Ideas for Warlocks-like games

[vilhazarog]

Talisien had some interesting ideas for new warlocks-like games, I thought we should start a separate thread on this and keep the 'Variant spells' thread for new spells.

"Wizards" (to coin a phrase) use exclusively elemental magic. To counter a fire spell, you must have a defensive water spell; to counter an air spell, a defensive earth spell; etc. (If this is too restricting, then perhaps each element can counter two others, e.g. its opposite and itself). Elements could be weighted to different functions; fire would have more damage spells, water more healing spells, earth more defensive spells, air more spells of trickery and misdirection. I'd gladly make up a preliminary spellbook to play with like this...

Alternatively, there are two or three different kinds of wizards, each with their own spellbooks, but who use the same gestures; e.g. white wizards, necromancers, etc. This would lead to much more work to implement, but could be interesting.

Another option: the summoners do not themselves partake in combat, but weave spells from the safety of their towers. Each summoner has a great monster that does battle on his or her behalf, and his magic is devoted to enhancing its capabilities while tearing down the magical wards on his opponent's beast. Disruptions would be more indirect, forcing an opponent not to cast particular kinds of spells at a particular target rather than influencing spellflow directly. Similarly, wizards would not see one another's spellflow, merely the effects from it; you'd need most long spells to contain shorter "tell" sub-spell strings, much as shield and magic missile are tells during Invisibility in Warlocks. Monsters could be identical, or could have different attributes, though the latter would need to be carefully balanced.

I'm sure there are even more interesting possibilities out there. We'd need to play the new spellbook quite a lot to iron out game balance issues, but we could end up with a game every bit as good and addictive as Warlocks itself when we're done.

[vilhazarog]

I really like the idea of wizards having different spellbooks (white magic, black magic, elemental magic, etc.) and I've thought about that myself.

I don't think implementation is nearly as much work as balancing the spellbooks would be. But it sounds fun.

The summoners in towers game sounds like an easier game than Warlocks. You could concentrate on combos (spellflow) without having to accomidate your opponents disruptions into it. I don't know if that's necessarily bad, but I think it's less difficult.

I'd like to see a variant of warlocks that was based around teamplay. Some things I'd like to see in such a game would be teams or factions competing against each other, with hierarchies within each team, the best players rising to the top of their faction. Contests should have multple objectives and scoring based on those objectives, leaders can determine the strategy for obtaining those objectives and assigning players to carry them out... more than that I haven't thought out. But it sounds cool to me, you don't see many turn based strategy games based on team play, they usually all boil down to every man for himself.

[Slartucker]

The monster variant sounds fun, but also completely lacking in depth. Easier, yes, in fact practically without strategy. Warlocks minus disruptions = ... well, Pig's profile, basically. I realize you'd replace them with these target-protecting entities you mention, but... neh.

The elemental variant sounds really... bad. My dislike is intuitive and probably based on the number of other games I have seen that have employed a similar mechanic, where there are different classes of spells/robots/whatever and certain classes counter certain other classes, either diametrically or in a circular pattern, that have sucked.

Perhaps you could tweak it just right and it would be fun, but I'm pretty skeptical.

The teamplay variant sounds interesting, and also very different. How could it work, if it's still gesture-based?

[taliesin]

admin said:

The monster variant sounds fun, but also completely lacking in depth. Easier, yes, in fact practically without strategy. Warlocks minus disruptions = ... well, Pig's profile, basically. I realize you'd replace them with these target-protecting entities you mention, but... neh.

Mmm. I think that would depend a lot on implementation. I think it would be possible to make it require a fairly sophisticated strategy still, but you're probably right in that it would possibly need to be more complex than Warlocks to achieve similar strategic depth.

admin said:

The elemental variant sounds really... bad. My dislike is intuitive and probably based on the number of other games I have seen that have employed a similar mechanic, where there are different classes of spells/robots/whatever and certain classes counter certain other classes, either diametrically or in a circular pattern, that have sucked.

