredmor reference. The Warlockery skill, before it went mainstream in a DLC, used to have an icon of the hero doing something that looked highly unsanitary with a stick of butter.

 

I was stating what currently happens in the game, as it has happened to me on many occasions with Cautious sneak while being encumbered. This is a possible event that can occur on cards.

Patronizing will get you no where. I'm not sure what credentials you have to purport objectivity when you're so clearly subjective, by the very definition of individualism.

They are NOW, "AND/Or" cards, they were AND cards. Big Difference, I covered that in my response. The fact you never put together:

Move + Attack
Move + Armor
Move + Block

as the same "type" of card in any respect is surprising.

You cite an extreme straw man example, which does not support your point but rather detracts from your whole post. There is such thing as "too much depth", where it would take too long to make a single decision, because the game is so thoroughly laden with choices.

In this case, (if you had actually taken the time to read my post), you'd see that I agree with you that this change is good for the game, however that doesn't mean I like the change, because it is "dumbs" down the game for players and increases the value of the already very valuable step attack.

 

Excuse me, but I was not being patronizing, I was being polite and friendly, and I take offense at your suggestion that I was being otherwise. This isn't the place for a philosophical discussion of the nature of objectivity, and my comment indicated that. I'm sorry if you can't read my tone properly or you are reading something into it that doesn't exist, but please drop the "you're patronizing me" bit. I don't appreciate it, it's not true, and it's offensive.

You are and were wrong. They were AND / OR cards, as you could get an OR two ways:

Stand in place and attack
Move to a spot not next to anyone and don't attack

They're not the same type of card, in any fashion. They're deliberately set apart from cards like Thick Hide Armor in multiple ways:

Thick Hide Armor is gray, like armor. Step attack cards are blue and red, split.
Thick Hide Armor has two separate effect boxes, one for movement, one for armor. Step attack cards have one box.
Thick Hide Armor has the class movement symbol in its move box (a foot). Step attack cards have a totally separate ability (Step).

As you can see, there are several very deliberate indications that the cards in question are completely different. I don't know why you think they're the same. I find it very surprising when care has obviously been taken to ensure that they're different.

No, it's not a straw man, it's an illustration of the fact that, taken to an extreme, trade offs and depth detract from a game. As I've said repeatedly, adding depth and adding choices does not magically make a game better. People keep saying "but the game had more depth before" as if that, alone, meant that the old way was better. It's not - and my ridiculous examples of "adding depth / trade offs / choices to the game" was meant to illustrate that.

I took the time to read your post. I know you agree with me on the end product. We disagree on the details and the reasons, and also apparently on whether or not we like or dislike the changes, which is what I am arguing with you on. I do, however, really appreciate the dig at my ability and willingness to read what you wrote, though. That was nice of you.

And you accused me of being patronizing.