The "blind" battling is an interesting change... I see where that can help defeat bots... but it also makes the whole thing a bit of a roulette for human players... drugs and gambling :P
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The "blind" battling is an interesting change... I see where that can help defeat bots... but it also makes the whole thing a bit of a roulette for human players... drugs and gambling :P
Wait? Is the inability to click on people's profiles intentional and not a bug? I only saw about the shield going away in their post, not that.
I didn't like the mechanics because they were too predictable. The damage and defense should imo be a range and they do damage within that range / defend within that range using maths (essentially automated dice rolls) because then there is strategy but also luck involved which I think is better than one or the other and it also is less boring than fighting someone with the exact same army equalling a draw. Strategy alone to me got boring quick.
However luck alone is also inferior because it is the combination of strategy and luck that makes the best games normally. If this is a change this is interesting though I personally don't think it is the right change.
I think if there is a range (with higher ranges for ones iwth more defence / attack etc of course) within which chance determines how much damage and defence done, it will allow for the most gameplay choices. Sometimes people will attack people they know they can beat to get more resources. Other times people will see a similar army to theirs and the person has lots to steal and will decide to take that gamble. Previously if the stats work out the same, all that happens is all the people die due to a draw. With a range that's a possibility but there's also the possibility of gaining a lot or losing everything. That sort of gamble is good and it also isn't forced (people can still attack only smaller players and never make that gamble). I don't really think removing strategy via just stopping people seeing profiles at all is a good move.
From my experience in terms of fun and simply being a good game, games (board, video or rpg) tend to rank like this (best to worst):
Relies on a mix of strategy and luck
Relies on strategy only
Relies on luck only
There's exceptions to that ofc and there's also all the other aspects that make a game good or bad, but generally the ones that combine the two seem the best to me and hiding profiles just seems to be flipping it from strategy to luck rather than designing it in a way that uses both, and I really believe mechanics that use both would make for a better game.
I'm hoping this is a bug but I'm curious what you've seen that suggests it is a change in the game.