Perhaps you could tweak it just right and it would be fun, but I'm pretty skeptical.

Again, I guess it would complicate things rather. On the other hand, Warlocks gets more interesting when you start looking at defence options that stretch beyond Counterspell and Shield. Mmm. Actually, it's probably better to have spells that have the widest possible applicability, you're right... it might be possible to make a decent game this way, but it would probably be much harder to do.

admin said:

The teamplay variant sounds interesting, and also very different. How could it work, if it's still gesture-based?

As described, I don't know if it's workable. The best players rising to the top of their team? How will you stop those who make sacrifices for the team slipping down the hierarchy?

Warlocks team play tends to be frustrating in my experience. Either you are allowed to talk outside the team, in which case people tend to defer to the strategist with the best reputation; or you aren't, and you're always battling the communication gap and can only hope your ally will do what you expect. It might be a lot better if people discussed their tactics openly as they played, but mostly, out of fear of their opponents finding out and thwarting them, they don't. Maybe if people had stronger game plans going into melee, too, I don't know...

I really like the idea of wizards having different spellbooks (white magic, black magic, elemental magic, etc.) and I've thought about that myself.

I don't think implementation is nearly as much work as balancing the spellbooks would be. But it sounds fun.

Yes, balancing the spellbooks could be a hassle. Start small, I think, and work up. We could all submit a class or two with just a dozen spells, decide which are the best ones, and refine from there.

Taliesin

[Slartucker]

taliesin said:

Warlocks team play tends to be frustrating in my experience. Either you are allowed to talk outside the team, in which case people tend to defer to the strategist with the best reputation; or you aren't, and you're always battling the communication gap and can only hope your ally will do what you expect.

Even when you are allowed to talk outside the team, there are often communication problems anyway.

The problem, IMHO, is that everyone seems to assume the best way to divide up melee teams is to stick the "best" player with the "worst" player, and so on, often decided by ELO. This is a disaster, however, if any communication whatsoever is allowed. When there is a significant discrepancy in player strength, you end up with either a team that can't work together and sabotages itself accidentally, or (more likely) with essentially the "better" player playing four hands.

It works much better to pair players who are of similar abilities. That way, they are likely to have a fruitful collaboration, each pointing out things every so often that the other neglected to see. They may even learn from each other.

...So the better players will usually beat the weaker players. So what? It's not like a weak player is going to get any bragging rights out of saying "the master warlock who told me what to do every turn beat the master warlock who told you what to do every turn!"

[vilhazarog]

Hey, this has given me an idea for a teamplay variant for Warlocks. Currently teamplay melee matches are just who can eliminate the other team first. What if instead we had a list of goals to accomplish and assign points to each kind of goal. The goals should be things that are tough to do or require teamwork to do. Possible examples: Make a spell permanent, or have three giants on the board, etc, I dunno. A score keeper keeps track of the scoring, and the match ends when all players from a team are eliminated or a previously decided upon round number is reached. Thus, if your team is not ahead in points, you have to keep the other team alive or you lose! A surrender should be worth a large amount of points for the opposing team, where maybe a death is not worth any... this is to prevent teams from surrendering as soon as they are ahead and to prevent the game to devolving right back into first team to eliminate the other team wins. There could also be other things that give the opposing team points to discourge certain spells (Storms?) or strategies. Private communication should be allowed.

The trick is coming up with a goal list that is fun and challenging to try for and also fun to attempt to prevent.... and diverse enough that everyone on the team can contribute somehow.

What do you guys think, sound interesting?

[yaron]

I like the multiple spell books.

I appreciate that we need to limit the initial number of spells per book, but we run the risk of diluting the spell space, so to speak. By this I mean that from most hand positions, there will only be one reasonable way to continue, making for boring, predictable games. As a remedy, I suggest using less gestures, thus "condensing" the spells back to normal. I think 4 gestures (no claps) should be about right for 10+ spells. Of course, these will then be harder to expand to full spell books, but you can't have everything.

