Remove critical success and critical failure from the game.

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Remove critical success and critical failure from the game.

This topic contains 75 replies, has 37 voices, and was last updated by  marcuspers1 4 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 76 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #205071

    VORP
    Member

    Critical success and critical failure when removing spells is the biggest luck factor I’ve ever seen in any game. Both of these things completely drain leader’s mana which desides the result of the battle right away. Remove these luck things from the game please! From both tactical combat and strategic map.

    #205080

    SushiSquid
    Member

    Honestly? Totally agree. This game is a strategy game. Having an element of luck that so completely decides battles is strange. I should win or lose through a little luck, but mostly through, you know, strategy.

    #205104

    Ericridge
    Member

    I like critical success/failure, keeps things unpredictable.

    #205117

    CrazyElf
    Member

    There would have to be something else for good/bad morale. To be honest, I would support the idea of a flat damage penalty/buff.

    #205132

    SaintTodd
    Member

    I agree with the OP.

    #205136

    SkyNet52
    Member

    On the topic of disjunction, yeah. I feel like there should be no question involved.

    Disjunction should automatically remove lower tier spells and Greater Disjunction should be required to remove higher tier spells. No luck involved, but you still need the more powerful version of the spell to combat powerful spells.

    On lucky, fumbles/criticals, loot results and all other forms of luck. Game absolutely needs them.

    #205139

    NINJEW
    Member

    I am pretty neutral on this topic personally

    #205143

    Hatmage
    Member

    I’ve previously suggested disjunction should just remove a fixed amount of integrity, and spells should lose integrity each turn, so disjoining spells reduces their duration.

    #205160

    n0rf
    Member

    I agree that punishment of critical success or failure is too much. Especisally in combat. Seriously it is too much. Half of hp, stun for 2 turns and the worst thing is drawing all cp. If it were just stun and hp it would be ok. Also it would be ok if draws SOME additional cp (twice more than usual for example)
    But lost all of your cp after first attempt is really what can do 100% won battle to 100% lost battle.

    #205163

    Dagoth Ur
    Member

    I agree with removing or changing the mechanic for battlefield enchantments. I’ve written about this a few times here on the forum.

    Don’t have a problem with it for overland spells though.

    #205164

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I think this is the wrong tree to bark at.
    Removing spells is the problem, because, frankly, removing spells is generally no fun, since someone is simply saying “no”. A battle of spells is fun, cast/disjunct is not.

    Of course, a battle of spells is fun only, if the spells are not TOO powerful – and if the participants are on equal footing (otherwise it’s slaughter).

    So basically, the whole Disjunction stuff is kind of an equalizer, a “balancing-by-neutralizing” thing. Which works two-ways, actually. The caster of a nice spell can’t be sure it isn’t dispelled or disjuncted immediately, if it is too critical (! otherwise opponent may just cast a proper spell themselves). On the other hand, for the disjuncter, it’s obviously the best action (otherwise they would just cast a proper spell themselves), which means it’s kind of an emergency break.

    Now, obviously, having two possible results – success or failure – only would be somewhat boring and too clear-cut: you haven’t got anything to lose in that case: success: HA! failure: stupid luck, grrr!

    The possible results critical failure and critical success are actually a good thing, having such a game mechanic at all, because it will lead to people shying away from it (if they are clever), except there REALLY is no other option, in which case things would look desperate enough; a critical success might turn the table completely, a critical failure might make short work with an already desperate situation.

    But there is something else: imagine a tight situation, one side having a clear CP advantage, but the other casting something powerful. Now the side with the CP advantage could just try to disjunct/dispel until the other side is out of CPs – but with the possibility of a critical failure that would also risk losing the CP advantage, so it might simply be better to try and outcast opponent.

    Bottom line is – Disjunction should be nothing to spam, because it’s a fun spoiler; therefore, the possibility of extreme results is a good thing, because it SHOULD NOT be dependable and only a last resort.

    You don’t like the results? Don’t use it!
    You think, some spells are too powerful, and if you can’t disjunct them they will kill you?
    Suggest a nerf, then.

    #205168

    CSav10
    Member

    Maybe things like increasing CP cost of disjuncting that particular spell on failure would be a better alternative? Critical failure doubles the CP cost of the next disjunct if you wish to try again?

