FauxWren

it's wren! avatar by, yknow, @aidan

  • she/her

36 | everything i speak in red is absolute and unwavering truth with no room for dispute. one time i fell asleep into a pizza


Mastodon
@wren@masto.posting.haus
Bluesky
@fauxwren.bsky.social
Twitter
twitter.com/Faux_Wren

MOOMANiBE
@MOOMANiBE

I probably have a much lengthier ramble in me about this at some point but

I firmly believe that the core building block of any good tactics game is The Recognized Opportunity

  • The enemies standing next to each other that you can catch in a plus-shaped AOE
  • The high ground you can use to snipe without return fire
  • The geo panel you can set off with just the right throw combo
  • The enemy just waiting to be pushed into the ocean
  • The extra distance that gives you just enough time to throw up that vital buff
  • The cover that has just that perfect line of sight on the hallway
  • The wall that makes the perfect entry point if you blow it up

I firmly believe that it is the job of the tactics game designer to create, not ""challenging"" systems but ones that Suggest Opportunities to the player. A good skill or job system immediately makes you think about what you could do with it, in isolation and in synergy. A good level design lets the player look for things they can take advantage of and maneuver around.

A tactics game lacking these elements often devolves into a simple slugfest where ganging up Just So is the only leverage you have. I have played more than my fair share of games like this. They are excruciatingly boring.

I would really recommend any newbie tactics games designers think hard about what opportunities your game is flagging. Think of the ways the games you like telegraph them - Differently-shaped attack radii, terrain features, conditional abilities, etc - what are they offering to the player? How often are they offering these different opportunity types and how do they vary? What about it is it interesting? What makes it feel worth it? What feels fun about it? Please don't just clone FFT's mechanics without considering why. I promise it is a recipe for tedium. FFT works very hard in its level design, enemy design, move and job design, to offer the player a lot of interesting opportunities, from the small and frequent AoE to the complex long-term metagame job combination.

To go on a tangent for a minute, the details matter on these things, too - Recently-ish I played a demo that featured positioning-based skills and chokepoints for player advantage. The game also gave everyone - enemies and players alike - colossal move radii, resulting in every single fight having a single initiation round and then everyone was immediately in each other's face. The result was that positioning became immediately irrelevant, because there was no opportunity cost for anything - precise moves had 100% uptime because repositioning every turn to make them effective was trivial, rendering weaker, less position-relevant moves pointless. If you had a strong ranged attack and a weak melee, it didn't particularly matter, because you could simply gain the necessary range every round. Why even use that other move? At the same time, defensive, wall, and trap-type skills became nearly irrelevant because circumventing them was trivial. There's no opportunity to get your weaker characters away from enemies when everyone can move the majority of the map in a single turn. With this single, simple-seeming choice of move radii, the developer seriously harmed their players' ability to spot, create, or take advantage of any of the opportunities the skillset offered.

Considering this kind of stuff is an absolute minimum to make a decent tactics game at this point. What are you offering, can players see it, and can players actually take advantage of it?


austin
@austin

It's a game largely built around positionality, knockback combos, knocking folks off of the level (or into hell pits opened by Ghost Rider) and other "opportunities," and it gives your characters a move distance of "anywhere they want to be on the level that isn't already occupied."

But (at least in the first 10 hours or so), you only get ONE raw movement action per turn. Not per character per turn. Per entire turn.

Now, there are other ways to move, too. Midnight Suns is a card game, with the player drawing a hand of cards from a deck comprised of a combination of each of their 3 hero's eight card mini-deck. Every attack card has built in movement, so if you use Blade's "cut a couple of people with my katana" attack, you target them and he'll automatically close distance from one to the next to do the cut. And the levels all have some environnmental tools: Crates to throw into enemies, dumpsters to kick as a big line-AOE projectile, electrical boxes that stun enemies thrown into them, etc. (Using these costs a different resource that also is spent to play your most powerful cards).

BUT again: You only get regular ass move. So, if you want to get on the right side of that dumpster so that you can kick it the right direction, or if you want Ghost Rider to line up in front of a trio of enemies so he can summon his low rider and slam through all of them at once, or if you want to move so your big AOE zone covers five distant enemies... well guess what, you have ONE move to do that with.

The result is that using that regular ass move feels SUBSTANTIAL. (Especially after you get an early game ability that lets you knock an enemy back simply by spending that move to run into someone).

Here's a good break down written by Mat Jones (who is @pillowfort on Twitter but I'm not sure if that's them here):


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @MOOMANiBE's post:

I can't help but wonder if the game in question was Triangle Strategy? It has a lot of really cool things in general and I've mostly really enjoyed it, but....

Great words! I love this kind of design. I also think that creating AI to be too smart can be a huge detriment to this, because they will avoid giving the player opportunistic circumstances completely, and you end up creating a min-max arms race.

I created the term AI: “Artificial Interesting” to kind of re-frame my approach to these kinds of designs.

Where the goal of AI is: play the smartest move…

The goal of “AI” is: play a good move, a surprising move, or a good move in a surprising way.

Surprising moves are great because their oddness draws the player’s attention, which invites them to take notice of the battlefield and search for the kinds of Opportunities you mention.