Another problem is that many defensive spells are specifically tailored to certain attacks. Shield and Protection are almost useless against opponents who don't summon, but spell books who don't have them wouldn't last long against opponents who do have summoning capability. Not having remove enchantment (or something similar) will hurt against poisoners, etc. We'll probably only know how much of a problem this is when we have some spell book ideas on the table.

To get things started, here's an outline for a possible spell book:

ENCHANTER

Enchanters can only (or mainly) cast disruptions. Some of them could be simple one-turn-gesture-restrictors like in the normal spell book, but others could affect the opponent for multiple turns, affect choice of spells and targets, and other effects that you're all welcome to suggest. Gesture-restrictions would probably cancel each other, but not other effects (so you could force a gesture with one hand, while forcing the spell/target with another).

Some non-disruptions that might fit, too:
• Delay Effect: lets the enchanter fire repeated disruptions, building opponent spells from scratch. This, together with multi-turn disruptions, is necessary for the enchanter to deal with opponents who just won't do anything. The enchanter's version of Delay should probably be more practical (gesture-wise) than normal delay, and might even allow multiple banked spells.
• Charm Monster: fits the theme, and is the only way to deal with existing monsters, in the absence of damage.
• Blindness: fits the theme, allows the setup of high profile combos.
• Fork: choose one spell cast within the next 3 turns, and cast it again, one turn later, with your choice of target. You can duplicate your own disruptions, or your opponents' spells, or the spells you made them cast at themselves… It doesn't really fit the theme, but I like the mechanic.
• Anything anyone cares to suggest.

Normally, enchanters would win with jiujitsu tactics – making opponents cast spells at themselves. Another option is charming the opponent into surrendering, as with regular Charm Person. Perhaps there should be a way of charming surrender that does not depend on the opponent taking a risk, but that should be hard to pull – it's basically an FoD. Perfectionist that I am, I'd rather see such a way emerge out of combinations of regular disruptions/delays/forks/what-have-you, than make a specific spell for it.

Looking forward to your comments (and spell books...),

Yaron

[Slartucker]

Vilhazarog: I like that idea. However, you'd need to find a way to deal with the possibility of killing off just some of the opposing team. Also, if someone wants to end the game because they're ahead and you making surrendering unattractive, they will still be able to kill themselves. Not that hard to do

Yaron: My main comment is that I think instead of "Enchanter" that class should be called "Blue Control Player"

[Slartucker]

Also, one way to deal with spells like shield and remove enchantment that may be universally necessary is to have a (very small) common spellbook that all mages can access. D&D did something similar to ensure that all mages could cast read magic and detect magic.

The other way to deal with it is to make sure that every class has an accessible version of them. These could be slightly different -- an Enchanter might have Repulse instead of Shield -- or they can be bundled effects -- a Fire Mage might have a Cleansing Flame spell that both does damage and destroys enchantments.

[Slartucker]

Here's another class idea.

TIME AND SPACE MAGE
(This is a Japanese concept; a "Jikuu" Mage)

Potential spells:
Phase Door -- replaces Shield
Displacement -- like Protection
Teleport -- effectively destroys a monster, or can target self for an alternate way of surrendering (won't work on opponent)
Telekinesis -- drops the target from a great height, dealing damage; also stops physical attacks that turn
Aging -- enchantment, does nothing at first, effects increase after certain numbers of turns: preventing stabs, preventing a certain gesture, stops you from casting two spells at once, finally kills you.
Vacuum -- some kind of direct attack spell
Haste
Slow
Time Stop
Fast Forward
A few summoning spells

To make up for the lack of disruptions, haste, slow, time stop, and fast forward would presumably be shorter, more easily weavable spells.

[vilhazarog]

I must be missing something I guess... but how is it easy to kill yourself if your opponent is preventing it? You cast a damage spell on yourself, he counters it. You stab yourself, he shields you. I suppose the main problem would be that perhaps if one team gets ahead it gives them too much of an advantage because you don't know if they are going to end the game by killing you or themselves. One way to counter this is to give points to the other team every time you damage yourself or someone on your team.

