Again and again you cherry pick shit that you like, and consider it as "real tactics", while ignoring shit that you don't necessarily like, and consider it as, what, "combat side mechanics"? Cool that you personally like turn-based games with stationary exchanges and attrition (your point about cover is basically 1:1 the same as attrition), but what does it have to do with anything?Besides the point of bespoke enemies and encounters, which is what allows for deep tactics, AoD's system also allows for attrition.
How do you expect this to work in games that have the whole map open and accessible for the majority of their length? (without going for a complete flat power curve, or some level scaling equivalent, right?)No. What I mean is that DOMINATING difficulty should have been adjusted to kick your ass from beginning to end.
Actually should be easy, just do what I did with crowbar. You will also have access to a number of goodies I didn't have like EMPs and such.Again, the whole premise is stupid since you can probably clear every area in the game (clear = kill everything) with a level 10 or level 12 character, without using cheat buttons like the toxic gas grenades.
Do DOM Naga Fight with a lvl 10~12 character
I have. I said, actual tactics is figuring out the exact order that the enemies in a specific fight need to die, when and how. Also it is figuring out precisely which space you must end your turn on each turn so you do not die. It also involves figuring out how many turns you can survive before you die, figuring out what you need to do every turn to get to that last turn while dealing enough damage to kill your enemies before you yourself die. Again this is why Underrail is even shallower than either AoD or Shadowrun since it lacks this attrition dimension. In Underrail the closest is managing your cooldowns and your PSI reserves, but even then the game never pushes you to an absolute limit of running out of resources like with AoD, Shadowrun, Battletech or Rance X.Again and again you cherry pick shit that you like, and consider it as "real tactics", while ignoring shit that you don't necessarily like, and consider it as, what, "combat side mechanics"? Cool that you personally like turn-based games with stationary exchanges and attrition (your point about cover is basically 1:1 the same as attrition), but what does it have to do with anything?Besides the point of bespoke enemies and encounters, which is what allows for deep tactics, AoD's system also allows for attrition.
You obviously have a very specific definition of "tactics". One that, for some reason, you don't really want to share with us.
Well according to Vault Dweller , that's why they put bolas in AoD, so players could cheat button and skip fights that they couldn't beat. Underrail meanwhile has a shit ton of cheat buttons - the toxic gas grenades for example and I would even consider Enrage a cheat button. But one salient point: AoD has only 1 difficulty. Underrail has several. DOMINATING should have content that kicks your ass even if you are level 30, since its not meant for a first time through. But Underrail your character is absurd by level 16 already. Mid and end game content is a joke.How do you expect this to work in games that have the whole map open and accessible for the majority of their length? (without going for a complete flat power curve, or some level scaling equivalent, right?)No. What I mean is that DOMINATING difficulty should have been adjusted to kick your ass from beginning to end.
Fighting a single Lunatic on DOMINATING should be as deep, tactically speaking, as fighting a dozen? Cause this is what happens in open RPGs - you can reach shit "out of order".
I'll repeat: Do you recollect any sanbox-y, open world-y RPGs that did this well?
Also probably doable with EMP grenades + grenadier + LTI and EMP traps + quick tinkering. Temporal distortion seems like a good choice here, damage should be decent-ish even at level 12. Same goes for electrokinesis and imprint, especially with tesla armor.So did i. Just one industry bot is doable, could you do RAF with a lvl 12 character? I highly doubt it...
Actually should be easy, just do what I did with crowbar. You will also have access to a number of goodies I didn't have like EMPs and such.Again, the whole premise is stupid since you can probably clear every area in the game (clear = kill everything) with a level 10 or level 12 character, without using cheat buttons like the toxic gas grenades.
Do DOM Naga Fight with a lvl 10~12 character
At level 12 you can't specialize on those for effective usage. Way too many strong robots to deal at once.Also probably doable with EMP grenades + grenadier + LTI and EMP traps + quick tinkering. Temporal distortion seems like a good choice here, damage should be decent-ish even at level 12. Same goes for electrokinesis and imprint, especially with tesla armor.
Sure, this definition nicely covers the topic in its entirety.Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics.
Agreed, I'm not contending that. My point was about challenge being evenly distributed.Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing
I mean, requiring attrition mechanics to call a system "deep" sounds totally nitpicky, so I'm assuming that you're using this point cause of the current context - there probably are games that you would consider tactically deep that don't have attrition, right? Whatever genre.
So, this alone seems irrelevant to the definition of "tactics". Though, sure. It adds to the depth.
I mean for example, in AoD, using barbed ammo when you are shooting someone where they are unarmored, using regular ammo when shooting someone with a shield, not using AP ammo at all (since AP is godawful) - all that is obvious, no? Like using EMP traps vs robots in UR. Its just basic common sense stuff - shallow tactics.Sure, this definition nicely covers the topic in its entirety.Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics.
