KickStarter Vigilantes: neo-noir, turn based tactical RPG

[ArchAngel]

At the minute, if the character has line of sight to the enemy, they will fire on them. The overwatch character can also strafe to an adjacent tile, if they don't have LOS from their current tiles. The way overwatch is handled makes using a cone of fire difficult. Tried this solution as it seemed the most promising way of adding the feature. Not sure about stat checks on overwatch, it could be frustrating. Any thoughts on this?

Am also hoping to add attacks of opportunity in this update, which (if they can be added) will have a stat based chance of activating.

I think how overwatch was implemented in new Xcom is what caused all the overwatch creeping that we saw. In old UFO even if you left enough TU you were not guaranteed to get to shoot before aliens do. That is how it also worked in Xenonauts. It also made it so you had to specialize guys into overwatch/reaction fire while in new Xcoms everyone is too good at it. Those specialized are not that much better than others.

So if you want to have your game to have a superior design and not just popular one, come up with a way to have a check that decides if overwatch happens after enemy finishes its action or during it.

 

[Alienman]

Weapons like shotguns also had a reaction fire -boost in Xenonauts.

I think pistols had a reaction fire boost in the original X-com.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

I think pistols had a reaction fire boost in the original X-com.

Pistols also had very low TU cost to use in original X-com.
Perhaps additional reaction fire boost wasn't necessary.

 

[Alienman]

Yeah could be that of course. I just remember my pistol guys shooting like crazy when they spot something

 

[thesheeep]

Yeah could be that of course. I just remember my pistol guys shooting like crazy when they spot something

Oh, yeah, that was actually pretty funny.
Wild West Style!

 

[Timeslip]

Hitting a target or not is already stat-based (I assume, sorry, haven't followed everything too closely), so I'm not sure introducing another stat check would make sense. After all, the player already forfeits some resources for going into overwatch (I assume) - and then you're not even guaranteed a shot? I don't think I'd like that.

Yes, CTH is stat based. That's the thinking - there's already a potential frustration factor with RNG, and the fact the player has spent AP on overwatch makes it difficult to see any further checks being involved. There will likely be a CTh penalty, however.

Why? Usually attacks of opportunity happen automatically in order to prevent characters running back in forth in combat.
It would also be inconsistent if overwatch attacks require no checks to trigger but AoO do. After all, they are very similar mechanics.

Current plan is to make AOO, when triggered, provide a free close combat attack. Without specialisation (investment in relevant stats, skills, perk), the chance of triggering it will be low, but present. Think AOO will provide a considerable benefit, depth wise. It will allow for the creation of "melee blockers" who can jump into the middle of enemies, and restrict or punish movement towards squishier ranged allies. It will create more choices (do I try to move a tile into cover for better ranged protection and risk an AOO, or stay put?). Also good for further differentiating ranged weapon types, as assault and precision rifles suffer penalties with adjacent enemies, which would no longer be so easy to get away from.

 

[Timeslip]

I think how overwatch was implemented in new Xcom is what caused all the overwatch creeping that we saw. In old UFO even if you left enough TU you were not guaranteed to get to shoot before aliens do. That is how it also worked in Xenonauts. It also made it so you had to specialize guys into overwatch/reaction fire while in new Xcoms everyone is too good at it. Those specialized are not that much better than others.

So if you want to have your game to have a superior design and not just popular one, come up with a way to have a check that decides if overwatch happens after enemy finishes its action or during it.

Definitely something to keep in mind, concerning overwatch creep. Haven't reached the point where overwatch can be tested in play yet, currently just loading up a scenario (over and over and over again...) and ironing out the bugs. So, difficult to tell if the same situation would apply. There are some basic differences between Xcom and Vigilantes though - In Xcom, there are small enemy squads roaming the ether, waiting to be detected, whereas in Vigilantes, once the fighting starts, all hostiles hone in on you. The overwatch creep is likely to be much less effective against a flood than a trickle, but it remains to be seen. Likely there will be some overwatch enhancing perks.

Hmm... how about a quick time event? : )

Weapons like shotguns also had a reaction fire -boost in Xenonauts.

I think pistols had a reaction fire boost in the original X-com.

It did seem that pistol guys responded to detections much more quickly... but not very accurately, or effectively, if the enemy was a Muton.

