KickStarter Vigilantes: neo-noir, turn based tactical RPG

[Timeslip]

Well, for one I'm unhappy to have party members railroaded into builds in a skill-based game.

That's what I'm trying to address. Allies have always been set up to allow you to allocate stat and perk points, and to automatically allocate skill points according to a preset order. By getting a number of skill points every x levels, it will provide more choice on how you build them. As to why full ally skill point allocation is problematic, see next 2 comments.

For the flip-flop that a bit of control would have to be like, you know, close-to, almost, exactly... full.

If allies have full skill point allocation, you will have more control over their development than you will have with Sam's. In the case of 10 skill gains per level, Sam may be able to boost his primary combat skill by ~6, with the rest of the points divided between other activities like healing, surveillance, crafting.

For example, I don't get why manual would have to have more points than auto, why skill points / lvl for allies can't be subject to balance, etc... Btw. initially thought you want to slow down skill progression too.

Manual doesn't have more points, but if you can put every single skill point for Elena Furey into firearms, you will max firearms far more quickly than your main character can max his primary combat skill. She (or any ally progressed the same way) will quickly outclass Sam in combat and you'll be left wondering why you are stuck with him.

Offering X manual skill points every 3rd level in increase by doing system is actually a nice idea. I'm only skeptical about predefined progressions.

By predefined progression, you mean automatic allocation of skill points for allies?

 

[ushas]

By predefined progression, you mean automatic allocation of skill points for allies?

Yes, it's all about automatic and predefined leveling of skills. I know perks and base stats aren't, but judging by your answers I should've clarified that in advance.

if you can put every single skill point for Elena Furey into firearms, you will max firearms far more quickly than your main character can max his primary combat skill. She will quickly outclass Sam in combat and you'll be left wondering why you are stuck with him.

...why skill points / lvl for allies can't be subject to balance

However, I understand it's more complicated and don't even insist on full manual (my preference != everybody's). Took the liberty to assume that increase by doing and allies one level under Sam are given, so the paragraph you hadn't cited is a proposal to make it work in the increase by doing way for allies too.

With each version tried to utilize them differently, each time stopped by the skill wall. Elena can throw grenades all day long, but she will always have the lowest Explosives skill. Giving an option to assign a few points every nth level helps, of course, so will see I guess. Only that I can already tell it won't change my perception.

Bounds and imposed limits can be fairly inspiring or frustrating, usually both. For some reason, giving allies initial distribution and personal perk falls into the first category for me, whereas given skill progression distinctly into the second. I dunno, does it make a sense?

 

[Timeslip]

However, I understand it's more complicated and don't even insist on full manual (my preference != everybody's). Took the liberty to assume that increase by doing and allies one level under Sam are given, so the paragraph you hadn't cited is a proposal to make it work in the increase by doing way for allies too.

So, if that's your preferred type of progression together with keeping party tied to player's character, why not simply weight what an ally did between levels and then divide and assign skills accordingly on the lvl up?

Didn't cover that bit, if I understand correctly, it comes with its own set of problems. See below. Worth keeping in mind that in the full release there will be at least twice as many allies, so you won't be bringing all allies, all the time.

Scenario 1:
Ally not used during this level up. Problem -> No data to base skill allocation on

Scenario 2:
Ally used in one encounter. Uses only primary combat skill. All skill points allocated to primary combat skill. Problem -> Ally outpaces main character in terms of combat proficiency. Balancing becomes more complex, because there are large variances in the effectiveness of characters, due to allocation of skill points based on limited use.

Scenario 3:
Ally used in one encounter. Gets damaged a lot, has to heal a lot. Majority of skill points allocated to medicine. Problem -> this character, who you didn't want to specialise in medicine has just dumped most of their skill points for this level into medicine.

Scenario 4:
Instead of weighting the skill allocation by the % of total skill uses, each character, like Sam get fixed skill gain every time they use a skill, and level up independently of him. Problem: allies that are under used, or not used at all, will fall behind. I'd like for you not to be restricted to using the same three allies all the time

With each version tried to utilize them differently, each time stopped by the skill wall. Elena can throw grenades all day long, but she will always have the lowest Explosives skill. Giving an option to assign a few points every nth level helps, of course, so will see I guess. Only that I can already tell it won't change my perception.

