Punishment for death/squad wipe

[cupnuudle]

I've just started GH for the first time, and upon failing the first mission (on normal difficulty) having exhausted both my characters, I noticed I could just jump straight back into the same mission without any repercussions/consequences. Feels like I'm save scumming. Is this the way the developer intended? Was hoping for some sort of risk/reward system or even permadeath to make decision making more impactful.

I love games like Darkest Dungeon, Dead Cells, Cataclysms DDA, Slay the spire etc.

[Lampros]

I do think exhaustion should force you to sit out a scenario for a variety of reasons, but that's not how this game operates.

[cupnuudle]

Originally posted by Lampros:

I do think exhaustion should force you to sit out a scenario for a variety of reasons, but that's not how this game operates.

Damn, was hoping to be wrong and that the devs just allowed us to replay the first mission to ease into the game. Not sure how I feel about it now.

Anyone else who's played DD, X-com etc have any comment regarding the non-permadeath? Is the game just as fun without that risk?

[ExperimentalGamer]

Permadeath is an option in the basic rules for the board game (that might or might not get ported over to digital, depending on how much funding the team has after doing the basic bugsquishing), and of course you can manually delete any merc who happens to exhaust. However, there are two very good reasons that this is not the default for how the game plays.

First, this game can be very unforgiving once you pick it up. Campaign can be a very harsh teacher. Especially for people who come in expecting a different style of fantasy game. Having to make a whole new character just because you didn't know what a boss was going to do sounds like a good way to turn off a lot of prospective players.

Second, this game takes a good chunk of time for a scenario, and it's meant to be played with a group of friends. It was also designed to be a physical board game, which adds a fair amount of setup time to the whole deal. If you had to lose a character you'd put a lot of progress into because someone else was just learning their character and zigged instead of zagged, you'd be upset. If you had to lose a character because someone else wanted to avoid a hit that would make them lose their battle goal, you'd be peeved too. The developer very intentionally wanted to avoid systems that had one loudmouthed player dictating everyone else's actions and/or things that caused toxic levels of frustration. As it stands now, losing means you lost the time invested but still at least get gold and XP as consolation prizes. This doesn't apply as well when someone's playing single player and digital handles all the setting up, but it still doesn't seem wise to include punishment mechanics when they'd just add toxicity to multiplayer.

[cupnuudle]

Originally posted by ExperimentalGamer:

Second, this game takes a good chunk of time for a scenario, and it's meant to be played with a group of friends. It was also designed to be a physical board game, which adds a fair amount of setup time to the whole deal. If you had to lose a character you'd put a lot of progress into because someone else was just learning their character and zigged instead of zagged, you'd be upset. If you had to lose a character because someone else wanted to avoid a hit that would make them lose their battle goal, you'd be peeved too. The developer very intentionally wanted to avoid systems that had one loudmouthed player dictating everyone else's actions and/or things that caused toxic levels of frustration. As it stands now, losing means you lost the time invested but still at least get gold and XP as consolation prizes. This doesn't apply as well when someone's playing single player and digital handles all the setting up, but it still doesn't seem wise to include punishment mechanics when they'd just add toxicity to multiplayer.

This makes the most sense. I might just try a couple of missions and see how I feel about it. Thanks for the detailed analysis and insight

[raven614]

Originally posted by Lampros:

Anyone else who's played DD, X-com etc have any comment regarding the non-permadeath? Is the game just as fun without that risk?

Oh yeah it’s a blast cause the game is so brutal. Winning just barely after a few plays still feels good. You would stop playing if you payed like an x-com run. The scenarios are tight where you have just enough movement and fights and cards to barely win. I don’t use the round restart button at all I guess that’s where I draw the line. But building up your characters after a defeat is also rewarding.

[cupnuudle]

Originally posted by raven614:

Originally posted by Lampros:

Anyone else who's played DD, X-com etc have any comment regarding the non-permadeath? Is the game just as fun without that risk?

Oh yeah it’s a blast cause the game is so brutal. Winning just barely after a few plays still feels good. You would stop playing if you payed like an x-com run. The scenarios are tight where you have just enough movement and fights and cards to barely win. I don’t use the round restart button at all I guess that’s where I draw the line. But building up your characters after a defeat is also rewarding.

But now it sounds like a save scumming puzzle game.

[BiffMan]

Originally posted by cupnoodle:

Originally posted by raven614:

Oh yeah it’s a blast cause the game is so brutal. Winning just barely after a few plays still feels good. You would stop playing if you payed like an x-com run. The scenarios are tight where you have just enough movement and fights and cards to barely win. I don’t use the round restart button at all I guess that’s where I draw the line. But building up your characters after a defeat is also rewarding.

But now it sounds like a save scumming puzzle game.

There's still enough variety in outcomes due to card draws or trying something different. Having to play exactly the same mission again when you know there is more fun to be had always felt like punishment enough for us. We'd usually drop down a difficulty level if we were repeating a scenario just because we wanted to make darned sure we didn't have to play more than twice.

[ExperimentalGamer]

Originally posted by cupnoodle:

But now it sounds like a save scumming puzzle game.

Save scumming matters very little here. Enemy action cards and your attack modifier deck are functionally seeded, so you'll get the same effects if you restart the round. You can use this to abuse foreknowledge, but it isn't required.

And this game is puzzly, but in ways that you can get used to. You know the enemy's basic stats if you mouse over them, so you can have a sense how far they can move and what sort of attacks they can use. There are various ways to use statuses, positioning, or even just doing enough damage to kill things in order to minimize how many actions the enemies can take.

Combining this with the card system (which both forces an evolving strategy as you keep using options and means that you only have finite turns) does present tactical puzzles. But it's less about save scumming to optimize your turn-by-turn results, and more about figuring out the tactical flow.

[Mike Garrison]

The game is what it is. You have the option of deleting any character at any time, so it's easy to set up your own permadeath if you want to.

It seems pretty clear to me that the game is balanced around non-permadeath. With XCOM, it's very tempting to be super cautious. Never take yellow move into a new line of sight, etc.

With this game you are always on the clock, because if you just sit around you will not just bring yourself closer to exhaustion but you also lose capabilities. Especially when you are at mid-level or higher, you really don't have any "bad" cards in your deck, so any lost card hurts in some way. So the game rewards you for aggression, but at the same time reduces the severity of the penalty if you get a little too aggressive.