 

[Timeslip]

Removed the limitation of one attack per tile moved, and have a basic implementation of melee overwatch. Hello weekend!

 

[ushas]

Although used to such things in other games, and looking forward here, I think there is always the question why I would want to overwatch. So generally being interested in factors like the trigger conditions (AOO seems reverse?), risk vs. reward, who fires when, whether the opposite side is alerted or can find out somehow (I would be suspicious of an enemy isn't using much AP on his turn), etc...

Some thoughts, but going ahead of myself, so apologies if it's off:
I guess it's basically about what's offered for taking some risk and yielding some free will. The easy solution is making it simply overpowered across, but can we forget that for now (or ideally forever)?

What I see interesting is maneuvering via Max AP and AP Per Turn stats (not sure how far Timeslip wants to go). You can manage (stats + perk comb.) to get something like 6 AP each turn, while having Max AP set to 10. Meaning if I use a pistol + snap (4 AP) for overwatching and the reaction didn't proc, I still get back and am free to utilize those unused AP in the next turn. In principle you can build a character around minimizing the AP risk.

However, still making a decision: (a) use points in this turn (fire now or better position)?; or (b) reserve AP to fire later in overwatch albeit with uncertainty; or additionally (c) transfer AP to the next turn after the enemy but having more control over what happens?...

In this game everybody knows where everybody is. And the LOS is the whole map (full-cover can block it), perhaps it's not so far to say approx. 50-90% units to be in the LOS. Moreover we are given this tactical zero-turn to re-position, so might even start the battle in a good spot to shoot. In such setup an overwatch-like mechanic seems to me useful for trying to catch the right opportunity to fire. Would like to see if it's viable to try evaluate and manipulate odds from this pov. I understand you don't favor additional stat in the equation, though some constraints may assist in setting up the usable boundaries for the mechanic.

So if you want to have your game to have a superior design and not just popular one, come up with a way to have a check that decides if overwatch happens after enemy finishes its action or during it.

Would like that.

Hmm... how about a quick time event? : )

Sure! Remember the targeting figurine? It can pop up each time an enemy moves a tile, quickly and unpredictably alternating which body part is lit, and we have 30sec to click-hit as many times as possible. The score is then compared against a random number to determine if we can reaction-fire. I would love that into segfault.

 

[ArchAngel]

He was joking about quick time event! Was he?

 

[ushas]

Uh, I thought so too, but as you ask...

 

[Timeslip]

Although used to such things in other games, and looking forward here, I think there is always the question why I would want to overwatch. So generally being interested in factors like the trigger conditions (AOO seems reverse?), risk vs. reward, who fires when, whether the opposite side is alerted or can find out somehow (I would be suspicious of an enemy isn't using much AP on his turn), etc...

Some thoughts, but going ahead of myself, so apologies if it's off:
I guess it's basically about what's offered for taking some risk and yielding some free will. The easy solution is making it simply overpowered across, but can we forget that for now (or ideally forever)?

What I see interesting is maneuvering via Max AP and AP Per Turn stats (not sure how far Timeslip wants to go). You can manage (stats + perk comb.) to get something like 6 AP each turn, while having Max AP set to 10. Meaning if I use a pistol + snap (4 AP) for overwatching and the reaction didn't proc, I still get back and am free to utilize those unused AP in the next turn. In principle you can build a character around minimizing the AP risk.

However, still making a decision: (a) use points in this turn (fire now or better position)?; or (b) reserve AP to fire later in overwatch albeit with uncertainty; or additionally (c) transfer AP to the next turn after the enemy but having more control over what happens?...

In this game everybody knows where everybody is. And the LOS is the whole map (full-cover can block it), perhaps it's not so far to say approx. 50-90% units to be in the LOS. Moreover we are given this tactical zero-turn to re-position, so might even start the battle in a good spot to shoot. In such setup an overwatch-like mechanic seems to me useful for trying to catch the right opportunity to fire. Would like to see if it's viable to try evaluate and manipulate odds from this pov. I understand you don't favor additional stat in the equation, though some constraints may assist in setting up the usable boundaries for the mechanic.


Would like that.

