Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by psychoticstorm, Aug 6, 2019.
It does make sense fluff wise.
What, you mean "minimize interaction with the enemy while on your covert mission to accomplish X, Y, Z, rather than slaughter your enemy while ignoring your designated objectives"? Now, that's just crazy talk, who would want to play that... next you'll say there's also an entire genre of electronic games in the same vein... something to do with Snakes?
Nope. Why should the mission fail because you wiped the enemy out before completing the objective? A lot of these missions are on limited time frames, I'm sure, but the time frame doesn't get moved up because you eliminated all the resistance.
Those aren't wargames.
It depends on the stakes, if the team on the ground is eliminated their controllers/handlers might write it off as a lost cause and go scorched earth. I've always taken the game ending in Retreat as the metaphorical taking off and nuking from orbit.
Then why doesn't that happen anytime a player is about to lose? "All my specialists who can complete the mission are dead, time to blow this joint."
Because it's also a game conceit to stop you tabling your opponent turn 1 and then playing Solitaire with the objectives, which is also a negative play experience.
You can already do that in some missions. Generally the result of someone not playing defense well.
Honestly the stolen victory with retreat is a worse thing for the game than "My opponent cannot into defense so I alphaed him pretty hard."
Last I checked it was my opponent who was supposed to stop me from tabling him.
If two teams are on a secret black ops mission and one team ceases to exist. It's fairly obvious the other team will tip off authorities and make it a not so secret mission.
You seem to forget we're not playing a game simulating total war. These factions are supposed to be at peace. It's a very bad look being caught killing people, stealing things and trespassing.
Just losing your specialists doesn't mean they've lost the chance to steal from the other guys. But once most of the strike team is dead it's a different story.
They could do that anyway. They could do that if they *won*.
Nope. I've read the setting material.
Actually, I play mostly Combined Army, so usually, yeah, it is total war.
By that logic, wiping out the enemy means you should have *more* time - no witnesses.
Nah, you're making up a narrative reason to support a poorly conceived rubber banding mechanic.
Ah, yeah. I guess that explains Yuan Yuans. Nothing screams subtle like a fat man dropping from the sky with a cup'o'noodles.
You haven't actually provided any good reason why retreat is bad other than "I won cause I shot him more"
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what an objective is.
This is where it comes down to game design philosophy, should all missions be winnable by taking only a single TO Specialist and designing the rest of your list to table the opponent? Or do you force players to directly engage with the mission objectives. This is obviously simplifying the argument and different people will naturally have different opinions across the spectrum.
It's clear that CB fall on the side that "shoot first, press buttons later" is an undesirable outcome in some missions.
It's because it de-emphasizes interaction between the players, and allows for situations where a player who has a justly achieved dominant position gets less turns to complete the game than their opponent, and they might lose because of it.
No. No, I do not; I don't think the game should arbitrarily prevent players from completing the objective just because they set the table first. You should have your three turns to do it.
So wait, totally removing a players ability to play the game is "emphasising player interaction"? Right.
Ok so manipulating an abstract game mechanic "you have three turns" so you can spend 70% of your time doing something completely unrelated to whatever you're there to do is better game design than a different game mechanic intended to stop you doing that.
Again, you're shoehorning killing the enemy as a game objective and complaining when you get punished for it.
That's basic game design, you shouldn't win a game if you spend most of it not doing what the mission wants you to. You haven't explained why that's bad?
Edit: I'm totally onboard for improving retreat. But people arguing to remove it just want a game about shooting which occasionally involves pressing buttons.
I'm actually not really sure how I feel about the retreat mechanic as a whole...
However, we must assume the goal is to make completing the objectives a higher priority than killing the opponent (barring the few missions where that is the objective...). Whether you agree with that idea or not, CB seems to be very much for it.
Uh, yeah. If a player can get the job done with a single specialist then more power to 'em.
The problem is Corvus' mission design. Pressing a button or completing an objective shouldn't just hand you a couple arbitrary points. It should have a real impact on the battlefield. Give a player a reward for chasing after the objective, something to compete with the all-kill lists. Make a button change the terrain by summoning a storm, or making a certain area a no-go zone, or hand out heavy weapons. That's why I like the Panoply mission.
The point is not to punish a player for doing well. The system should incentivize the correct plays with tangible rewards.
Yeah and look, I agree retreat isn't elegant at doing that. But so far there hasn't been a lot of good ideas that achieve a similar goal.
No thanks. I like how the missions work.
Maybe you should design your own missions if you'd like them to be more about killing your enemies with objectives being " other ways to kill your enemy"
If you fail to prioritize the objective and kill the enemy instead, knowing Retreat! might be triggered, there's nothing arbitrary about losing the opportunity to complete the objective. A mechanic doing what it was fundamentally designed to and doing it well is kind of the point...