KickStarter Vigilantes: neo-noir, turn based tactical RPG

[Timeslip]

In principle, I agree with your notion in general, and think unlocking AOO would be viable. However, if I understand it for the high AOO specialization itself you could just need 1 perk. All the other stats that play a role here, like chance to hit (Close combat skill) and Initiative (Fleetness), fulfill other functions and/or are byproducts of other stats being high, so will reach those on various builds regardless of the AOO mechanic. I wouldn't call that overspecialization exactly, unless the perk requires something off. So the question is more whether it's a binary.

AOO hasn't received a lot of playtesting so far, so will need some game time, but one perk sounds like a good place to start. Picking this perk will make the character stronger in AOO, but won't reduce them to just being good at AOO. A generalist melee fighter will naturally emphasize prowess, fleetness, toughness and close combat skill, and will be able to evade and deliver melee damage, soak more damage. Other perk choices will allow them to become stronger in additional areas, including things like inflicting status effects, free attacks. There will be quite a few more perks coming in future updates, and there's some natural synergy between Close Combat and Explosives, so it wouldn't be a huge push to make them able to reliably able to deliver explosive damage.

There could be a nice synergy between the taunt ability (unlocked through perk) and AOO enhancing perk. If taunt is used, increasing aggression, enemies will focus on the taunter. If these are melee enemies, some will close in (ignoring squishier gunslinger allies). When taunt wears off, some of these enemies may re-evaluate their priorities, and become AOO targets. May not work so well against the gun happy survivalists though.

Edit: Personally, I would like to see if it's possible to have both. Fallout shows it is, you can imagine that as two systems. Difference between characters with Slayer perk (100% HtH criticals) and those without is substantial. So it may as well work as Timeslip describes, giving an upper hand to fast CC characters, but in the same time why not offer 100% AOO via the perk (requirement high inititative)? In a game with limited number of perks points it is some commitment, after all.

That's a clever compromise. It will take a bit of playtesting to see how it works balance wise, but it sounds like it won't be so powerful as to be game breaking as a mid-high level perk. Another possibility could be each character with this AOO perk could have a boost to general AOO chance, 1-2 guaranteed AOO hits per turn, and then fall back on the forumula to determine the chance of subsequent attacks. Concerning AOO, Overwatch, and the currently being worked on ability to delay turn, I think each offers a net gain to the tactical complexity of Vigilantes. Given the widely varying preferences of TB players, it's pretty much impossible for the implementation of each to be to everyone's liking. It's always good to get a different perspective on how a feature should work, and better still if a good compromise can result from the debate.

 

[ArchAngel]

I don't mind if there are feats or way to get to 100% chance to do AoO as long as it is not a default ability for all characters like in new Xcom. As long as characters need to invest something to do this, it will be OK. Unless other choices are all inferior to giving this feat to everyone, then we are at square one or even worse, you just introduced a feat tax.

 

[Timeslip]

as long as it is not a default ability for all characters like in new Xcom. As long as characters need to invest something to do this, it will be OK. Unless other choices are all inferior to giving this feat to everyone, then we are at square one or even worse, you just introduced a feat tax.

How the perk will affect AOO is unclear at the moment, but characters won't have 100% chance to trigger AOO by default.

 

[ArchAngel]

as long as it is not a default ability for all characters like in new Xcom. As long as characters need to invest something to do this, it will be OK. Unless other choices are all inferior to giving this feat to everyone, then we are at square one or even worse, you just introduced a feat tax.

How the perk will affect AOO is unclear at the moment, but characters won't have 100% chance to trigger AOO by default.

If I understood this right, this is for melee combat only. How will ranged combat overwatch work?

 

[Timeslip]

Yeah, AOO gives a chance for a free melee attack if an adjacent enemy moves away. Characters with a ranged weapon equipped can still make AOO - they will swap to hand to hand.

Overwatch is available for both melee and ranged. Overwatch requires enough AP and (ammo - ranged) to activate. You can set a minimum CTH to trigger for ranged attacks. When an enemy enters an adjacent tile (melee) or enters a tile with LOS & which offers a greater CTH than specified, the ranged overwatch is triggered. If multiple characters are in OW, they will stop firing once the enemy is out of commission.

 

[ArchAngel]

Yeah, AOO gives a chance for a free melee attack if an adjacent enemy moves away. Characters with a ranged weapon equipped can still make AOO - they will swap to hand to hand.

Overwatch is available for both melee and ranged. Overwatch requires enough AP and (ammo - ranged) to activate. You can set a minimum CTH to trigger for ranged attacks. When an enemy enters an adjacent tile (melee) or enters a tile with LOS & which offers a greater CTH than specified, the ranged overwatch is triggered. If multiple characters are in OW, they will stop firing once the enemy is out of commission.

