Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

Making battles more of a challenge

Add a coin flip at start of battles giving the ai a little more of a chance to win, I myself would like battles that start with myself taking second turn. It just seems the battles are a little to simple for victories.Ive only been playing little over a year and games been out much longer than this,so therefore I don’t ever see a player vs player mode live, but if there was this option who would get first turn? That’s why I posted this idea

2 Likes

:rofl:
10 characters

3 Likes

IMHO, I know it is not a very popular idea, but IMHO, this game should have some live PvP mode similar to the Arena with certain set number of weapons. Quite a lot of weapons should be excluded for obvious reasons. IDK why developers are reluctant to put it out for such a long time. All it needs is a timer and some basic connectivity/matchmaking mechanics.

The said they won’t add live PVP because the backend codebase and infrastructure wasn’t set up with that mechanic in mind.

5 Likes

I’m not suggesting live player vs player, just was using as a example to who would go first if it did exist, So why not give the AI a opportunity to go first sometimes

1 Like

Here’s how I feel about challenge: we can’t get it without fundamentally changing the game.

Free turns, doomskulls, explosions, conversions, and generators make the game faster. The faster it is, the less challenging it is. The more stuff you can do to the opponent without them responding, the less likely their response will bother you at all.

If we take those away, games will get longer, but you’ll make more choices. And since each choice has a smaller impact on the game, individual choices about important moves matter more. It opens the door to strategies that respond to what the opponent is doing, which is generally what people who want a “harder” game prefer.

I see an analogy in the various levels of Magic: the Gathering play:

  • If no rules about what cards can be used apply, there are decks that consistently win the game before the opponent has a turn.
  • With some restrictions, the “Vintage” and “Legacy” formats let players still use old broken cards, but in ways that allow for more fun. Still, many matches resolve quickly as the decks are designed to accelerate to some kind of explosive play that cannot be countered. In these formats, most players can see what decks are on the table and tell you a very accurate win % expectation.
  • “Modern” and “Standard” each have more restrictions than the last. Standard, with the most restrictions, can waver between “explosive power plays” and “grindy technical deathmarches” depending on how the cards are rotating.

I think as long as I can build a team that 75% gets 2-3 moves every turn and can do 500+ skull damage every 2-3 moves we’re not going to see “challenge” out of GoW. To get more strategic play, we have to be in a state where “a plan” takes several turns to execute and your opponent can disrupt it.

2 Likes

Cool user name and I see what you’re saying, I was a huge fan of MTG, had over 500 thousand cards at one point, now almost 50 got rid of them all, I just think the battles have gotten easier and not due to level either, Developers need to put some challenge back into GOW , coin toss was just a idea, developers could always make it a gameplay mode under games and set restrictions…I don’t know though,spent money on the game over past year since I started,just don’t want to grow bored of GOW an I see that slowly happening for me and level 7 vip in a year,but thanks for the input

1 Like

I think a Defence mode where you always start second/on the back foot would be cool!

Tagging @Earnham because he’s always saying the game should be made harder.

1 Like

Oh please can the AI kill my delve team before I match a gem??

2 Likes

It would be different that’s for sure. Would see sentinel as the #1 class probably.

While synchronous multiplayer would be super, super cool, it is way, way, way, way beyond the developer’s capabilities to implement.

A speed stat has been suggested by other players, including Tacet. That is, a stat each unit has that is summed and the team with the highest total speed stat goes first. This would be a cool way to balance troops that are otherwise terrible. For example, it would make sense thematically for rogues to have a high speed stat and rogues are terrible so it would make sense gameplay-wise for them to be have high speed stats.

Sorry, not buying this type of bs arguments from the developers. It is no more complex than a basic chess/backgammon interface without an AI. All is needed is to securely pass synchronous moves through a server. A skilled middle school student can program it these days. IMO, they simply don’t want it for fear of something, not sure what specifically. Toxicity and abuse is bred by ladders, rewards and bragging rights, not by some simple, absolutely autonomous game mode. It would be less toxic than guild wars most certainly.

1 Like

Since you are not buying it, what are you gonna do?

I’m not applying that they should have that for every type of battle/events, Just add another game play mode under games, I wouldn’t like it either if ever battle I opt in I had a 50/50 chance of starting

1 Like

I think you are confusing me with somebody else, I’m just some random player of this game, nothing more than that. So, I express my opinion and am content with just doing that. To further explain the reasoning behind my POV might be warranted. I sometimes want some challenge not based on stats. The AI and game core system in this game is providing challenge only in the case of inflated stats of the AI which makes it exceedingly random. While it is usually more or less fine and working OKish for the majority, it does lack the analytical component. Which may be provided by designing better AI or by playing another human opponent on even grounds in real time. As development of the AI may be costly and is indeed out of the option for the current small developer team, giving players some simple ground for a match up is not costly, not difficult, and well worth the effort for retention of casual players who might just pop in daily to get a couple of PvPs for fun while being frustrated with other less friendly and more grindy components. So, while developers cannot and should not make any money out of this type of mode, or make it gem-dependent, it might help with retention IMO.

The game server sends the ‘teams’ to the client (your pc) at the start of a match. The client sends results back to server at end of match. There is no communication in between, and server GoW is totally ignorant of how to play the game. The state of the current game and everything about it is only on the client. Makes running the game cheap $$$ because the server database is just inventory and not game states.

However clever use of the same seed and salt in RNG can provide amazing synchronization. That’s how emulated arcade games handle 2 player over the internet.