    #205173

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Logically spoken: an unsuccessful try to disjunct means:
    1) you have determined you are screwed if the spell in question keeps in effect (if you cast disjunct for other reasons you don’t deserve better);
    2) you are screwed, because your try was unsuccessful;
    3) you are double screwed, because you can’t cast anything else and wasted CP

    Ergo, you are done anyway, so a critical failure just hammers it in.
    On the other hand, a critical success may just have turned the situation from dire to managable.

    So the bottom line is, if you don’t have anything to lose anyway, a result “you lost the battle” can’t hurt you, but a critical success may actually turn the tides.

    On the other hand, if you disjunct, when the situation isn’t clear-cut and you are not in dire straits, but have alternatives – don’t you think you deserve a critical failure then, for the laziness of just trying to undo something instead of coming up with a cool spell instead?

    #205190

    VORP
    Member

    Critcal success and critical failure make balance even worse because there are classes that are more mana dependent than others, like Sorcerer, who’s Age of Magic spell becomes useless when his combat enchantment gets disjuncted with critical success.

    #205192

    Ericridge
    Member

    Solution: If you feel like it is too risky to cast a disjunction.. cast a spell instead. That guideline serves me very well. Of course the AI might get lucky and nab a critical success from you.

    It’s not only that, Critical Success/Failures can turn already predetermined outcomes into doubt.

    I’ve seen plenty of critical successes and failures. Times where Ericridge the Great got kicked back into the void because of critical failures is two. It adds the much needed element of risk into the otherwise boring system.

    #205196

    VORP
    Member

    Ericridge, you forget that I can’t prevent myself from losing mana that way, because I will lose it anyway if enemy disjuncts my spell with critical success.

    #205197

    Capirex
    Member

    You could see it the other way around: it is something that add a strategic element to disjunction togheter with disjunction failure chance, making it not always an obvious choice.

    If you are fighting a critical battle with your hero in the battlefield you only want to risk a critical failure for removing a battlefield enchantement that improves significantly the odd of winning the fight for your opponent (like static electricity for example), in other cases you would just be better off using your CP for casting your own spell/battlefield enchantements.

    #205307

    Epaminondas
    Member

    I like the system as is, for the reasons Capirex explained.

    #205314

    Ravenholme
    Member

    I like the system as is, for the reasons Capirex explained.

    Agreed

    #205329

    VORP
    Member

    Capirex

    You could see it the other way around: it is something that add a strategic element to disjunction togheter with disjunction failure chance, making it not always an obvious choice.

    If you are fighting a critical battle with your hero in the battlefield you only want to risk a critical failure for removing a battlefield enchantement that improves significantly the odd of winning the fight for your opponent (like static electricity for example), in other cases you would just be better off using your CP for casting your own spell/battlefield enchantements.

    I like the system as is, for the reasons Capirex explained.

    You forget that critical success drains opponent’s mana completely, that’s the main headache for me.

    #205333

    Capirex
    Member

    Capirex

    You could see it the other way around: it is something that add a strategic element to disjunction togheter with disjunction failure chance, making it not always an obvious choice.

    If you are fighting a critical battle with your hero in the battlefield you only want to risk a critical failure for removing a battlefield enchantement that improves significantly the odd of winning the fight for your opponent (like static electricity for example), in other cases you would just be better off using your CP for casting your own spell/battlefield enchantements.

    I like the system as is, for the reasons Capirex explained.

    You forget that critical success drains opponent’s mana completely, that’s the main headache for me.

    I can understand that you don’t like a mechanic involving some kind of random based factor, still it doesn’t mean that the mechanic is not balanced around a strategical logic. Fatoring in randomess and extreme scenarios can also be part of the overall strategy approach to the game.

    When your opponent tries to disjunct he also has a small (actually pretty small, 1 in 20, and you have to consider that in the first 50-60 turns of the game, before the infamous grand palaces spam start taking place, CP are a rather scarce and precious resource so they must be used for a lot of things other than disjunction) chance of critical failure and the same chance of a critical success, so he also has to think twice before doing it if his leader in near your main armies or in a critical fight. If he incurred in critical failure he would be at a distinct handicap.

    #205352

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    I can understand that you don’t like a mechanic involving some kind of random based factor, still it doesn’t mean that the mechanic is not balanced around a strategical logic. Fatoring in randomess and extreme scenarios can also be part of the overall strategy approach to the game.
    When your opponent tries to disjunct he also has a small (actually pretty small, 1 in 20, and you have to consider that in the first 50-60 turns of the game, before the infamous grand palaces spam start taking place, CP are a rather scarce and precious resource so they must be used for a lot of things other than disjunction) chance of critical failure and the same chance of a critical success, so he also has to think twice before doing it if his leader in near your main armies or in a critical fight. If he incurred in critical failure he would be at a distinct handicap

    Totally agree. Since the “Luck” factor was implemented in GR – Things finally got some unplanned considerations. People complain for the sake of complaining. Getting frustrated over bad things happening to your strategic choices should be part of PLAYER’S assessments.

