Chronic Logic

I really like the different color ideas, very unique and interesting! I agree that the dragon does seem a bit pricey for $550.

I talked to Gabe about the diplomat graphic when it first came out. He was telling me that many reviewers are complaining that the graphics are bad.

When I first started playing Zatikon, I will also admit that I thought the graphics were cheesy. But now that I am used to them, I love the look of the game.

I think the most important graphical thing to keep in mind is that all units should be consistent. It doesn't look good to have a mix of styles.

If the Zatikon developers are looking to improve the graphics, it would be nice if they overhauled all the units at one time, instead of only changing the look of new units. If they do modernize all the units, it would be nice to have the option of switching back to the old graphics for people who prefer the old-school look.

I think that is too confusing. The most straight-forward explanation is that it protects you from the next spell/skill/attack that your enemy hits you with, regardless of which square was actually targeted.

Under the system Kran proposed I guarantee that there will be many "bug" reports of strange aegis behavior, such as units taking damage when they have the aegis, and still having the aegis it afterwards (as in the case of a fireball-like effect).

Yesterday I encountered several bugs (before the server update).

2 vs 2 game
When we first tried, only 2 of the 4 players actually connected to the game. The other two players locked up and had to restart Zatikon.
We had the same problem when we finished a game; two of the players never saw that the game was over until they restarted.

Knight:
I attacked and killed a Knight with a Hydra. Then I killed the dismounted knight (still with the Hydra on the same turn). When the dismounted knight was killed, another dismounted knight took its place. Next turn when I killed it, it died normally.

Yeah, it might be better for the sergeant to be 100 instead of 50. It is a really nice  piece to have if you are using mages.

Sloth, I think you did a fine job of making a unique army and for that I commend you. It doesn't sound like it is unbalancing the game to me, it just sounds like people who love mages should think twice before they play you!

That being said, the sheer amount of variety in Zatikon is why I think tournaments and not single matches should be the true measure of skill. In single matches, it is easy to confuse and frustrate an opponent by cycling through different armies each match. In a tournament format (if you are unsure what I am taking about, please read my tournament topic) your chosen army has to withstand several matches with the same player, which allows you and your opponent to react to each others' strategies. Furthermore, your army will have to beat more than one player to win. I think that is a much better way of determining who is the best player.

There has been a lot of talk about some units being unfair or some strategies being unfair or Zatikon being reduced to a glorified game of rock, scissors, paper.

I have a solution.

Tournaments, not single games should be the way to win the most prestige and awards. Let me explain...

The problem with random games is that you can get a "bum" army where you have no chance to win against your opponent. Instant lose is no fun, especially when you have no control over it. In the same way, it is possible to be beaten by "gimmick" armies in constructed that rely on the opponent not having a certain thing to win.

Example: An army of all heretics (since this seems to be a popular complaint) can destroy many "balanced" armies if you have no idea it is coming. However, woe to the idiot who plays heretics twice in a row...

If your opponent has several "gimmick" armies and switched them out every game, it basically boils down to what many people are afraid of -- rock, scissor, paper. With a tournament, you can eliminate that threat completely.

Basic format of a tourney is this: People can choose to play the tournament or not (there will be a deadline to sign up though). If they do, they have to select 1500 points worth of units which will be the only units they can play with for the duration of the tournament. Although you can only play with 1000 points at a time, you will need a sideboard to fine-tune your approach between games.

Once the sign up deadline has passed, players are assigned opponents randomly and are given a certain amount of time (say 2-3 days) to play a best-out-of-three match with their opponent. Players who win advance to the next round (and are given a new deadline) until one player remains (think March Madness). It would probably be good to play more than 3 games during the later stages of the tournament. Maybe 5 games for the final four and 7 games for the championship.

When the tournament is over, players should be awarded for participation and winning. Perhaps a gold for the winner, silver for runner-up and bronze for the top 4.

Some idea for formats (to keep things lively):
Basic Units: Only soldiers, archers, horsemen and commanders
Anything goes: All units
No Expansion: Only units that come with the original game. (So that demo people can play too)
Current Expansion: Units from original + units from newest expansion.
Commons: No units that cost more than 1700 (or 2500 etc -- whatever works best)
2v2: Two players sign up together in any of the above formats.