Ok so Overwatch suffers from the problem that everyone is good at it from start and it will be a superior option to end every turn with Overwatch?!
Find good cover, kill everyone and overwatch knowing you will always get a first shot vs new enemies.

This is not how real life works, or SWAT busting into houses with armed enemies would never get first shot (no don't always flashbang everyone inside)

 

[Timeslip]

There will be a penalty, so it's an inferior choice than just attacking if you already have LOS. Also, enemy firing doesn't trigger, so if you overwatch instead of attempting to disable enemies, you could be granting them extra attacks.

 

[ArchAngel]

There will be a penalty, so it's an inferior choice than just attacking if you already have LOS.

That is how it already works in nuXcom, it didn't stop people from overwatch camping when they 100% of time get first shot.

EDIT: You might give it a huge penalty and players need to get a feat to remove part of the penalty. In nuXcom penalty was about the same as shooting at enemies behind low cover so it didn't matter much.
But I still like it more if it was some check to see how acts first and then overwatch has no penalty. People in RL don't shoot worse just because they waited for someone to appear but it will affect their reaction and aim time which would translate into more AP needed to do same shot in overwatch that you would do normally. And chance enemy gets to react first.

 

[Timeslip]

I'm not a fan of overwatch creep either, so will be working against setting everyone on overwatch being a viable tactic. I think overwatch will have more of a niche role in Vigilantes, like setting up an ambush (which will be dependent on positioning and map) and intercepting incoming characters as a melee fighter. A big difference is that in XCom, you pretty much choose when to agro enemies, so it's easy to overwatch most of your team and send one soldier out to agro. In Vigilantes, you know where the enemies are, they know where you are, and from turn 1, they are on your case. You will likely have LOS to at least some enemies, so by overwatching all the time, you're just incurring a CTH penalty, and possibly giving enemies free attacks.

It's unclear right now whether these difference will change the dynamic sufficiently to avoid overwatch creep. If it doesn't, I'll work on it. If I'm misunderstanding or missing any angles here, do let me know!

 

[ArchAngel]

I'm not a fan of overwatch creep either, so will be working against setting everyone on overwatch being a viable tactic. I think overwatch will have more of a niche role in Vigilantes, like setting up an ambush (which will be dependent on positioning and map) and intercepting incoming characters as a melee fighter. A big difference is that in XCom, you pretty much choose when to agro enemies, so it's easy to overwatch most of your team and send one soldier out to agro. In Vigilantes, you know where the enemies are, they know where you are, and from turn 1, they are on your case. You will likely have LOS to at least some enemies, so by overwatching all the time, you're just incurring a CTH penalty, and possibly giving enemies free attacks.

It's unclear right now whether these difference will change the dynamic sufficiently to avoid overwatch creep. If it doesn't, I'll work on it. If I'm misunderstanding or missing any angles here, do let me know!

It all depends on enemy AI as well. If you go behind a corner where they cannot see you will they try to rush you immediately?
Tactics like this didn't work in old UFO because:
#1 Alien AI would tell them to circle around or something or even go hide
#2 There was a chance they would run around corner, get to act first and shoot you first and only then you got to reaction fire them if you lived through it

But if your enemies will just run after characters in a straight line then overwatch will always be good with a AP system. Shoot as many times as you can, move outside of sight and set your guy to overwatch. If you know you will always shoot first and that they will always follow there is no downside to it. They cannot attack until they can get around the corner and you get the first shot.

 

[Timeslip]

Melee characters will take shortest route. Ranged characters can shoot at characters on corners. If the enemy is further into corner, they might take a direct route, or try to flank around to set up a shot.

I'm open to the possibility of a more nuanced overwatch system, dependent on how well the existing system works, and the possibilty of adding it without undermining stability and balance. If current overwatch is lacking, Ushas outlined a pretty interesting system - not sure if it's technically possible, but will see how it goes.

 

[ushas]

So we can just nag enough?

Now seriously, Timeslip probably means the AP speed comparison here. It case you want to discuss that:
(I take no credit, not from my head)

In old x-com there is difference between move then shoot and shoot then move. The former puts you into worse position at the shooting time as you already spent some TUs, thus having lower reaction score. Another example is UFO:AI with their reaction fire contest, see ufopedia.

So similar AP comparison mechanic:
Let's reserve some AP amount for overwatch (can simply remember the mode cost). Next it's an enemy's turn.
-- Till his AP spent is lower than our reserved -> he acts still faster.
-- Once his AP spent is higher than our AP reserved -> reaction fire!
Note1: Obviously, makes snap earlier to proc, but if an enemy is coming to us - using normal mode will proc when he is more closer (-> differs in CTH).
Note2: No need to evaluate costly conditions like cth or distance until the acting unit spends more AP than is the lowest AP reserved on the opposite side.