Bounds and imposed limits can be fairly inspiring or frustrating, usually both. For some reason, giving allies initial distribution and personal perk falls into the first category for me, whereas given skill progression distinctly into the second. I dunno, does it make a sense?

You'll be able to make Elena a pretty skilled explosives user with ~50 extra points, plus those assigned automatically.

Sorry to hear that. Certain restrictions come into play when characters don't level up with XP, but rather based on what they do. I understand what you mean though: Had I gone the XP route, full allocation would have been my choice. The allies you meet have certain strengths and weaknesses. If you try to build Ray Case and Elena Furey as snipers, with the same allocations, Elena will always be better. But this doesn't mean that Ray Case can't be an effective sniper, who's better able to deal with melee enemies who slip through.

For what it's worth, I dislike overly restrictive character development but think there's a fair bit of choice for building your party though stats (which also increase skills), perks, and allocation of some of the skills points. The final system isn't set in stone and I'll do my best to give the most choice possible. There are balancing constraints however, which if ignored, will adversely affect the game.

 

[ushas]

Didn't cover that bit, if I understand correctly, it comes with its own set of problems. See below.

Indeed. What doesn't though. Sorry, I just wasn't sure if not a part of misunderstanding too.

you won't be bringing all allies, all the time.
Scenario 1:
Ally not used during this level up. Problem -> No data to base skill allocation on

Mea culpa, I forgot. Look, I don't know how to make this one work right now, but it doesn't mean there isn't any solution. Well... unless not excluding the manual skill allocation

Scenario 2:
Ally used in one encounter. Uses only primary combat skill. All skill points allocated to primary combat skill. Problem -> Ally outpaces main character in terms of combat proficiency. Balancing becomes more complex, because there are large variances in the effectiveness of characters, due to allocation of skill points based on limited use.

Sam uses primarily non-combat skills, thus points allocated to non-combat skills. Problem -> Ally outpaces main character in terms of combat proficiency.

Scenario 3:
Ally used in one encounter. Gets damaged a lot, has to heal a lot. Majority of skill points allocated to medicine. Problem -> this character, who you didn't want to specialise in medicine has just dumped most of their skill points for this level into medicine.

Sam gets damaged a lot, has to heal a lot, thus majority of skill points allocated to medicine. Problem -> this character, who you didn't want to specialise in medicine has just dumped most of their skill points for this level into medicine.

--> Aren't we talking in those scenarios about intrinsic properties of the increase by doing system?

Anyway, trying to understand why outpacing in combat skills is problem, it's a team play after all. There is some difference in perception between the PC and an ally, of course, but not sure why Sam has to be the best.

Right now (v17) it's more like the opposite, if I specialize Sam in something he outperforms everybody and 6 points per 3 levels would hardly change that.

Scenario 4:
...

Ok. Assumed this too, a lot of things to consider...

Sorry to hear that.

Don't be. You may hear similar POV from others in the future anyway, better to be prepared.

Had I gone the XP route, full allocation would have been my choice. The allies you meet have certain strengths and weaknesses. If you try to build Ray Case and Elena Furey as snipers, with the same allocations, Elena will always be better. But this doesn't mean that Ray Case can't be an effective sniper, who's better able to deal with melee enemies who slip through.

Heh, isn't the full manual allocation for everybody (including Sam) actually the easiest to balance and tune? You can leave the counting to the next level as is (Sam practically gets XP by doing), just don't increase his skills, then give everybody something like 5 points per level to distribute at will. That way allies can be specialize in non-combat skills. Skill points per level are independent from leveling. And they all still differ in starting position, if not made insignificant.

There are balancing constraints however, which if ignored, will adversely affect the game.

Were not ignored, but omitted. There is a HUGE difference somewhere to be found... I think... just give me a minute...
Yeah, and you've also enemies to level up their skills on the opposite side.

 

[Timeslip]

Morning, Ushas

I think I didn't explain myself very well on scenario 1-3. Was referring to what would happen if the game was set up to automatically allocate ally skill points, based on what skills they used, if those samples where nil or small. This could easily happen in the full game, if you opt to not use an ally, or use them once over the course of a level up.

Sam uses primarily non-combat skills, thus points allocated to non-combat skills. Problem -> Ally outpaces main character in terms of combat proficiency.