Oh god i love tactics games. I can think of AOE and state-changing mechanics and weird abilities until i turn blue. I think there is so much room for creativity and great new ideas in this genre

one of the things I've been enjoying about Arknights is that there's a character named Ifrit, whose gimmick is that she attacks the four squares in a line in front of her all at the same time, and she's one of the few units that can actually attack multiple squares at once with her basic attack. so if you have her, you basically subconsciously learn to look out for "Ifrit points" where you have enemies walking down a long corridor and a deployable square at the end you can drop her on to burn everything.

it's this constant dance of "this unit exists for this moment/this moment exists for this unit" thing with designing it all.

always just, like, making up a guy, seeing where that guy would be good at, where he'd be mid at, where he'd be bad at, making up guys who're good against that guy, making up guys who're bad against that guy, etc etc.

This is great stuff! I've been thinking about this sort of thing as I've been playing Tactics Ogre Reborn. I think it avoids some of those pitfalls because choosing to make units more powerful in one manner requires sacrificing something else, for example buffing armour to add +1 to move radius increases its weight which increases the time they have between turns.

The map design is quite clever too, since it can allow classes to play to their strengths, but also can be used for defensive options. Some spaces with high altitudes for archers to have extended range can also include walls to hide behind. I had some battles play out very differently just from starting in the same location.

I'd still consider myself a novice with this genre, but it's really fascinating seeing how these sorts of games go about things. I'd have written more here but I feel that this might be too big a comment already. (I did write a post about Tactics Ogre level design that has a little more)

I would also be interested to read the "lengthier ramble" if you do post it.

This feels like the thesis behind Into the Breach. The whole game is built on controlling units with limited movement and attacks that move the opponents, so you’re constantly forced to find the “Recognized Opportunity”.

I've been playing triangle strategy and it's also doing fun things with this! Having so many types of moves, plus lots of flanking, critical & elevation mechanics makes it feel like there's a real box of tricks... although am still q near the start!

And this was my main bugbear with FE:3H which i did mostly love, right? the hard difficulty is a slugfest where you can breeze through with half a thought, and maddening i found myself having to constantly reset things as you'd get overrun so so easily as most enemies could 2-shot most characters, even though it did have some fun stuff like the AoE attacks and the big enemies

I think this applies to any game with a decent-sized possibility space! Action games need this just as much as tactics games do, but its exclusion is much more obvious in slower-paced stuff since that's the absolute core of the gameplay. This is a real good writeup on it, I've never seen it put so well before!

Someone else mentioned it already but I wanna bring up Into the Breach, which is absolutely chock-full of this, instantly cementing it as my #1 tactics game of all time. The board is small and your moves seem very limited, but if you look hard enough, there's almost always a super clever combination that makes you feel like an absolute genius.

How do you feel about Fell Seal? I've always wanted to play it but I never got around to it and I dunno if it falls into this trap

This also sort of expresses a distinction amongst turn-based battle-centric strategy games(by which i mean games like battle academy, panzer general, unity of command, etc) between "feels like a strategy game" and "feels like a puzzle game". Its always been hard to discern what players mean by that, but I think its essentially "Do I get presented with a lot of opportunities to express agency and make cool plays and so theres a lot of ways things can play out, or is there only 1-2 brute force solutions for this situation and anything else that comes to mind is a dead end?" Some of the "puzzle" ones can devolve into just going down the line of troops doing slightly more efficient attacks in a perfect way in a big slugfest in order to barely come out on top.

I have mixed feelings about Fell Seal

I intend to finish it, I'm midway through the game right now, but generally I feel like its design trends a little toooo heavy on "stack ALLLL the buffs all the time" very specifically at the expense of other things. Like it's not doing nothing but I think it maybe leans particularly hard on that one aspect when it's not a very strategically interesting action. I would say it's a like 7.5/10 in the genre for me with the caveat that I have very high standards for FFTlikes (A 10/10 would be Horizon's Gate)

Interesting! I really appreciate you sharing your opinion. I do love when buffs are very present and engaging gameplay but a buff-heavy meta can be very bad, yeah. There's interesting buff-based gameplay and uninteresting buff-based gameplay. Ill also look into Horizon's gate, thank you!

The criticism of this tactics demo is very similar to a criticism I frequently make of Dark Souls 3 in comparison to the other games in the series. Both enemy and player mobility are tuned so high that worrying about range and positioning often feels pointless, effectively flattening one of the aspects of those games' combat I find most interesting.

I think looking at every ability added through the lens of "how will people seek opportunities to use this" is also an interesting approach -- this is, I think, why "balance" and "difficulty", maligned and slippery concepts, are worth thinking about in detail, because these are what tend to push players to look for opportunities like this. If the same approach always works, or if you don't need to worry about overall impact or effectiveness, these opportunities become irrelevant.

in reply to @austin's post:

It's also odd that in cases where you can't set anything up, it's painful to see that "1 Move" and nothing truly effective to use it on.

Also, the hell that is "I have a hand full of two heroes, and the one I don't have cards for is sitting in a murder circle but I need the move to set up another play" is fascinating.