1.0.5 is out. What's new --- Gameplay Tweaks --- The level of your party reserves can now be seen in the Keep Enemy target preference is now entirely based on armor, and ignores class, allowing offensive monks and defensive knights to work together better --- Bug Fixes --- Fixed a rare crash that could be caused by a wizard's conflagrate ability It's no longer possible for the monk AI to get "stuck" after failing to land 1000 Palms Fixed an extremely rare circumstance that could lead to a save file being corrupted Thistle no longer leaves behind the ghost-image of Bromswell when teleporting Corrected a few typos
At least if your quoting me, quote all I said. I answered your question, tho seems you are not familiar with gaming terms. Tanks are stronger units or heros who take a specific role to protect the weaker allies. It is not based on any specific game but on human instinct. In a group fight, people can go for whatever target they feel like going for, but if one promptly get smashed by a beer glass from someone else - the victim obviously will not be happy being hit and will change target in a fit of rage. Similarly, if group of mobs going to beat up one person, but another appears and mocks them. The mob are being "taunted" by the other dude and decide to take him down first. You, the user, knows which unit is strongest so you engage the mobs with that unit first. It doesn't happen automatically, like you seem to be implying. There still has to be actions made. Stronger looking unit is perceived to be the cornerstone in the group. if you take down the strongest, the weaker are easier to dispose of after. Even if you decide to focus on weaker unit, the tank is the protector of the group and isn't going to stand by and let you kill them. This is same as those fixated mobs in the game
Just want to confirm how the resulting percentages are calculated. Lets say my rogue has 2 tempest stones (10% faster attack) and the Flurry passive ability (15% faster attack). What would be my rogue's resulting attack speed? Would it be current X 1.10 X 1.10 X 1.15? Or would it be current X 1.35? Just finished with the second to the last level. Hopefully will finish the game tomorrow or within the week, when I get the time. Here's my party by the way: lv22 knight, lv23 berseker, lv24 rogue, lv27 cleric.
MM answered this in the strat thread, but it seems like haste is one of the few stats that stacks multiplicatively, rather than additively. Also, 15% haste isn't actually 15%, it's ~17.6% because it reduces the time between attacks to (100%-15%) or 0.85x. So in your example, the time between attacks would be reduced from T to T*0.90*0.90*0.85 = 0.6885*T, or ~45.2% "faster".
Obviously I'm familiar with the fact that many online roleplaying games work in this general way. One can question why this meme has become so universal; it seems to me only one way to design a game, and not the best way. But most games at least try to create a story or justification behind it. That's different from a game where enemies all automatically seek to attack the most armored target, even if it's doing the least damage to them, without any other justification. Perhaps having this tanking mechanism work automatically and easily is just a necessary compromise in a game where a single player is controlling several characters at once. But when you go from "this character has a specific magical ability that causes enemies to attack him" to "this character is wearing the most armor and so all of the enemies attack him", it seems to me you're discarding the last shred of context that makes the game world make sense. But you're not seriously suggesting this is "realistic", are you? I understand very well that it's an artificial game mechanism that is central to many online roleplaying games. But, in the real world, a horde of enemies isn't all going to attack the heavily armored character who poses little threat to them, rather than the lightly armored character who's doing tremendous damage to them and killing them all, just because the former says some mocking things. Ultimately, it's only a game. I am just surprised by how quickly this has gone from being a novel and somewhat eccentric idea---that enemies would attack the most difficult to kill opponent rather than the easiest to kill opponent---to something that is so obvious and accepted that people take it for granted. Maybe I shouldn't be.
You're answer is very detailed and right on the money, but what I don't understand is why you would spend the time to point out the obvious. If he couldn't see it then just let him be. The concept of all the monsters attacking the strongest hero is up for self debate because some people would rather have the weak die first so that the strong have less to worry about it goes to a zombie apocalypse type of thing where it's like "who dies first?" Maybe it's not "realistic" and doesn't agree with the weaker one doing more damage but there is a loophole to everything and there are always people who will find the loophole. So sometimes its just better to leave things how they are.
Can someone please photoshop Bromswell with an AK-47 and a Ferrari. Like him hangin out the window of it or something. Someone has to do it and I'm no good with photoshop.
@ Mika I noticed that the Wizard attacks faster than the Witch. Can you tell us what the base attack speeds are for the chars?
Hey mika! Great game. I absolutely love it! Im just wondering about one thing... Is there any way you could add incentives (like achievements) that require us to play with specified characters or a specified group? I know that there is already a ton of content and replayability with all the different characters, but for some reason, I cant find myself to want to replay the game with other characters without some kind of incentive to use the other characters. Maybe there could be achievements like "Beat a boss level using the following characters: W, X, Y, Z. Thank you so much for all of the input you have taken and I totally understand if this cannot be implemented. Thanks
You state your familiar with roleplaying games, yet you forget the single biggest issue with these games. Balance Game balance is what keeps games engaging and competitive. Just as mikas example decking bromswell in plate armour with ak47 whilst driving ferrari. You get a quick buzz to begin with (like playing Doom with all cheats on), though it doesnt keep your mind ticking much after that. Other classes would seem underpowered and useless and it would be stupid/weird to not play your best card. You state my example as unrealistic, yet you then unrealistically perceive a knight in armor "poses little threat" based on fictional games. A knight wearing heavy armour is never perceived as weak. The facts are quite the opposite. Historically, men in armour are threatning and deadly too. you like to gloss over points then pass them off as unrealistic. The mob clearly have the number advantage which is usually the biggest factor in fights. How would it be unrealistic for them to change plan and go for the other guy first? The other guy steps in and taunts them, averts their gaze for moment. During that moment, the first person might easily have killed leader or injured several. Just cause game characters can take multiple hits to die doesn't mean real life is same. Sometimes all you need is an opening to deal the deadliest damage. It's easy to judge based on 3rd person view - to say its stupid to go for x unit when y unit are damaging you. In real life, fatal blows are instant. There is no slash him till eventually keels over and before he has time to reassess which target to focus on. This doesn't work in games cause instant death not really considered "fun" everything happens too quickly for people to think things through. So game balance is why the hero unit is toned down so other classes can play key roles as well. This makes strategys more intersting. It's basic knowledge the strong protect the weaker ones. Not going to just let you walk over without doing anything. The process is not automatic however. How realistic the simulation depends on how complex intend to calculate threat. More complex models take into account damage and healing and something like warcry taunt ends up being only a short duration instead of infinite.
Oh alright. So when calculating, the percentages factor into the actual time between attacks rather than the actual rate. Much clearer. Thanks for the computations.
Similar to what I've been suggesting in this thread. The solution is adding character-driven or class-specific side quests. End rewards could be special items, collectible artifacts, a conclusion to the character's mini-story (if it were a character-driven side quest), or as you have suggested - gamecenter achievements. Even adding stages with 2 battles, where you would have to pick 2 sets of parties to complete it, would also encourage the player to manage more than just 4 units and be able to experience the rest of the characters/classes. Really hoping Mika Mobile entertains these suggestions apart from of course more classes in an update.
Filli, wonderful post. It is all about how to make the game fun, and in order to be fun you need balance. Btw if you guys didn't know yet, guild wars 2 is going to be nixing the tank role. We didn't see a whole lot of it in GW1 which is probably why the end game PvE gameplay was so weak because the game DID have tanks, but no agro table. However GW2 from the ground up is going to let the classes and their abilities delegate how they will deal damage, heal, control mobs, and mitigate damage. GW2 also features casting while moving. I think if anyone can pull this off with a fun balance, the guild wars team can.