    I would vote against changes which lead to 100% predictable outcomes – there is no fun in that!

    #205353

    Agent Fluff
    Member

    I agree. You just lose right away. Maybe it should make you unable to cast spells the next turn. In tactical combat that is.

    #205354

    Nodor
    Member

    Critical success and critical failure when removing spells is the biggest luck factor I’ve ever seen in any game. Both of these things completely drain leader’s mana which desides the result of the battle right away. Remove these luck things from the game please! From both tactical combat and strategic map.

    DO NOT WANT!

    Seriously, you can strategize around morale, which enables crits/fumbles. Removing this component would worsen the game on many levels.

    #205358

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    DO NOT WANT!
    Seriously, you can strategize around morale, which enables crits/fumbles. Removing this component would worsen the game on many levels.

    I really can’t understand why people want to be lazy without any kind of higher brain activities. Luck/Morale and other random factors increase the level of thinking required for players to do. This game is all about thinking and if somebody has troubles in thinking just switch to the easiest possible game difficulty where such things would not matter at all.

    #205369

    Sharpnessism
    Member

    DO NOT WANT!
    Seriously, you can strategize around morale, which enables crits/fumbles. Removing this component would worsen the game on many levels.

    I really can’t understand why people want to be lazy without any kind of higher brain activities. Luck/Morale and other random factors increase the level of thinking required for players to do. This game is all about thinking and if somebody has troubles in thinking just switch to the easiest possible game difficulty where such things would not matter at all.

    Yeah, that’s why games without chance (like Chess) are for idiots right?

    Chance adds uncertainty, which is certainly interesting, but it detracts from strategy and tactics when it becomes too prevalent or too strong a factor.

    I don’t mind disjunction being chance based but critical successes/failures go a step beyond that and decide entire battles by draining CP completely.

    #205379

    GeorgiSR
    Member

    Yeah, that’s why games without chance (like Chess) are for idiots right?

    Please don’t take the chess path. Chess is purely mathematical game without any kind of luck. 2 players equal in skill will finish in tie most of the times or just concede because of clear outcome in the first 10 turns or so – That is not good for AoW

    Chance adds uncertainty, which is certainly interesting, but it detracts from strategy and tactics when it becomes too prevalent or too strong a factor.

    I disagree. Strategy is planning what to do both economical and tactical. Uncertainty is part of strategy so what you are saying is plain wrong.

    I don’t mind disjunction being chance based but critical successes/failures go a step beyond that and decide entire battles by draining CP completely.

    Well if it was just critical failure or success without the other part I would agree. however if your entire game outcome would be clear by a simple disjunct success/failure – Well that is entirely Player’s bad strategy or careless behavior. When people are careless they should pay the price. It is simple as that.

    #205391

    VORP
    Member

    GeorgiSR, and what IS the careful behavior? Never use disjunction, never use any battle enchantments I assume? What if player is a Socrcerer, how is he gonna survive without his battle enchantments and without disjuncting any opponent’s enchantments?

    #205399

    Epaminondas
    Member

    You forget that critical success drains opponent’s mana completely, that’s the main headache for me.

    How do you know if I have “forgotten” it. I am perfectly aware of it, and I have been frustrated immensely when that happens. In fact, I believe I’ve created thread asking what happened the first time I noticed.

    Nonetheless, I accept the negative consequences.

    #205400

    Capirex
    Member

    GeorgiSR, and what IS the careful behavior? Never use disjunction, never use any battle enchantments I assume? What if player is a Socrcerer, how is he gonna survive without his battle enchantments and without disjuncting any opponent’s enchantments?

    Why you shouldn’t use battle enchantements? The disjuncting player risk more: if his attemp fails he waste a turn of spellcasting in battle and the related cp. Plus he has a small chance of critical failure too along a critical success so this aspect at least balances out.

    From how i see it if you are forcing someone to disjunct you are already gaining an edge and disrupting his strategy: he should be busy casting his own spell and enchantement to pursue his own scheme.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 76 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.