Re: Solo vs. multiplayer, campaigns, and difficulty

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@gmx.net>]

On 05.03.2004 20:19, Patrick Forhan wrote:
> Difficulty:  Generally, I'd say the maps are satisfying enough, offering a
> challenge but are not unbeatable.  But you do have to know all the advanced
> techniques, how units behave, and how the whole crystal and factory thing
> works.

That's how it should be, really. If you can win by just randomly shuffling
your units around someone who knows his trade wins hands down, gagged, and
blindfolded, and there's no point in playing at all.

> The first thing I'd recommend is making a tutorial campaign dedicated to one or
> two tactics per map.  Have tiny (10x10?) maps that each illustrate a point,
> such as wedging, use of artillary or container units, moving crystals, etc.  If
> possible, make each scenario unwinnable without using these techniques.
> 
> That way, everyone will be coming into 'real' maps with the same footing.  I'm
> guessing doing this is actually possible with Crimson Fields' current state.

A tutorial campaign would really be nice. I've been having this on my todo list
for quite some time but never actually started due to time constraints. Anybody
else interested in tackling this? Many tasks should already be possible with
what we have, but probably a few more event types would be needed or helpful,
and we can implement them when the need arises.

> As to variable difficulty, it would be ideal to just adjust some global setting,
> such as changing the range of random rolls (ie, if random numbers normally
> range from 1 - 100, with higher being better, make the range 20-100), or giving
> things double or half hit points.  That way, the setting affects the difficulty
> regardless of setup.

This approach doesn't include any map-tweaking which is nice. I don't think it
will work, though. Consider, for example, a map like Anthill. You could turn it
into a "hard" map simply be taking away one or maybe both Artillery units.
However, the impact of this is _much_ lower than given all Imperial units +50%
hit points or so. You might now propose to use only +10% or so. This will probably
not achieve the desired effect on other maps where units are more evenly
distributed. I believe that tweaking for difficulty should be done considering
the indivdual map characteristics even if that means a bit more work.

> One thing that slightly annoys me about current campaigns is that I still must
> remember the password after I've unlocked a level.  Could levels become
> unlocked either for a single player (then you'd need player profiles) or for
> the whole game?

This would be an alternative to passwords. It would also mean that those
maps will be locked again after a reinstall or so. Both approaches have
pros and cons, I can live with both. If most people would like to get rid
of the passwords we can do that.

> On a related note, there are times where I want to play, but most of the levels
> are too big to just jump into.  I sometimes find myself playing the first map
> of the campaign just so I can have a quick resolution.  But that gets boring
> quickly, with the limited selection of units.

Hm, I had rather expected the opposite ("we need bigger maps"). But in this case,
generalisation is simple and still true: We need more maps, regardless of size ;-)

> You could look at this as a call for smaller/tighter maps, but what about random
> maps, or random units on existing maps?  Just allocate a certain amount of
> units to each side.  In fact, perhaps the user could use such a feature to
> modify difficulty...

A random map generator would be another nice addition although it requires
some thought. I expect unit and shop placement to be tricky. If done badly,
they can easily make an otherwise nice map very much unplayable. This is not
an area I'm going to invest my time in (not anytime soon, anyway).

Jens