For those still wondering, yeah game is still BAD.

[WeirdWolf]

Even though they lowered the value of the free units a little bit, the game is still a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The field gets full so fast, that there is nearly no progression, it goes from a few tanks to unitspam, very very fast. No wonder vulcans or overlords are the way to go...

[Droidle]

Photon 20 sec now, great success for game, much balance

[Hal]

Originally posted by Q:

Originally posted by Hal:

Could you expand on how reworking AI and targeting is a good idea? Or just in general why you want to tackle the general game loop? (And no, this is not what the unit card drops did)

I did. I take it you intentionally skipped that part? Maybe TLDR?

Originally posted by Q:

The devs know they needed to shake things up, we're on the precipice of many future changes, and while I hope for the best, mostly what I see are lessons going unlearned and polarization over valid criticism.

Let's just recognize that sure, there's some improvements that can be done with AI, some untapped potential there. It doesn't need to be a massive change up, but some tweaks could improve the strategic depth.

More upgrades that changed targeting priority (like the Steel Balls upgrade that is far too situational and mostly useless). Tower options that change targeting priority on a small scale. We've already got multiple reposition cards, multiple damage/health upgrade tiers, why not allow multiple mobile beacons? Other mechanisms such as "fear" could be introduced. I'm not saying they're all good ideas, but these are avenues that could be explored in the interest of modifying the AI.

This sort of avenue could improve the gameplay, improve player agency, improve strategic depth, all without adding a bunch of unnecessary randomness, unpredictability and uncertainty.

Are any of the particular descriptors that depict why it is a good idea confusing?

ffs, gotta do a powerpoint presentation these days huh.
- how reworking AI and targeting is a good idea:
* devs know they needed to shake things up
* we already have some functionality that alters AI targeting and movement
* reusing existing code paths to expose the functionality in different ways (ie: low dev cost)
- why you want to tackle the general game loop:
* re: devs know they needed to shake things up
* doesn't need to be a massive change up, just improve strategic depth

Maybe there's something of these bullet points you don't get, like why the devs know they need to shake things up? You can venture a several guesses as to why, same reason they did the chaotic fun update, but the objective is audience shopping, expanding the game's appeal. I'd rather see them go for player agency and strategic depth than "drafting" or chance-based mechanics. You're right about it not doing the *exact* same thing the unit cards did, it's a different way to the same objective, potentially with better results. Better still if it gets room to be tested and refined in beta branches before being thrust upon the masses, preferably in small but reasonable doses.

You can of course get angry all you want, but the unit cards didn't touch the general game loop. You place units in a way that let's them destroy the opponents units in the most efficient manner, all while preventing your opponent to do the same to you. If you let the laser-sighted 200 range melting point auto target any giant units, this is done for. Now you can say "But I don't want to let it go that far!", but then please specify what exactly you have in mind which doesn't break the very basic game loop. "Some fear mechanic, some turret mechanic, some this, some that" just doesn't cut it weeks before release.

[N]

Yeah, I'm angry over a video game on the internet for 5 minutes at a time. I'll get over it, no sweat.

Prior to the unit cards, the game loop was thus;
Every round, draw card that has minor to moderate impact to next round, unlock unit cards, place units in accordance with credit available.

After the unit cards, the game loop was thus;
Same as before, completely unchanged, absolutely pay no attention and never mind what happens on the unit card draw rounds. Everything is the same, nothing to see here. Don't have to take into account that you and your opponent get unlocks, your unlocks matter wrt. cards, etc. Totally the same game loop.

As for specifying what exactly I have in mind which doesn't break the oh so "very basic" game loop, I did. And yeah, it does cut it. It isn't complicated, or it is as complicated as you want it to be. You just throw in "weeks before release" as if it all should be part of a release in a few weeks, instead of, as I repeatedly expressed, such changes, as any core gameplay change should be, should be pursued in at a moderated (e.g.: tested, feedback dependent) pace. It probably could be done in "weeks before release" but it's not necessary, that's just more in the class of arbitrary non-sequitur assertions, like two units infinitely fearing each other... Just please use some common sense, think critically, start with "how could this be made to work" and "what does he mean by 'not saying they're all good ideas'". Level your horizon markers.

Lowest hanging fruit that could be implemented in the shortest period of time is a 2nd tier of the mobile beacon upgrade that just adds/allows a 2nd mobile beacon. Want to get fancy and tweak balance? Add an extra round delay on the 2nd beacon so it can be used every other round instead of 2 beacons every round or shorten it to only half the distance or no turn-point, etc... but honestly - that kind of stuff needs to get worked out in actual testing, the theory crafting is only for proposal. Put it in a closed beta branch, let testers (maybe curators too) experiment with it, try out variations, analyse the feedback, take the best feeling one with the least impact, broaden the test base to the general public with an open beta branch, collect feedback, perform any revisions, repeat until satisfactory for a release. A normal sane indie Steam game dev cycle.

That's a good process. Repeat for some AI targeting changes, "fear" effect, tower upgrade, card or chip, unit upgrade, or what the hell ever, or any and all other gameplay impacting changes. Chaos is absolutely not necessary.

You want details, details, details? You write them. Critique it, vary it, refine it, simplify it, multiple choice, express opposition or none of the above.

[Arti_Sel]

Originally posted by Q:

Like I said, done trying to make your broken brain work.

I left that ♥♥♥♥ out because it is your typical obnoxious elitist drivel and I just look past it, leaving you room to bring it up in the future to make yourself look worse.