That depends on how points are allocated to allies. If there is full manual allocation, and player allocates to primary combat skill, this will happen regardless of what Sam does. If you only use non combat skills for Sam, yes, he'll become less combat proficient, though given the combat orientated nature of the game, it will be difficult for a character who is always present to only use non combat skills. Back to original point, about extrapolating allly skill point allocation from a limited data sample: if the ally is used once over the course of the level up, and uses primary combat skill only. If allocation is automatic, based on skill use, and 100% of ally's skill use is primary combat skill, 100% of allocation will be primary combat skill.

Sam gets damaged a lot, has to heal a lot, thus majority of skill points allocated to medicine. Problem -> this character, who you didn't want to specialise in medicine has just dumped most of their skill points for this level into medicine.

Again, Sam will be present in every level, an ally may not. If Sam heals extensively in one level, he might gain 2-3 points out of ~10 in medicine. If an ally is used once, and only uses heal skill, due to limited sample, 100% of their next skill allocation will be medicine. The general problem of basing ally skill gain on their skill use, is that limited samples of skill use data will cause allocation which is not representative of how the player is using the character.

Heh, isn't the full manual allocation for everybody (including Sam) actually the easiest to balance and tune? You can leave the counting to the next level as is (Sam practically gets XP by doing), just don't increase his skills, then give everybody something like 5 points per level to distribute at will. That way allies can be specialize in non-combat skills. Skill points per level are independent from leveling. And they all still differ in starting position, if not made insignificant.

There are a lot of factors to consider - so it's difficult for me to say what is the easiest without spending a good part of a day making notes and calculations. If starting from scratch, this system could work, but it does involve throwing away Sam gaining skill directly from skill use. It's true that Sam levels up differently from allies, but it's not unique for RPG to treat player character progression differently from allies, and even if it was, I don't see much of a problem with it. Fallout 2 didn't allow for any modification of allies, yet it worked fine. Here, you have strong, but not absolute control over how your allies develop - I don't think you need to allocate every skill point for a system to give a lot of control to the player. In my view, the existing system isn't broken - there has been little to no negative feedback on it. I'd prefer to be honest, full stat point allocation is incredibly unlikely. Will look into the possibility of allocation a few of allies skill points per level, but it's more important for me to deliver a balanced game than one that lets you allocate every skill point.

 

[anvi]

Get back to work you!

 

[Timeslip]

Get back to work you!

Aye, aye cap'n!

 

[Alienman]

*whip-sound*

 

[Timeslip]

*whip-sound*

“But worst of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself” - Henry David Thoreau

 

[ERYFKRAD]

*whip-sound*

“But worst of all when you are the slave-driver of yourself” - Henry David Thoreau

Is this you at work man? This doesn't look like you at work man. Go Go Go!

 

[ushas]

Afternoon, Timeslip.

I think I didn't explain myself very well on scenario 1-3. Was referring to what would happen if the game was set up to automatically allocate ally skill points, based on what skills they used, if those samples where nil or small. This could easily happen in the full game, if you opt to not use an ally, or use them once over the course of a level up.

No you explained it well. Only that the points 2-3 themselves are practically inherited from increase by doing, for better or worse. The team balance can go into extremes many ways. If Sam uses mostly one combat skill between levels, easily outpaces others. We will perceive all allies less worthy, just because how efficient he is.

As for the point #1 and additional explanations - I agree, makes the whole idea of simple weighting of skills go out of the window. Was stupid. Oh... did you just make me to admit this for the second time?

It's true that Sam levels up differently from allies, but it's not unique for RPG to treat player character progression differently from allies, and even if it was, I don't see much of a problem with it. Fallout 2 didn't allow for any modification of allies, yet it worked fine. Here, you have strong, but not absolute control over how your allies develop - I don't think you need to allocate every skill point for a system to give a lot of control to the player. In my view, the existing system isn't broken - there has been little to no negative feedback on it.

Games with more means for the main character are common, probably even majority. I think the skill based approach with customization somewhere in the middle makes it somehow harder to accept. When sensing potential, I'm more critical. Funny, you mentioned Fallout 2, because... Fallout Tactics! Yeah, I know two steps back, but in my opinion in the party management it was definitely step forward. Would be happy to be proven otherwise though. As time goes by the more it seems to me about how implemented, sewn together. That's why being fan of iteration.