As far as your first point, perhaps the match should end the moment anyone on either team dies or surrenders?

[vilhazarog]

As far as the specialized spellbooks, actually I envisioned going about it the opposite way. Start with the standard spellbook, and slowly remove and add spells to specialize it and work out the kinks. So maybe in the beginning, the only difference between a regular warlock and a white warlock is that the white warlock has his cause wounds spells removed but has two new healing/protective spells. The idea being that any spellbook should be as strong and diverse as any other, just differently themed. Also, you could always have spells that are functionally equivilent but just differently described. Summon Skeleton instead of Summon Goblin could still just result in a 1 hp/1 damage monster, just to fill out the spellbook.

I'm not at all sure that condensing the gestures and a short spellbook would work, but you guys would know better than I. Does seem a much risky way to go though.

[Slartucker]

Well, the game doesn't have to be perfectly balanced the first time we play it. What worries me is that using as big a spellbook as the regular one means that there is a LOT to keep track of. If a lot of things are different, it becomes a real headache to deal with. If not much is different, then the variant isn't very interesting, and will just be a less well-balanced version of the regular game.

Also, rewriting spellbooks entirely leaves more room for flavor.

[k]

I have to say I really dislike the idea of having 2 different spellbooks facing each other in a duel. For some reason I have always played symetrical games because of their purity. Warlocks is even more symetrical than Chess and most other board games because both orders are submitted at the same time. To me, the essence of Warlocks lies here and nowhere else, I certainly wouldn't play it if it was "bastardised" by various spellbooks. Keep it simple !

You know I was a very (very) competitive player in the first person shooter world and what stroke me playing the top folks was how much different our playstyles were assuming we were playing exactly the same game. Setting up rigid classes is creating artificial deepness, while having one spellbook that allows different playstyles to show up is not only true deepness, but also purity and simplicity.

Warlocks certainly needs an evolution, my experience taught me that conservatism is the first killer of online games, as more and more players get bored because ultimately the best strategies have all been discovered and settled in the stone. From what I've understood, this is what happened with the ParaFF/FoD combo.

But from Waving Hands to Warlocks has been accomplished a path that gave the game it's maturity, and you would just deny this if you were on starting something such radical : new classes, new themes etc. Veterans players should try to improve what we currently have, wich took so much time and experience to build, rather than basically trying to immediatly reach the "game of your dreams". New gestures, new spellbooks, new themes... How much time I've seen this in the past. Better try to give the existing game a direction, rather than starting the "perfect game" from scatch.

[Slartucker]

I don't really disagree with you, k. However: the problem is that Warlocks doesn't really allow different play styles.

Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration. But let's take a look at the top players, the so-called master warlocks:

There are definitely small differences in our use of strategy (Tchichi and I are both very conservative, while ExDeath and Prioli were not) and in certain of our tactical choices (ExDeath opened S/S, and nobody else did). But overall, the actual choices made by top players in any given situation are astoundingly identical, even among players who do not seem similar on the surface.

This is not the result of stagnation. Counted among the master warlocks are some of the most creative players the game has seen, who have constantly tried out new ways of doing things. But eventually, the game space becomes claustrophobic.

Now, with the exception of ParaFOD, Waving Hands is ingeniously designed and balanced to avoid this kind of stagnation. The complicated ways in which spellflow interacts with itself and with all the other elements of the game create a play environment which is tactically rich -- really rich. But as you start to learn how the game works, you start filling in this environment; the better you get, and the more sophisticated the underlying rules of good play you construct, the smaller it becomes.

The only space there TRULY is for "style" is at those rare moments when initiative is exactly balanced and things can go in any direction. In most matchups, this only happens in the opening. And yet, the vast majority of Warlocks players refuse this opportunity and open D/P after D/P because it is a no-brainer.