Chucklefish corruption rant

So some people made clear their complaints about Wargroove's design with various problems. Namely, clear literal game-breaking glitches, excessive tutorial, poor unit balance, bad UI and speed, caricatures for characters, atrocious AI, and of course soulless gameplay that involves a definite amount of copy-and-paste from Advance Wars 1, a game made some 17-18 years back, except making things worse somehow.

One user making complaints against the game, a user named Monty Sigurdson, decided to tear at RNG S-Ranks being a thing, what with how S-Ranking tends to rely on the AI moving so specifically for no reason whatsoever, that they end up being Luck Based Missions. People were basically telling him to, what else, "git gud" but Monty Sigurdson stood his ground, so I ended up providing my response.

"Monty Sigurdson, thank you for making a point against S-Ranks being reliant on RNG. Although for reference, I do recommend you say you've been "Eldoon'd" instead of using the term "salty", because anger shaming isn't a good thing anyway. "Eldoon'd" by contrast would be referring to the character from Apollo Justice who served noodles that use water implied to be soaked with crow poop, which is exactly what Stop Having Fun Guys provide to begin with.

Of course, pop culture terminology is the least of one's concerns.

What I want to point out, is that the best way to tell if a level is well designed if the ranking strategy has sound depth. Case in point: Shipyards Ablaze in Battalion Wars 2 has its Perfect S-Rank expect the player to command snipe with the manual Fighter, which makes it clear to the player that the manual Fighter can manage utility against grounded opposition. It becomes a solid level for that, actually, even if the depth could be put in question. But then again, you can still have depth in an otherwise generally shallow level, as Operation POW in the first Battalion Wars proves by giving your forces in the last portion some Missile Vets, who can just be kept on Standby by somebody just interested in clearing the level and not wanting to toy with an unfamiliar unit, while a veteran player can bring them along to snipe the Gunships off and end the level faster.

Contrast to Rivals AC, because ho boy do I have complaints about it that would take me all day to tear at, so I'll link to my video of it if you're interested in looking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoP1L8evwDc
"

And yes, I did link to my Rivals AC video. Thing is, I was making a point about how Rivals AC is still an example of what not to do with a level. It has RNG *MERE SURVIVAL* among other issues ending with a dragged out Leap Of Faith, and is ultimately screeching at players to get online information or go through insane trial-and-error to have even the smallest idea of how to tackle it. Talking about Rivals AC, which already asks for inappropriate jokes the way it plays out, isn't advertising, it's calling out bad level design with clear evidence. And if you're going to have a Spiritual Successor to Advance Wars, you can't ignore Rivals AC's infamy, not when whoisthisgit did an episode about the NORMAL version of Rivals for his Worst Levels Ever series, and especially not when vanilla TV Tropes gives the Nintendo Wars series its own page for That One Level, and Rivals still stands out on that page.

By the way, the post goes on to showcase further reason why I'd talk about Rivals AC as an awful level, namely to point out about a contrasting level that's better, even if that's relative. Just to further punctuate my points against Rivals AC is the second part of my post, which I didn't snapshot propertly, but I can read off of nevertheless:


"And no, I'm not saying that Battalion Wars is without its stinkers, but I find between both BWs, Bonus Mission 3 in the first game is the worst level there--and it's still better than Rivals AC, as I explain in the description [URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asS-x4TA9Oc]here[/URL]. (Bloody censor problems.)

That's the important question for a game's design especially with single player: are the garbage levels both uncommon especially compared to the good levels, and *STILL* capable of having strong enough redeeming qualities? If the answer is yes, you have a keeper, guaranteed.

Wargroove....well, you're pointing out the S-Ranks rely on AI Roulette. I tore at BW1's Bonus Mission 3 for that as you saw. Case closed."

And for reference, if you're wondering what AI Roulette I'm talking about with BW1's Bonus Mission 3, it's that the Bomber targets one of the Heavy Tanks, and by all indications, the selected one is random, though it could actually be the one that starts as the center of the 3 if the datamining is any indication, it's just that the battle starts off so chaotic, but don't quote me on that, especially when the expected glorified Heavy Tank solo for most of the level is still its own idiocy.

However, Bonus Mission 3 actually takes the dogfighting portion that was Rivals AC's sole redeeming quality and provides it with more entertaining depth. Rivals AC's dogfighting was just a guessing game of what plane Eagle is moving in. Bonus Mission 3's involves juggling between choosing whether you handle a given target or command a supporting Fighter to take care of it for you. That's my point, that what is still the worst level in both Battalion Wars games being better than something that becomes VERY subjective about that title for the Advance Wars games especially with Kanbei's Error AC, is a good sign for Battalion Wars' design.

Of course, that I would have good points doesn't change that somehow the post gets classifed as "advertising" and OUTRIGHT DELETED, which even happened after I made my next post:

""MasterKnightDH, please do not shill your own unrelated content while looking for an excuse to tie it in."
Please do not make up rules to make excuses either to support bad design or to censor me, or perhaps both. I would expect that from somebody who looks like this:
https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/pitbullsheep.jpg
"
And the link goes to the page image for the trope Bitch In Sheep's Clothing, because that's exactly what the accuser is: a case of a serpent looking like an innocent flower.

"And if my "shilling" is arbitrarily "against the rules" anyway, then I'm in my every damn right to call out the rules for its own sake after bureaucracy's already very, VERY long track record of shunning creativity even without that load, let alone some active biases. Tackle my active argument or you'll only prove you're just dodging the subject."