At the same time, it's super imprecise and based on your personal feelings, likes and experiences.
Shit is not obvious, if you haven't done it. Thrice. Or a hundred times, depends.
Sorry that you had to copy-paste all that text, but I hoped for a more precise definition this time, as it's the point of contention.
Sure. The base game limits you to 1 lance (4 mechs), BEX lets you add a 2nd lance, and that limits how much fire power you can bring on any mission, in addition to missions that limit you to 1-2 mechs (duels and duo duels) or weight class. I also play with 0 character growth/ minimum skill (3/3/1/3) pilots so that flattens power too.You keep bringing up games that are quite linear though. Including AoD (AoD appeared in my posts only because you started shitting on it).
Dragonfall and AoD are centered around set pieces, right? There isn't a shitload of encounters, but they are meant to be thought out and balanced, or whatever the term is more fitting. Both also share the fact that content is distributed to the player in batches. And harder content is gated, for the most part.
Balancing the difficulty out for you to have the desired challenge (at all times) is a lot simpler in those cases, than in Underrail's.
(Haven't played BT at all, but I assume that, because it's mission based, it has a more linear structure. Besides, I bet the power-curve there is a LOT more flat than in classical RPGs - BT has rock/paper/scissor kind of deal, no?)
Again, why does DOMINATING need to be anywhere near "fair"?Again, I'm not saying that Underrail couldn't be harder, or have more refined set pieces.
I'm arguing that you clearly have unrealistic expectations here.
Agreed, I'm not contending that. My point was about challenge being evenly distributed.Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing
I mean, requiring attrition mechanics to call a system "deep" sounds totally nitpicky, so I'm assuming that you're using this point cause of the current context - there probably are games that you would consider tactically deep that don't have attrition, right? Whatever genre.
So, this alone seems irrelevant to the definition of "tactics". Though, sure. It adds to the depth.
These screen pics from Rance X are NSFW so be warned ~
You have no idea how close this Kayblis fight was. Kayblis (this version) hits you harder than you can heal. This was a 42 round race to death. I could not have survived another attack. Every action, every AP, practically every last HP mattered to win this boss fight. Just like how I ended the Barbari fight with 3 hp.
Although, to your point, THE hardest, most tactically challenging fight in Rance X is not an attrition fight. Rather it is a timed fight winnable only by playing 8 perfect rounds.
And this was actually an incredibly great outcome for an 18 round complete grinder of a mission, 8 (4 controlled by the AI) v 16 mechs. Again, attrition added an entire dimension to tactics. Losing an arm or a leg is inevitable but you don't want to lose an irreplaceable laser or double heat sink. Very, very easy to fuck up on missions like this. You have to play with great discipline, be conservative, and grind it out.
But tactics is not PRS in Battletech. Its more like you are vastly outnumbered (4 v 8 or sometimes 4 v 12, plus turrets, vehicles, etc...). Which enemy lance do you engage first (after which the other enemy lances quickly converge on you), where on the map do you retreat to to make your stand and most importantly how do you split your lance up (3/1, 2/2) to draw off enough fire to not die. What's your strategy if one or more of the enemy lances is a fire support lance that's going to destroy you with LRMs off screen every turn? How do you adjust when one of your mechs gets their leg blown off or get their torso shredded by a PPC or an AC/10? What happens when you are about to run out of ammo? How much do you risk overheat shutdown (which is pretty much death)? Every turn, do you eject your pilots or risk their mechs getting cored (permanently trashed, dead pilot)? Can you manage to complete the mission, settle for a partial objective and then withdraw, or just get the fuck out at your own expense and no pay, just so your mechs don't get anymore fucked up?
I mean for example, in AoD, using barbed ammo when you are shooting someone where they are unarmored, using regular ammo when shooting someone with a shield, not using AP ammo at all (since AP is godawful) - all that is obvious, no? Like using EMP traps vs robots in UR. Its just basic common sense stuff - shallow tactics.Sure, this definition nicely covers the topic in its entirety.Another way to answer the question is: choosing to do obvious things is shallow tactics.
At the same time, it's super imprecise and based on your personal feelings, likes and experiences.
Shit is not obvious, if you haven't done it. Thrice. Or a hundred times, depends.
Sorry that you had to copy-paste all that text, but I hoped for a more precise definition this time, as it's the point of contention.
Sure. The base game limits you to 1 lance (4 mechs), BEX lets you add a 2nd lance, and that limits how much fire power you can bring on any mission, in addition to missions that limit you to 1-2 mechs (duels and duo duels) or weight class. I also play with 0 character growth/ minimum skill (3/3/1/3) pilots so that flattens power too.You keep bringing up games that are quite linear though. Including AoD (AoD appeared in my posts only because you started shitting on it).