Tournaments would be the best way to judge which players are good at constructing well-balanced armies that can be replayed against multiple opponents. It would also be a good test of player skill, and great fun for everyone.

Mongolian: Playing lots of games should be encouraged though, don't you think? When I used to play Unreal Tournament 2003 competitively, ranking was based on your average performance per game. So every game, I had to perform as good or better than my average (which was high) or my ranking would drop. After a while, it became more stressful than fun to play. And if I quit playing for a while and was a bit rusty, my ranking would fall off because I wasn't good enough to maintain my performance. So eventually, I just quit playing ranked games to preserve my rank.

Also, if ranking is based purely on average and the top player quits, it might be impossible to overtake him. Especially if the game gets more competitive over time and it becomes harder to find "easy" opponents.

The real question I have is: should ranking really matter? It seems to me that ranking right now does not accurately reflect player ability and it is a turn off to new players who are intimidated by top players.

I would rather see players awarded experience for playing games and winning (and maybe even losing to high-level players). Then have a level system and display the player levels so rank is more vague.

Finally, have tournaments every now and again and give players awards for winning them. I think that would really improve the game a lot and hopefully make it more fun and less intimidating for everyone. Of course, it would take a lot of work for the developers to implement. But I can dream, right

Please don't add anything to the picture of the normal units (or if you do, please make it configurable so I can turn it off). I like the clean look of the units now and it never bothered me to click on a unit if I am unfamiliar with it.

That being said, it would be nice to know that the super units are different somehow. Some of the abilities are extremely powerful (the arcane warrior comes to mind) and it would be nice to know which ones you need to be worried about at a glance.

I agree with minime, there are plenty of ways to counter a heretic. It's not a solid rock-scissor-paper thing -- you have lots and lots of options. Why all the heretic hate?

I think people should worry more about making proactive armies instead of reactive armies. Yes, it's true: you cannot possibly make a deck that can deal with every single threat. So just make a good deck that you think can win and be prepared to lose sometimes. My two cents.

I love assassins, they are a great unit. I'm also a huge fan of the war elephant.

I think trading is a low priority. It won't add much to the game since you can already buy and sell. I would rather see the developers come up with an additional game mode or two.

Quote
"Archangels" would be members of the second choir of angels.  There are supposed to be more than one of them.

I stand corrected. But still, you have to admit it's an interesting mechanic.

Wakrob, I really like the idea of being immune to possession, that's a very cool idea. I like the idea of the angel being something other than 550... 500 would be a neat value to have a unit in my opinion.

An idea I had was make it unique -- there can only be one archangel in play on the board at a time. It makes sense thematically (who ever heard of two archangels?) and would be an interesting way of stopping mimics and changelings.

I think some of the appeal of Zatikon is the feeling of discovering something new. Zatikon isn't chess, and that's a good thing. I like playing with pieces that not everyone knows well. I think part of the fun is finding a combination or using a piece in a way that your opponent hasn't yet seen.

In a sense, the inherent complexity of Zatikon makes players more reactive -- you find out that your guys can't move, and then you discover the chieftain in the corner. Or you place your pieces 5 spaces from the warlock and then find out that the sergeant can extend the range to 6. But is that so bad? In games like Magic the Gathering, no one knows every card or realizes all the implications of it (until a killer combo destroyer you), and that's part of the fun. I like the complexity of Zatikon, it helps level the playing field since no one knows everything about the game. If I were to play Bobby Fischer in chess, I would have absolutely no chance of winning. If I were to play a Zatikon master and I developed a tricky combo, I might be able to compete. That is the appeal of Zatikon to me.

And sure, someone can fool you with a cheap trick, but odds are if you play the same player again, you'll be able to figure it out. And I like the fact that 6 months from now, Zatikon will be a different game. That makes it new and fun.

That being said, it might be a good idea for the developers to appeal to people more like mongolian with the "chess mode" or filtered modes that eliminate rare pieces, as has been discussed before. It would also be nice if the rules were a bit more clear in some cases. But I think that will come with time, just like how Magic the Gathering's rules eventually stabilized to be quite clear.

glunkr