search

ui-cs383 / Freedom-Galaxy

Primary repository for the FitG
1 stars 6 forks source link

Gameplay Modification #14

Open thom5468 opened 10 years ago

thom5468 commented 10 years ago

FITG has some aspects of gameplay that might not translate to computer very well. As well as some balance issues. We don't want to get into week 3 of coding to find out what those are.

Here are some that I've thought about...

-When playing the board game it is easy to see what the general state of your enemy is. For example, the location of all stacks is known. Should the game actually hide this information? Should it just hide undetected character locations? etc...

-Going on missions is ultimately how you win/lose the game. But, it is risky!!! business. Some of the event cards that you encounter have severe results. It almost feels like you aren't playing against the other player, you are playing against the game. Changing some of these unnaturally cruel games rules would be huge toward balance issues.

hallister commented 10 years ago

@thom5468 Personally, I think the default should be hidden for anything that isn't public. Military locations should ALWAYS be hidden unless they've been detected.

As for missions, we can always reduce the severity of them to help with balance. And since mission data will be stored in the database, it will be easy to adjust as we go.

Greg-Donaldson commented 10 years ago

@hall5714 Keep in mind military units are always detected when inside an enemy Environ.

bcumber commented 10 years ago

@thom5468 There are also versions of the rules that have been put out on the web that hardcore players have adjusted to help balance the game a little more. These could be used to determine which parts of the game we would like to balance.

hallister commented 10 years ago

@Greg-Donaldson True. We could adjust that if necessary, but I don't know if that's a game balance issue.

rangera commented 10 years ago

I think that the non-detected units should definitely be non-visible to the enemy. I think this is something that the board game would have done if it could have. The additional rules should maybe be an option or something we could look into. And, realistically, the visibility of non detected is something that seems very doable as an in game setting, that is agreed upon by both players, probably prior to the game.

andyleejordan commented 10 years ago

@rangera

I think that the non-detected units should definitely be non-visible to the enemy. I think this is something that the board game would have done if it could have.

I am in total agreement with that.

Greg-Donaldson commented 10 years ago

Agreed.