It's currently set to charge AP when player presses overwatch button, but, as you observed it's only useful in some situations, so will look at removing AP if overwatch is used. There are a couple of occasions when overwatch could be useful:

• Levels which are more closed in (bunker and elysium lab are strong examples)
• Setting up ambushes around corners
• Melee characters who can't reach melee opponent & make attack in same turn. If they overwatch, enemy may walk into it

Have been working on the AI side and it's going to be more difficult to make overwatch useful for AI. Tactics which will be immediately obvious to a player can be incredibly difficult to code.

Sure! Remember the targeting figurine? It can pop up each time an enemy moves a tile, quickly and unpredictably alternating which body part is lit, and we have 30sec to click-hit as many times as possible. The score is then compared against a random number to determine if we can reaction-fire. I would love that into segfault.

I've gone ahead with this as phase 1 of triggering overwatch. For phase 2, have added a quickfire round of geography questions. This is primarily for business purposes, as it may help secure an educational software grant. If you fail either phase, it's consider a "critical failure" and you accidentally eject your clip.

He was joking about quick time event! Was he?

Nah, it's way better than that... see above.

 

[Timeslip]

Attacks of opportunity have been prototyped and look extremely likely. These are free attacks which have a chance to trigger when a character with an enemy in an adjacent tile tries to move. At present AOO don't trigger if you try to move past the enemy, unless you were already engaged with them, i.e. started movement on an adjacent tile, however melee overwatch will trigger in this situation.

Next up is delaying your character's turn. We've been talking angles on this on the forum. Here's a link if you'd like to see the shape this feature is likely to take. If you have any observations or suggestions, please do share!

 

[ArchAngel]

Attacks of opportunity have been prototyped and look extremely likely. These are free attacks which have a chance to trigger when a character with an enemy in an adjacent tile tries to move. At present AOO don't trigger if you try to move past the enemy, unless you were already engaged with them, i.e. started movement on an adjacent tile, however melee overwatch will trigger in this situation.

Next up is delaying your character's turn. We've been talking angles on this on the forum. Here's a link if you'd like to see the shape this feature is likely to take. If you have any observations or suggestions, please do share!

When you say they have a chance to trigger, is that a static chance or can both sides somehow influence it? Like can one side specialize in having more chance and other side specialize in moving around without provoking them?

 

[Timeslip]

When you say they have a chance to trigger, is that a static chance or can both sides somehow influence it? Like can one side specialize in having more chance and other side specialize in moving around without provoking them?

The placeholder formula is a minimum 10% with and extra 5% for every initiative point the attacker has over the defender. Testing so far has been on making sure the system works, rather than balancing, so it's subject to change, but at present it means that faster characters have a better chance to perform and evade AOO. Very probable that at least 1 perk will enhance AOO. A little down the line, am considering a trait system, which will randomly assign certain traits to enemies to enable them to be better at certain activities, so an AOO enhancing trait could be a contender too.

Good that you mentioned this, as thinking the wounded status effects could also contribute to the chance of making/evading AOO.

 

[Lhynn]

Make it 100%, and make AoOs a limited resource, like 5e making them use a reaction of which you get one per turn. Making your systems too random can kill the tactical layer very fast and it adds nothing at all.

 

[ArchAngel]

Make it 100%, and make AoOs a limited resource, like 5e making them use a reaction of which you get one per turn. Making your systems too random can kill the tactical layer very fast and it adds nothing at all.

It makes it so players can build characters around it. It also makes it so overwatch it not always a best way to do things. Even in DnD (3.0 and 3.5) AoO is not automatic but a check vs enemy Tumble.

 

[Lhynn]

It was cross class for most and pretty much no one had it. Tumble was the exception when it came to defenses, not the rule (also it had a stupid high DC of 25).

Plus there are ways around it, overwatch should have a small cone of effect and should offer to hit bonuses to attackers until realized to offset its obvious tactical advantages.
Plus you are literally killing a tactical resource by making it RNG based. This game where Tactical gameplay will be suposedly at the forefront, its a fuck up in every way.

 

[ushas]

I'm not sure what is better here, but I think Timeslip wants to make it so you ought to specialize. So better initiative makes you fairly better (eg. 60% with 10 difference?) but if I would want to be able to do 100% I would have to invest into that perk.

