Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Two turn r us
#11
@spo I think we understand the game very differently, you're right. We can debate it at another opportunity.

My point wasn't to talk about evade, though I did rail off into that when Evasion was brought up as a counter method- but more Initiative.

@Luna Yeah, that'd be on me, sorry for that. I see Celerity as being tied with Initiative, and Initiative not being a very functional mechanic is what usually dominates my interest for turn order discussions. There are a lot more issues than just that, though, so I'll try to keep it to those.

The issues brought up by Crixius definitely need to be addressed. A static turn order would be a clean way to handle a lot of smaller problems with Turn Order, and I hope that's what we wind up seeing. Big agree.
Reply
#12
I agree with nearly all of the pain points that people in this thread brought up with the new initiative system.  And while I'm not going to pretend the old initiative system was perfect, I very often feel like the frustrating ''edge cases'' manifest so frequently that I would rather have the old system's issues over the new.

I won't go into extreme detail about this again, because I've already done so once and this thread has fairly comprehensive information, but rigid enforcement of 'taking turns' turn order encourages nonsensical strategies of gimping your own turn to steal initiative, using revived enemies as a crutch, and manipulating team number count to force the initiative system to let someone double turn specific people. Because this system is so inflexible with deviating away from teams taking turns, it turns into an exploitable mechanic for knowledgeable players -- and an arcane force that occasionally fucks someone over seemingly at random for newer players.

I'll conclude my thoughts with this: there should never be a situation where someone has to ask themselves, "Will the turn order change and kill me if I defeat this opponent?  Would it be better if I just left him alive?  Should we have our low health player kill themself so our mage can jump their team next turn without their archer getting a turn?"
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kameron8's post:
  • Maksimum_Fire
Reply
#13
(09-06-2020, 07:07 PM)Maksimum_Fire Wrote: @spo I think we understand the game very differently, you're right. We can debate it at another opportunity.

My point wasn't to talk about evade, though I did rail off into that when Evasion was brought up as a counter method- but more Initiative.

Yes but your point is that celerity is somehow weak when its not in actuality, my points still relate to most things involving initiative and the turn order here so I find them relevant to the discussion. Either way my points have been established.

(09-06-2020, 08:13 PM)Kameron8 Wrote: I agree with nearly all of the pain points that people in this thread brought up with the new initiative system.  And while I'm not going to pretend the old initiative system was perfect, I very often feel like the frustrating ''edge cases'' manifest so frequently that I would rather have the old system's issues over the new.

I won't go into extreme detail about this again, because I've already done so once and this thread has fairly comprehensive information, but rigid enforcement of 'taking turns' turn order encourages nonsensical strategies of gimping your own turn to steal initiative, using revived enemies as a crutch, and manipulating team number count to force the initiative system to let someone double turn specific people. Because this system is so inflexible with deviating away from teams taking turns, it turns into an exploitable mechanic for knowledgeable players -- and an arcane force that occasionally fucks someone over seemingly at random for newer players.

I'll conclude my thoughts with this: there should never be a situation where someone has to ask themselves, "Will the turn order change and kill me if I defeat this opponent?  Would it be better if I just left him alive?  Should we have our low health player kill themself so our mage can jump their team next turn without their archer getting a turn?"

My thoughts reflect these mostly, given my first post referenced that exact thread thank you. I still think our current turn system can be refined so much better while keeping the alternating style that I'm more fond of in PvP scenarios, those cases may have been fringe and far between but not impossible to create. But I will comment that the current system has been in its quote unquote 'trial phase' far too long and needs to be addressed again, as it is currently in a state that discourages most players from ever PvPing commonly..
[Image: ZwZQKR6.png]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Sigrogana Legend 2 Discord