Snap with a pistol costs 4AP, Normal 5AP (better CTH). Doesn't matter what an enemy does.

So if we've reserved Snap, an opponent has several options:
1) If he doesn't enter the trigger zone or manages to get out within 4AP cost, he can act freely for the rest of the turn without triggering RF. (still handy, because we a kind of repelled him, depends on the AI)
2) If he Snap-shoots at the beginning (4AP) then he fires first, but any other action he is about to do afterwards will trigger RF first, before he can do it.
3) If he first moves say 1 tile and then wants to Snap-shoot (spending 5AP in total) we get RF before he shots.
4) Eventually he can decide to spend only 4AP at max in his turn (eg. point 2) in order not to trigger RF. (useful too, because we shortened his turn)
...

Obviously, it's slightly different to X-COM and no further stats play a role (eg. Reactions). I dunno if some influence of Initiatives or perks would improve this or not. Anyway, adds some timing options, but it's something different than Timeslip has here, different pros and cons. Would need further forethought.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Perhaps replace overwatch with the interrupt mechanic of silent storm and jagged alliance?

 

[ushas]

Having an option to do more with reserved AP than just attacking would be great, but the problem is when and how often it triggers. Isn't it like when an unit spots the other in S2 and JA?

Edit: Doesn't really matter to me if it's called interrupt or overwatch, at the end of the day.

 

[Timeslip]

So we can just nag enough?

Now seriously, Timeslip probably means the AP speed comparison here. It case you want to discuss that:
(I take no credit, not from my head)


Snap with a pistol costs 4AP, Normal 5AP (better CTH). Doesn't matter what an enemy does.

So if we've reserved Snap, an opponent has several options:
1) If he doesn't enter the trigger zone or manages to get out within 4AP cost, he can act freely for the rest of the turn without triggering RF. (still handy, because we a kind of repelled him, depends on the AI)
2) If he Snap-shoots at the beginning (4AP) then he fires first, but any other action he is about to do afterwards will trigger RF first, before he can do it.
3) If he first moves say 1 tile and then wants to Snap-shoot (spending 5AP in total) we get RF before he shots.
4) Eventually he can decide to spend only 4AP at max in his turn (eg. point 2) in order not to trigger RF. (useful too, because we shortened his turn)
...

Obviously, it's slightly different to X-COM and no further stats play a role (eg. Reactions). I dunno if some influence of Initiatives or perks would improve this or not. Anyway, adds some timing options, but it's something different than Timeslip has here, different pros and cons. Would need further forethought.

Perhaps replace overwatch with the interrupt mechanic of silent storm and jagged alliance?

*Starts sobbing*

Delaying turn is now prototyped. Hasn't received much testing yet, but it's very likely at this point.

 

[Zanzoken]

I'm not a fan of overwatch creep either, so will be working against setting everyone on overwatch being a viable tactic. I think overwatch will have more of a niche role in Vigilantes, like setting up an ambush (which will be dependent on positioning and map) and intercepting incoming characters as a melee fighter.

One tactic I used some in nu-XCOM was the Overwatch + Flush combo for enemies who are in high cover but too far to flank. Your sniper readies the shot + your assault forces the bad guy to move = clear target.

I don't know if that's applicable to your game, and tbh it's probably not even that good of a tactic. I am mainly just trying to think of ways to use Overwatch that aren't creeping along.

But fwiw I think it is satisfying as a player when you learn new ways to use abilities together. If I was designing a game like this I would probably strive to create a lot of that.

 

[ushas]

But fwiw I think it is satisfying as a player when you learn new ways to use abilities together.

It surely is.

Spoiler

Because of ones creativity invested, I think all sort of such things are, indeed, very satisfying. Those out-of-turn abilities are great candidates. Despite of the discussion (personally having opposite worries than ArchAngel), I can imagine having fun using overwatch, well... even when less optimal

Delaying turn is now prototyped. Hasn't received much testing yet, but it's very likely at this point.

It will be alright. A few micro-issues at most.

Btw. so going to test that melee taunt+overwatch+AOO combination... Now I realize, haven't used the perk yet. Is it like Tag - to be applied on individual enemies, or does it have some AOE?

 

[Timeslip]

One tactic I used some in nu-XCOM was the Overwatch + Flush combo for enemies who are in high cover but too far to flank. Your sniper readies the shot + your assault forces the bad guy to move = clear target.

I don't know if that's applicable to your game, and tbh it's probably not even that good of a tactic. I am mainly just trying to think of ways to use Overwatch that aren't creeping along.