Yes tuning can do some magic. Giving a few points each level instead of once per 3 is possible. The ration can also shift, eg. 1/2 increase-by-doing & 1/2 manual for Sam, and 1/2 auto-level + 1/2 manual for allies, etc...

but it does involve throwing away Sam gaining skill directly from skill use

Yup, that was the secret plan all along...

I'd prefer to be honest, full stat point allocation is incredibly unlikely.

Me too, makes wasting time better targeted. Ok.

 

[ushas]

Get back to work you!

Go for a walk you!

 

[Timeslip]

Is this you at work man? This doesn't look like you at work man. Go Go Go!

Ok, ok. *Resentfully goes back to testing overwatch*

Yes tuning can do some magic. Giving a few points each level instead of once per 3 is possible. The ration can also shift, eg. 1/2 increase-by-doing & 1/2 manual for Sam, and 1/2 auto-level + 1/2 manual for allies, etc...

Think this is the most promising possibility. Have done initial calculations on stat points, will do more on skill points as soon as this update's out.

 

[anvi]

I wanna play this.

 

[Timeslip]

Cheers anvi and santino27 !

Just finishing up with replacing most of the existing portraits with hand drawn upgrades. Here's your friendly neighbourhood hitman:

 

[Abu Antar]

 

[ushas]

Nice!

A kind of forgot about this:

The good news is that the Gang AI make decisions in response to the player's actions, so attacking a gang intensively can change which upgrades they will purchase, which rackets they will buy, and their recruitment levels.

Sounds great!
Is this already playable? (in other words should I test that?)

Had forgotten about this, but had also added preliminary code for moving gang lieutenants around and setting up ambushes, the idea being if you bug a gang enough, and act predictably, they will send a lower level gang leader out to hunt you. Can't say for certain yet, but pretty sure this could be added in a relatively small amount of time. Curious to know if you think this would be a worthwhile addition?

Hmm... I think it is.

Some promising gameplay reactivity there. The gang AI above seems to fall into a subtle category, while this is sliding more towards straightforward. Retroactively, enhances ones paranoia, makes subtle things stand out, etc. But that's a wishful theory at this point. I simply dig the means that make them look like a thinking opponent, not just a predefined staircase of enemies with an über boss at the top.

Edit: Perhaps would go well with ArchAngel's idea of having a CI - if we have an informant inside the gang and he is a high enough rank to know about the ambush, can he give us a warning? Would tackle supposedly low-danger gang's territories less carelessly when expecting somebody is going after me...

 

[Timeslip]

First I heard of it

Nice!

A kind of forgot about this:

Sounds great!
Is this already playable? (in other words should I test that?)

The gang AI is in place, will need tweaking though. It might be a difficult thing to test, as they need to build up cash to buy, then make a decision on what to purchase next and this takes time. The decision making part takes each night (once you pass 00:00), so there should be info in the log file as to what's happening. You can rest loads if you just want the log info.

Hmm... I think it is.

Some promising gameplay reactivity there. The gang AI above seems to fall into a subtle category, while this is sliding more towards straightforward. Retroactively, enhances ones paranoia, makes subtle things stand out, etc. But that's a wishful theory at this point. I simply dig the means that make them look like a thinking opponent, not just a predefined staircase of enemies with an über boss at the top.

Edit: Perhaps would go well with ArchAngel's idea of having a CI - if we have an informant inside the gang and he is a high enough rank to know about the ambush, can he give us a warning? Would tackle supposedly low-danger gang's territories less carelessly when expecting somebody is going after me...

It shouldn't be a big job to work on triggering movement to protect a tile, and the moving part is taken care of. Think it will be fun, if it happens early on, you're pretty much going to have to flee. Will make the eventual confrontation on even terms more satisfying. I like the CI idea - will see how it goes over the next few updates. Speaking of which, version 18 is pretty close now - not sure if have enough steam left to finish it today, but tomorrow's likely.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Timeslip]

Thanks Infinitron

Here's a quick summary of the changes:

• Added Overwatch, AOO, and the ability to delay your character's turn
• Player characters can now get injured when they take a critical hit, if they fail a resilience check. Each injury reduces a specific stat, by one point per injury level. Injuries can be treated in 3 ways: waiting until healed, by visiting Doc (for a price), or by self treatment (requires surgery level, medicine skill & medical supplies)
• Added ally relationships: provides stat bonuses or penalties depending on relationship. Each ally has an attitude to killing. Relationship gain & loss is primarily based on whether you kill or incapacitate enemies, but also for healing allies (+) and allowing them to be incapacitated(-).
• Added reputation: affects the ending you will get, and the reaction of some NPCs you encounter. Determined by number of enemies you kill and outcome of skill checks in encounters.
• Added 2 new maps: Survivalist Training Facility & Church of the Final Exodus Chop Shop
• Bug fixes

 

[Timeslip]

Have been considering making some changes to armour, for a while, would like to get your thoughts. Currently, armour provides 100% of its max potential protection until it hits <50% condition. Then it provides 25% + condition%.

