Kerensky wrote:If by dropping the ball you mean finding a topic the community is almost universally united on in agreement, stimulation discussion, and creating a good size thread of interesting and creative ideas for consideration, I think it's something I should be happy to do more often.
No, I find the discussion very worthwhile. It's the way you set up the vote. In short: Please don't interpret the probably overwhelming "no - keep randomness" vote to mean "the current level of randomness is okay".
If you're told you'll be getting a 1-6 outcome in your favor, then actually getting a 0-5 or 2-4 etc is all good and well. But if there's a chance you will get a 7-2 outcome (essentially devastating your attacking unit) then that needs to be flagged up beforehand. And the best way to handle it would be to
1) use "rugged defense" to make it clear something unexpected has happened
2) make sure the player had information at his fingertips telling him there was a real risk of this happening, essentially warning him not to trust the combat predictor.
Saying "you could have looked at the detailed statistics screen" is not an acceptable excuse - it simply isn't a good user interface that expects users to go through hoops like that.
The game needs refinement:
1) reserve truly wild outcomes to exceptional results only (like "rugged defense"). Make sure they actually occur on others (like for "ambush" which currently is not nearly dangerous enough).
2) ensure the quick combat predictor gives sufficient indication an exceptional result might happen. THEN it's okay to expect the player to delve into the detailed statistics (or to simply make another suppressing attack and see if that makes the risk goes away).
There's nothing wrong with "uncertainties of battle". As long as you allow the player to make those calls himself. Getting a 1-7 outcome is totally fine, if the player knew of the risks. But you don't do that right now, not unless you bring up details screens all the time, or have considerable experience playing the game.
Knowing those risks is currently far too obscured, especially for casual players, and that is the real issue at hand.
Not categorically removing randomness. Randomness is essential.