Dragonfall and AoD are centered around set pieces, right? There isn't a shitload of encounters, but they are meant to be thought out and balanced, or whatever the term is more fitting. Both also share the fact that content is distributed to the player in batches. And harder content is gated, for the most part.
Balancing the difficulty out for you to have the desired challenge (at all times) is a lot simpler in those cases, than in Underrail's.
(Haven't played BT at all, but I assume that, because it's mission based, it has a more linear structure. Besides, I bet the power-curve there is a LOT more flat than in classical RPGs - BT has rock/paper/scissor kind of deal, no?)
Again, why does DOMINATING need to be anywhere near "fair"?Again, I'm not saying that Underrail couldn't be harder, or have more refined set pieces.
I'm arguing that you clearly have unrealistic expectations here.
Agreed, I'm not contending that. My point was about challenge being evenly distributed.Underrail's DOMINATING difficulty should force you to challenge yourself to get better at playing
After I cleared Lunatic Mall, I was *so* excited about Underrail. I thought, "Oh! This is why everyone is praising the game! That was so fun and hardcore!" The rest of the game never came close to replicating that feeling. Looking back, Enrage (which I see you get at level 10) was probably what broke the camel's back.
And what's wrong with scaling? Rance X does scaling beautifully. That's why no matter how good you are, Kayblis, the final boss, is an amazing fight. The game has spent the whole game calibrating itself to your skill level, and you end up fighting a Kayblis just a little too hard for you to beat without getting better.
This is a Kayblis fight played by someone far lower in skill than me, and not even the hard version of Kayblis (he has a cheat character, Shariela, that refreshes AP every turn, so its the easy version Alicesoft put in so anyone can get an ending). Even then, Kayblis is just difficult enough to push him to his limit. Search Kayblis fights on Youtube, they are almost always down to the last action. That's brilliance.
The fact that it invalidates leveling, for one.And what's wrong with scaling?
Well, no. I want a game that becomes progressively more difficult as the game progresses. My character becoming more powerful is great, but that shouldn't make the game easier and easier. It should mean I have more ability to take on more and more difficult challenges. The problem with Underrail is that past level 10, your character growth far outstrips the challenging content remaining in the game. Underrail's first 6 levels of character progression matches fine with the increase in challenging content up to Depot A. It's after Depot A, when your character abruptly leaps in power from level 6 to level 10, that the game's challenge falls right off a cliff. Lunatic Mall is the correct challenge level that I find fun for a level 8 character.The fact that it invalidates leveling, for one.And what's wrong with scaling?
Seems like you want to just play a tactics game where strategic choices are not present, irrelevant or have to be made perfectly to give you even a tiniest chance of succeeding in the tactical layer.
So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.
That's because you were playing a glass cannon and taking on the exact enemies that exist to counter tanks with damage that completely bypasses armor.Tactics is 20% "how do I kill the enemy?" and 80% "How do I not die?" Underrail fails to have deep tactics because it only asks the first question.
Level scaling if well done does not invalidates leveling. Getting too overpowered mid game makes me lose interest in the game. If i was a game developer, i'd make my game scale with your level BUT, with a small variance. Let's say you're level 10: the mobs you'd face will be level 8~11.The fact that it invalidates leveling, for one.And what's wrong with scaling?
Seems like you want to just play a tactics game where strategic choices are not present, irrelevant or have to be made perfectly to give you even a tiniest chance of succeeding in the tactical layer.
... there are serious consequences for failure.So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.
... there are serious consequences for failure.So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.
You know it's an eroge, yes?
43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.
It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge andbetterless awful endings.
kekekekeke... there are serious consequences for failure.So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.
You know it's an eroge, yes?
43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.
It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge andbetterless awful endings.
Noooo Underrail is a cozy game that does not even have swearing, don't post coomer stuff here, this is a christian forum
Bro...6:19:38
... there are serious consequences for failure.So it rewards you for failure and punishes you for success.Rance X scales the difficulty by your achievement progression, not your "character" or power progression. The game becomes harder if you succeed your objectives, and easier if you fail.
You know it's an eroge, yes?
43% of humanity is dead... next threshold is at 50%.
It doesn't punish you for success. It rewards you for getting better with more challenge andbetterless awful endings.
Noooo Underrail is a cozy game that does not even have swearing, don't post coomer stuff here, this is a christian forum
Same, and yet I love Dan. It's puzzling.I hate Gorsky so much its unreal
It's actually closer to 40 hours (there's 8 parts) but for anyone that's played Sengoku Rance, it's 40 hours of pure comedic gold.Bro...6:19:38
I love both!Same, and yet I love Dan. It's puzzling.I hate Gorsky so much its unreal