I'm considering giving armour slightly better protection %, and have that protection degrade in a linear fashion. So, at 50% condition, it gives 50% max potential protection, so damage to armour will have a more pronounced effect on its ability to absorb damage. The main reason I'd like to do this is to add a small, extra dimension to combat: the tactic of damaging armour to soften up targets.

Building on this, blunt weapons could do more armour damage, and could look at replacing the passive for blunt weapons (currently concussion) to give blunt attacks a chance to do even more armour damage, hence softening up hard targets for the team. Enemies don't have armour yet, but they will probably get it (if they have a high enough equipment level) in this update. Another effect of this would be further differentiation of melee weapon types (unarmed, bladed, blunt) which is something I think would be beneficial.

 

[Timeslip]

Here's the hand drawn illustration for Emilia De Soto, a Reiker City Police Lieutenant and one of Sam's allies in the crusade against crime in the city. If you have played the demo, you'll know they don't exactly get off to the best start...

On the development side, it's going pretty well. Updated character system, reinstated the weather system, fixed the majority of outstanding bugs. Going to spend a couple of hours today working on the Church of the Final Exodus base racket. It's taking a bit more work than most of the racket maps, but hopefully it will be finished on Monday.

 

[Abu Antar]

How's map variety? I'm not expecting a bazillion different tiles, but will we have to fight on the same map many times? I can understand if there are only a few map types for exteriors. How are interiors? Will they mostly look the same or will we see unique places?

 

[Timeslip]

Abu Antar - We've committed to a minimum of 45 maps on the Kickstarter (of which the churcher base is the 35th), but it's likely we'll over deliver on this to keep a decent ratio of maps to the number of tiles of each type. At present, maps are served up randomly, but later on, when you assault a tile type, it will randomly pick a map from the pool for that type. I can't see players finishing the game within 45 missions, so it's very likely you'll play a map more than once. There are a few things that shake this up, like randomised starting positions, different configurations, and some changes for encounters.

As to the tile types, there are currently Downtown, Slum, Chinatown, Industrial, and a few variants within these, such as graveyards. Planning to add a few subway maps, and a number of rural maps to enhance variety. There may be others, but just mentioning the ones I'm very sure about. Most of the maps are exterior - you will only fight indoors when assaulting an enemy racket, or in the subway. There's one map for each of the 8 rackets. You will only assault the main bases once per game, but will likely have to tackle the smaller rackets several times. Depending on time, may add alternate maps for these.

 

[Abu Antar]

Abu Antar - We've committed to a minimum of 45 maps on the Kickstarter (of which the churcher base is the 35th), but it's likely we'll over deliver on this to keep a decent ratio of maps to the number of tiles of each type. At present, maps are served up randomly, but later on, when you assault a tile type, it will randomly pick a map from the pool for that type. I can't see players finishing the game within 45 missions, so it's very likely you'll play a map more than once. There are a few things that shake this up, like randomised starting positions, different configurations, and some changes for encounters.

As to the tile types, there are currently Downtown, Slum, Chinatown, Industrial, and a few variants within these, such as graveyards. Planning to add a few subway maps, and a number of rural maps to enhance variety. There may be others, but just mentioning the ones I'm very sure about. Most of the maps are exterior - you will only fight indoors when assaulting an enemy racket, or in the subway. There's one map for each of the 8 rackets. You will only assault the main bases once per game, but will likely have to tackle the smaller rackets several times. Depending on time, may add alternate maps for these.

Cool. That's more than enough for me. I forgot that you had mentioned this. I follow so many games, it's hard to remember everything. I was expecting maybe 10-15 different map types. I have nothing to worry about, then.

One more question: Does the game include height differences and does this matter in some way? I always like when higher elevation means better hit chance for ranged units.