[Feedback] Disincentive to approach

Discussion in 'Feedback and Suggestions' started by Antistone, Jul 11, 2013.

  1. Antistone

    Antistone Mushroom Warrior

    Haven't tried multiplayer yet, so this is based only on the campaign...

    I feel that very often, whichever side approaches the other first is placed at a disadvantage, because they use up a move card closing distance, leaving the opponent a move card to get ideal relative positioning and/or give the opponent the first attack. This is exacerbated by the fact that advancing frequently puts one of your characters within range of several of theirs.

    In some cases, one side has a clear range advantage or controls victory squares, which means the other player clearly has to approach: that's fair. But in very many of the battles I've played so far (I'm level 10), either neither side has significant access to long-range attacks (common in the first few levels), or the terrain provides enough hiding spots that you can nullify an enemy range advantage if you choose to dig in. Which means neither side has to approach, and both stand to lose by doing so.

    I've passed on my very first turn many times. Sometimes on my first 2 or 3 turns.

    I don't know what can reasonably be done to address this, but I think it's a problem: if both sides are better off digging in and waiting for the enemy to come to them, then the natural outcome is boredom. Even if you can abuse the AI because it's not smart enough to stay away when it should, it feels tedious and unsatisfying if it happens regularly. And occasionally the AI does decide to pass rather than charging you, in which case suddenly the round's over, and you're probably not disadvantaged but it still feels like you've been cheated because you have to discard a bunch of cards you were expecting to play.



    Is turtling a common multiplayer strategy? If not, what prevents it?
     
  2. Kalin

    Kalin Begat G'zok

    I don't see this as a problem, but as a lesson in patience and timing.

    That's an appropriate risk for this strategy.

    Victory squares in the center of the map.
     
  3. Antistone

    Antistone Mushroom Warrior

    You think it's appropriate for the strategic outcome to be "you'll definitely win" and for the risk to be "but you might not have fun doing it?"
     
  4. Generica

    Generica Mushroom Warrior

    Victory locations force the fight. Every multiplayer map so far has one or four victory locations that the teams fight over. With six victory points all you have to do is kill one enemy and sit four rounds on the square(s), or kill two and sit two rounds. You can throw lava on the squares, but with enough armor it becomes worth the damage to get the star.

    You'll often have multiplayer games boil down to one player trying to close the distance and the other player trying to run his characters away, especially if one team has more warriors or wizards than the other. If you have the advantage, you take the squares or hope you have enough move cards to run down their characters. If you have a crappy hand of cards you cede the victory squares stay out of line of sight and hope you draw something better next round.
     
  5. Forlorn

    Forlorn Orc Soldier

    Even in Multiplayer with the victory squares, because of terrain cards it is often suicidal to make the first move. Most of the time people turtle and wait for the opponent to move first because there is a huge advantage in letting them move first.
     

Share This Page