Scenario issues [@Kerensky]

Moderators: Slitherine Core, BA Moderators, WH40K Armageddon moderators

Post Reply
fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Scenario issues [@Kerensky]

Post by fsx » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:13 pm

I am sorry.
I dont agree with some of your answers, Kerensky!

At first, my thoughts are similar to:
lancerunolfsson wrote:I guess I just prefer accuracy over immersion.
or better: accuracy gives more Immersion. Or if you prefer Immersion, change the Messages and explain in the mission, WHY something (unexpected) happens.

I think, it would be better for the game athmosphere when the player understand, why something happens.
I am not familiar with a game when I often ask myself "Why does it happened?" "I expected another reaction from the game."
I asked me "Why did I win? I disobeyed orders!" Or "Why I win, but Yarrick dies? It was my mission to rescue him." Or "Why are 5 victory hexes (VH) enought? The briefing told me to hold 6."
I always encounter such questions. They break my gameplay.
I suggest to change the scenarios (triggers, win conditions, more feedback) or to change the objectives or to explain why something happens that not fit with the mission objectives or players expextations.
And for the game athmosphere more ingame messages would be nice. It would provide more Immersion - as you replied in a post. :D Because the game respond to my action. I receive feedback.

What would you think about: You turn a wheel left and your car turns right? I would think someting is wrong.

I suggest small changes in scenarios.
If you are afraid that these changes could trigger errors or breaking the balance, let me change these scenarios and I will provide the changed scenarios (like a Mod).


viewtopic.php?f=324&t=54831#p511554
Kerensky wrote:
fsx wrote:B. Repeatable......: Defending Mios Crossing: Problem when changing VH in turn 7 viewtopic.php?f=235&t=54844#p511454
C. Suggestion-------: Shuttle Search: randomized selection of "found survivor" hexes dont work proper viewtopic.php?f=326&t=54672#p510003
C. Suggestion-------: Obedience to Orders: victory conditions dont fit with mission objectives (capturing VH with core units, loosing the Steelhammer) viewtopic.php?f=326&t=54672#p510003
C. Suggestion-------: Final Stand at Archeron: victory conditions dont fit with mission objectives (# of hold VH), randomized position of Captain Tycho (core) viewtopic.php?f=326&t=54672#p510003
C. Suggestion-------: Relief Operation: # of core unts to small (player has Captain Tycho from previous scenario as core)
C. Suggestion-------: Seeking Yarrick: victory conditions dont fit with mission objectives (Yarrick could die and the player wins) viewtopic.php?f=326&t=54672#p510003
Let's see if we can't straighten these out.

1. http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 44#p511552
2. I haven't had any issue with completing this scenario, nor have I seen any reports? Granted the text is a little vague, so we do have an improvement lined up there.
3. Explained already, you should stop looking at triggers and look at the whole lore picture. http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=321&t=54222
4. Tycho is a unit that joins the player force as a permanent addition, it's a reward for playing through all of Act1 and not jumping immediately to act2. :mrgreen:
5. Scen12 has 20 slots, scen13 has 20 slots... doesn't seem too small to me. Scen12 is a pretty rough scenario where players typically lose a few units(I always do!), and Scen13 introduces the Space Marines, so it's a good time to shake up the player's CORE force. Of course 'shake up' does not mean 'inflate' though. ;)
6. Well this is a bit of sticky one, because like Steel Hammer, Yarrick's defeat is actually also a valid conclusion. There was a plan for a variable system to track campaign variables, and if you didn't rescue Yarrick, it would have an impact going into the future instead of handing the player instant defeat. In case this comes to pass, we felt it better to leave this scenario intact. :D

Obedience to Orders: victory conditions dont fit with mission objectives (capturing VH with core units, loosing the Steelhammer)

In the 1.02 patch you added a message as I suggested in the beta. Now its clear to go ahead with Steelhammer to the victory hex.