All of your points are stupid. "Hard work." Yeah they do have to do with player agency. I'm not being dishonest. I'm paperclipping the term "superiority complex" to your forehead.

Go away Arti. You're done here.

The reason you can't engage with any of what I said in specifics is because I'm undeniably in the right.

Originally posted by Q:

Just please use some common sense, think critically, start with "how could this be made to work" and "what does he mean by 'not saying they're all good ideas'". Level your horizon markers.

This wouldn't be "common sense" it would be extending you extreme leniency, critical thinking is not a hugbox. You should want to know the problems with your suggestions so that you can work them out or develop better ideas in the future.

[KashanCzechs]

Originally posted by Q:

*rabble rabble rabble*

No one takes your ideas seriously because you are a known hater. Youre the pointing soyjack pointing at the review score, but now suddenly you want to suggest new ideas? Good luck. I hope you find a game you actually like some day.

[ArcadeVault]

The gets better and better. No joke. More units, more choices.

When both players being offered the same cards, its no rng, so i have no idea what many talks about. Nonsense. Tried other autobattlers, man... those were rng fests with 10 minute life span... this game is a gem. Hope devs push it to release sooner.

[Perplex]

Originally posted by ArcadeVault:

The gets better and better. No joke. More units, more choices.

When both players being offered the same cards, its no rng, so i have no idea what many talks about. Nonsense. Tried other autobattlers, man... those were rng fests with 10 minute life span... this game is a gem. Hope devs push it to release sooner.

If the boards are identical then sure. But the unit drops can greatly affect one player more than the other.

[ArcadeVault]

Originally posted by Perplex:

Originally posted by ArcadeVault:

The gets better and better. No joke. More units, more choices.

When both players being offered the same cards, its no rng, so i have no idea what many talks about. Nonsense. Tried other autobattlers, man... those were rng fests with 10 minute life span... this game is a gem. Hope devs push it to release sooner.

If the boards are identical then sure. But the unit drops can greatly affect one player more than the other.

U have to think what he will choose... not just think about what U need... Sometimes u simply choose something to mirror your enemy, even if its not the best choice for your army, but it will prevent the benefit your enemy would gain... Still no rng, just deeper mindgame.

Only assymetry is with the starter characters and starter units, but that is something i would never change, becouse it gives a valuable flavour to the game.

[83athom]

Originally posted by Droidle:

Photon 20 sec now, great success for game, much balance

But the protection given cut in half.

[Tr00puRR]

I love it, balance is not good for replay. Chaos is king.

[Abradolf Linkler]

My issue with this was not the changes themselves ( i didn't like them but it wasn't a dealbreaker) , it was the bold faced lies.

We all knew these were permanent changes and not just a test like 2 or 3 days in when they put in dev time to put in a balance patch for their "test".

What they wanted was for people that didn't like it to keep playing it anyways for data and it kind of worked. I personally don't like being lied to in something I supported. And I cannot recommend a game made by people who would do such a thing in good faith.

[BlueVeee]

Nah the game fun, you people are to competitive minded and/or just need to get good.

[DaiAku]

Originally posted by KashanCzechs:

Originally posted by Q:

*rabble rabble rabble*

No one takes your ideas seriously because you are a known hater. Youre the pointing soyjack pointing at the review score, but now suddenly you want to suggest new ideas? Good luck. I hope you find a game you actually like some day.

I suggested the idea, not Q, Q just happens to agree with me and as MANY OTHERS in the community also do.

Attacking the closest unit is literally a handover for awful mobile gaming where the processing power and budgets are so small, doing more is not possible. I do not see why anyone would defend this brain dead AI.

As I already said in my previous posts, I want the game to succeed, otherwise I would not have bothered to post.

[NrSeven]

Originally posted by DaiAku:

Originally posted by Sonnenbank:

lol
its one of the games biggest features that you have to position in a way to consider which units get attacked first

Its like being upset that in a FIFA game you can only win by scoring goals and not by
for example style points when doing a trick

i am speechless

The target lock system where you try to lock enemy premium units onto your cheap spam units is basically the core system of the game
lol

"i am speechless", yes, and ill informed. Even though this is a clown able response, I will respond seriously.

This "Feature", as you call it results in massive micro placement requires (to an unreasonable level where one square off can turn a battle) which will only make the community smaller and encourage those who like this type of micro dynamics in gameplay. When I buy an unity, I want it to counter other units on the board, to have this general strategy over-ridden by placement on the on the board is a bad design decision, no matter how you cut it.

If this remains a "core system" in the game, it will constantly be holding the community back from breaking out to a larger and healthier player base.

Smh, you can't be this ignorant, right?

[Hal]

Originally posted by DaiAku:

Originally posted by KashanCzechs:

No one takes your ideas seriously because you are a known hater. Youre the pointing soyjack pointing at the review score, but now suddenly you want to suggest new ideas? Good luck. I hope you find a game you actually like some day.

I suggested the idea, not Q, Q just happens to agree with me and as MANY OTHERS in the community also do.

Attacking the closest unit is literally a handover for awful mobile gaming where the processing power and budgets are so small, doing more is not possible. I do not see why anyone would defend this brain dead AI.

As I already said in my previous posts, I want the game to succeed, otherwise I would not have bothered to post.

We already told you why this won't work, how this just destroys the core game loop. In a big scale RTS such things might become a necessity, here it is not.