But fwiw I think it is satisfying as a player when you learn new ways to use abilities together. If I was designing a game like this I would probably strive to create a lot of that.

Cheers for posting. I'm with you on that. There are a number of abilities which can be unlocked through perks, which provide abilities which can be activated in combat. I'm very interested in adding more of these, and especially in abilities which can be combined for interesting combinations. The taunt one mentioned is one emerging combo, and you can also use controlled breathing (+10 ranged CTH this turn/-20 next) to your benefit if you need to reload/heal in the next turn, and also combine it with adrenaline for 50% more AP in current turn, but skip next. More abilities will be added in coming updates, and while It's always fun when ability combinations never intended just organically emerge, I'll look at ways of combining different abilities.

It surely is.

Spoiler

Because of ones creativity invested, I think all sort of such things are, indeed, very satisfying. Those out-of-turn abilities are great candidates. Despite of the discussion (personally having opposite worries than ArchAngel), I can imagine having fun using overwatch, well... even when less optimal


It will be alright. A few micro-issues at most.

Fingers crossed. A lot of mechanical changes in this update, but it should be well settled in V19

Btw. so going to test that melee taunt+overwatch+AOO combination... Now I realize, haven't used the perk yet. Is it like Tag - to be applied on individual enemies, or does it have some AOE?

Taunt increases aggression for all enemies - that's not a guarantee that they will attack, but it makes attacks against the taunt character more appealing. If memory serves it's a high modifier in current turn, a reduced one in the next turn, and back to normal in the next.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Timeslip]

Cheers Infinitron

If anyone has any views on the changes we're looking at, would be good to hear from you.

 

[ushas]

In short:
- slower character progression but bigger impact of perks
- less numerous but relatively stronger enemies in regular encounters
- we may as well get bigger battle variety thanks to that? (~ small ufo vs. base attack)

Sounds to me.

 

[Timeslip]

Yep, that's 8 minutes nicely distilled into 3 sentences! Would also add:

- more control over ally development, due to being able to allocate some of their skill points

There will be bigger encounters too, for things like bosses, facilities, and heavily defended tiles, but it's better for pacing if these aren't the norm.

 

[ushas]

- more control over ally development, due to being able to allocate some of their skill points

That I'm a little bit confused about.

Right now Sam rises skills by doing, and he lvls up with # of skill points increased or so. Whereas allies simply auto-level their skills, being one level below Sam.

If Sam's progression by doing is the same, wouldn't it be logical, for allies, to let us to distribute the same number of skill points it took Sam to rise the lvl?

What you said sounds like you want to keep [a part of] the auto-leveling in. Or does it mean you're canceling Sam's increase by doing part?

In the former case, I would be worried that it makes nobody happy. Better let us choose between having full control over character progression and opting into auto-leveling in the options menu.

 

[Timeslip]

That I'm a little bit confused about.
If Sam's progression by doing is the same, wouldn't it be logical, for allies, to let us to distribute the same number of skill points it took Sam to rise the lvl?

Considered it, but don't think it's viable. Full control over ally skill point allocation would allow you to max a skill (provisionally 150) by around level 10, and have incredibly powerful allies too early in the game. Sam on the other hand at level 10, might have 80-90 skill points in primary combat skill, and be weak in comparison. You don't have complete control over how Sam's skills increase, either - sure you can use melee skill to increase melee, ranged to increase ranged, but you will alsohave to do surveillance, crafting, trading, etc, and you learn a little from allies using skills.

What you said sounds like you want to keep [a part of] the auto-leveling in. Or does it mean you're canceling Sam's increase by doing part?

Yes, auto levelling will account for around 90% of allies skill points. No, will keep the level up of skills by doing. The skill points will be a small additional bonus, and will be received by Sam and allies.

In the former case, I would be worried that it makes nobody happy. Better let us choose between having full control over character progression and opting into auto-leveling in the options menu.

Not sure I follow completely - I don't really understand why someone would be unhappy about allocating a few skill points every few turns - seems like a fairly minor change. The party strength will be much higher if people opt to assign all skill points manually than if they opt for auto assign. This will make balancing more difficult. Also, people who opt to manually assign could have to click up to 100 times every time the party levels up also.

 

[ushas]

Well, for one I'm unhappy to have party members railroaded into builds in a skill-based game. For the flip-flop that a bit of control would have to be like, you know, close-to, almost, exactly... full.

Spoiler

Ok, got me, I hate mindless clicking. Cannot decide what is worse

Putting aside that I don't see the whole picture nor your intentions, what you said also depends how the numbers are set. 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.

Anyway, increase by doing is still control, they would at least increase skills we use them for. I mean you already track what they do, no? (as it rises Sam's skills when they are doing something). 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?

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.