I win the scenario in this way:

Mission objectives:
Unbenannt-1.jpg
Unbenannt-1.jpg (72.02 KiB) Viewed 2445 times
I disband the Steelhammer
Unbenannt-2.jpg
Unbenannt-2.jpg (197.13 KiB) Viewed 2445 times
I win the Scenario
Unbenannt-3.jpg
Unbenannt-3.jpg (151.84 KiB) Viewed 2445 times
At my point of view: It does not fit with the Scenario objectives!
Last edited by fsx on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:09 pm, edited 21 times in total.

fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Scenario issues

Post by fsx » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:20 pm

The Mission objectives:
Unbenannt-1.jpg
Unbenannt-1.jpg (72.02 KiB) Viewed 2444 times
What have I done?
I moved some core units to the victory hex. I disobeyed the orders. But I win.
Unbenannt-5.jpg
Unbenannt-5.jpg (224.97 KiB) Viewed 2444 times
If you think, this win should be possible, than change the mission objectives message.
The other way I prefer is:
* Warning message, when core units near by the VH
* activate all enemy units, if the player has core units near VH after the warning above
* Loss, when a core unit captures the VH
* activate all enemy units, if the player does not deploy core units

I would change this scenario in this way (with or without new messages) if you say you would use it.
Last edited by fsx on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:12 pm, edited 3 times in total.

fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Scenario issues

Post by fsx » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:30 pm

Final Stand at Archeron

I know, it is a 1 to 1.000.000 chance. But it could happenen.
Captain Tycho is placed on the map. But if at turn 14 another unit is on THIS hex, the player misses the reward.
Why dont you use the randomized placement of the unit? I saw it later in the campaign: "Seeking Yarrick".
Its an easy change for you.
Unbenannt-7.jpg
Unbenannt-7.jpg (145.95 KiB) Viewed 2444 times
Unbenannt-8.jpg
Unbenannt-8.jpg (111.47 KiB) Viewed 2444 times
Last edited by fsx on Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Scenario issues

Post by fsx » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:38 pm

Mission objectives: 6 victory hexes
Unbenannt-6.jpg
Unbenannt-6.jpg (72.89 KiB) Viewed 2444 times
Win-Trigger: more than 4 victory hexes:
Unbenannt-9.jpg
Unbenannt-9.jpg (110.07 KiB) Viewed 2444 times
And more than 4 is 6, but also could be 5
Last edited by fsx on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Scenario issues

Post by fsx » Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:50 pm

Relief Operation

The core slot numbers ath this and the next scenario are the same.
If I was rewarded with Tycho he uses one of my core slots. If I lose an unit in this scenario, I could not replace it.
But I think I could live with this. A better way is a "Bonus" trait to Tycho like in Panzer Corps exists. Then Tycho would not use a core slot.

Seeking Yarrick

I understand your Point. I would place a message when Yarrick dies. Then the player knows, he could win this scenario anyway.


Shuttle Search

No one has problems with this scenario, because (near) always the first two VH the player captures are the "found survivor" hexes.
Ask the players, how often they had to capture a third VH to win this scenario.
But if you think, it is okay as it is, (ironic mode on) remove all VH except the 2 or 3 (near the upper side) from the map. It is the same as it is now.
Now the scenario looks like it have a randomized part, but it is not. It seens to me as an deceptive package now. (ironic mode off)

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5426
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Scenario issues [@Kerensky]

Post by Kerensky » Thu Dec 18, 2014 12:22 am

Auxiliary units are now immune to being disbanded. Unfortunate that we had to take away this function and how it could have impacted and assisted in future content, but the affected scenarios should not be able to be 'skipped' through this exploit now.

fsx
Warhammer Moderator
Warhammer Moderator
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:47 pm

Re: Scenario issues [@Kerensky]

Post by fsx » Thu Dec 18, 2014 6:35 am

@Kerensky: In 1.03 most of my points of criticism are gone. Nice work.

Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”