Reminds me criticals in Fallout. High Luck and More Criticals perk give you better crit. chance, and tbh. you can tactically work with that in statistical way, but won't reach 100% till combined with Sniper perk. Then it changes the game

IIRC, wounded status effect means -1/-2 AP, among other things. Unless this is going to change, AP is tied to the same stat as Initiative, Fleetness. So Wounded can simply penalize Fleetness, thus also both secondary stats (+ evasion).

 

[ArchAngel]

It was cross class for most and pretty much no one had it. Tumble was the exception when it came to defenses, not the rule (also it had a stupid high DC of 25).

Plus there are ways around it, overwatch should have a small cone of effect and should offer to hit bonuses to attackers until realized to offset its obvious tactical advantages.
Plus you are literally killing a tactical resource by making it RNG based. This game where Tactical gameplay will be suposedly at the forefront, its a fuck up in every way.

Any class could take Tumble, some could level it better. Only limit was that it didn't work in heavy armor and most medium armors. D&D also had other feats that gave you Armor bonus vs AoO or just immunity.

That stupid high DC was so you didn't have 100% chance to succeed. As I said, D&D had Tumble that worked similar to how Timeslip wants to implement it. You had to specialize into it, either with skills, feats or even magic items (you could get yourself a fairly cheap +5 Tumble magical item) and you could easily get it to 50% chance and later very close to 100%. A lvl 1 Rogue could easily have +8 to Tumble. +11 if he spent a feat on it. By lvl 5 you could have that Tumble item and have +18 or even +21 if you used that feat. By mid game Rogues and other classes with Tumble as main skill could always Tumble but it cost you an investment.

 

[Lhynn]

First, it was an exception mechanic, it demanded an investment from the defender (as the attacker was already spending resources to make it, and was rewarded with 100% chance to perform it and no penalty to hit), in core there were only 2 classes capable of doing it, and they were two severely underpowered classes, AoOs became less and less important as the game progressed (also it was basically free for rogues because of the sheer amount of skillpoints they had, and mandatory on monks because of their high mobility and intended role as a mobile anti mage character (Which monks failed at being anyway.)

Even without taking all those points into consideration, you are removing a tactical layer. Its a dumb idea. Its not gamebreaking or anything, its just stupid and sad.

 

[Timeslip]

Make it 100%, and make AoOs a limited resource, like 5e making them use a reaction of which you get one per turn. Making your systems too random can kill the tactical layer very fast and it adds nothing at all.

Will keep it in mind. I can see what you mean about setting it up this way shifts the focus from tactics (in some regards) to how characters are built, but I don't feel the same way about a deterministic system being tactically richer than one which trades on calculated risk/reward. I like the idea that a fast melee character can punish enemies through AOO more than a slow gunslinger. Whether you will build such a character will be a strategic choice, and how you use that character in battle will offer a considerable number of tactical choices.

 

[ushas]

Hm. What about two perks - one adds flat +X to Initiative, the second increases that AOO multiplier, eg. 5% -> 10%?
So then low initiative enemies may end up a sure hit, the high initiative ones after being wounded.

 

[Lhynn]

Developing a game around overspecialization is bad, it makes most choices come down to what number youd like to make bigger and suddenly transforms most choices into either a non-choice (of course i need that) or trap choice.
If you want to introduce attacks of opportunity, introduce them in the form of a feat or an unlock with a high initiative or a nimble NPC, suddenly you are not adding to shitty ever increasing numbers, but to the breadth of the players tactical choices. This in turns makes the gameplay evolve as the player grows in power, instead of making it stale and boring, and reducing characters to 1 trick ponies.

 

[ushas]

In principle, I agree with your notion in general, and think unlocking AOO would be viable. However, if I understand it for the high AOO specialization itself you could just need 1 perk. All the other stats that play a role here, like chance to hit (Close combat skill) and Initiative (Fleetness), fulfill other functions and/or are byproducts of other stats being high, so will reach those on various builds regardless of the AOO mechanic. I wouldn't call that overspecialization exactly, unless the perk requires something off. So the question is more whether it's a binary.


Edit: Personally, I would like to see if it's possible to have both. Fallout shows it is, you can imagine that as two systems. Difference between characters with Slayer perk (100% HtH criticals) and those without is substantial. So it may as well work as Timeslip describes, giving an upper hand to fast CC characters, but in the same time why not offer 100% AOO via the perk (requirement high inititative)? In a game with limited number of perks points it is some commitment, after all.