And I bolded that last part because the false-reporter was already wanting to do just that. Here's the thing: the topic is already complaints about busted design. The false-reporter, already an assigned beta tester, should not be ignoring valid complaints made by REGLAR, PAYING CUSTOMERS LIKE MONTY SIGURDSON. Deleting my post is nothing more than tossing out relevant comparisons to past games, which is an absolute subscription to the very same bad design the topic is calling out.

The rest of the post is mostly me being a devil's advocate toward Monty's own response--and by the way, if you notice that I got a notification for a Like for a post calling somebody a case of Nice Character Mean Actor, it's in reference to Sean Schemmel, the dub voice actor of Goku from Dragon Ball, over what Schemmel did to aggravate the already unstable situation with Vic Mignogna, not that FUNimation isn't already hypocritical when they're apathetic to the very moral of the ending of Dragon Ball Super--something I'd want to talk about more often but spoilers are a thing. Let me tell you if you know what I'm talking about: in the given position, I'd take the high road. You can't claim I wouldn't at least make it top priority, not when reason to do otherwise has its definite issues as it is, and certainly not when I'd be, oh right, fully aware of the given obstacles.

My final post on the topic is responding to another user who thinks that ranking being graded only by time is good design, something that the Advance Wars series itself increasingly realized is wrong.

"See, that's the problem with ranking being determined only by time: it's shallow as sin. You're assuming players shouldn't care about strategy or even about their troops. That tells players to indulge in behaviors that would rightfully ask for mutinies and court-martials. Contrast to rewarding troop care, which can still be speedrun, only it shows some freaking strength with compassion.

I would post an example of what makes full survival satisfying and why it doesn't have to abandon speed, but then my post would be deleted for "shilling" because a false reporter said so and people will agree for whatever arbitrary reasons because they don't care about SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO POINTS.

By the way, if playtesters think the game is fine because they tested it, there were people who had said that with games like Metroid: Other M. I don't want to hear some nonsense about Icarus needing better wings to let him fly higher, because that's no substitute for common sense. And saying "git gud" about RNG S-Ranks is elitism at its finest."

And also, you see the problem with the accusations of "shilling": it's an excuse to block off substantial, irrefutable evidence of better design. And you can't claim it's forged either if there's evidence that contradicts the very idea of forgery in the first place. Case in point: what I would have presented was my Longplay video of Battalion Wars 2. It was basically an iron-man run, and yet there's only one mission where I failed to get a Perfect S-Rank: Purge; and even then I'm satisfied with proving that the defense segment there can be done without losing a single unit--I only lost the Perfect S-Rank by overthinking the manual infantry choice later on, but it would have been a Perfect S-Rank/No Casualties run of the level otherwise. I point to this when Battalion Wars has an active ranking system that judges by more than Speed with actually decent criteria to juggle.

And you might point out that S-Ranks are supposed to be on the crazy side. Hey, guess what? The Reckoning in Battalion Wars 2 has its Perfect S on the crazy side, certainly with Speed and Power balance, yet I manage the Perfect S in the Longplay, with only one of Pierce's Leeroy Jenkins Fighters lost, mercifully not nearly enough to dent Technique. The difference is that good design makes S-Ranking reward actual skill, not some dumb reset spam or clairvoyance. Reset spam is not even fair to ironman runs whatsoever and it just suffocates replay value. That sort of reason is why problems like RNG S-Ranks are a plague.

And for the second part, actually responding to a part of Monty Sigurdson's last post.

"Ya know. I could point to somebody else's documents and whatnot about AI design, but I don't want to have my post deleted because I was "shilling", whatever sense that would make. But do know that yes, I do agree that there's no excuse for demanding people just exploit AI for its own sake."

And that somebody else is Checkmark Games, the makers of Shattered Throne. The head of Checkmark Games, stacktrace, once mentioned about having Shattered Throne's AI deliberately have issues with handling Combo Points, so as to punctuate efficient usage of them. Now THAT is a purpose. Expecting players to learn good use a mechanic to overcome the computer, is better than just screeching at the player to freaking reset spam and hope the AI does some absolutely low chance brain-fart you'd expect out of Ubel in Battalion Wars.

Monty Sigurdson, if you're watching this and you're interested, I'll be sure to provide you URLs, since I don't have to worry about being accused of "shilling" here.

And people, you could claim that AI design isn't easy, but excuses don't change how good AI design reflects on better soul, especially when resources for better game design are far more plentiful than they were in 2001, which isn't even a free pass for Rivals AC involving idiocy up to and including having literally no Forest, Mountain, OR Reef tiles within any of its 510 spaces. And when Wargroove serves to AGGRAVATE mistakes, yeah, people are indeed correct to call it out actively. I know once the hype train crashes, I'll be enjoying the vindication.

Of course, meanwhile, the only response after my post is as follows.

"There is no RNG afaik."

Despite evidence to the contrary of the AI inexplicably behaving differently on a consistent basis than they did on a YouTube video. If this is all they can muster, all I have to do is wait until Monty Sigurdson can point out how this fails miserab-

"This topic has been locked by a moderator, no replies can be made."

AHAHAHAHAHA! ....NEVER MIND!

Chucklefish, you've lost. By just closing the topic, you proved you have no valid arguments to fire back with. Your moderation had been called out for pulling censorship. Locking the topic without saying why makes this abundantly clear. You have proven that you will hide any power you can to keep up the same brand of corrupt practices you had pulled with a mod for Starbound called Frackin Universe.

You have proven that you're just playing glorified dress-up for a rip-off of Advance Wars that even thinks to do some things worse, while caring NOTHING about what the series had gone through and having shown the audacity to play Icarus about the whole thing. All you care about is your own cheap laughs, and it's made clear by how you will even try to silence the likes of Monty Sigurdson by affiliation just so you can try to censor me. The evidence against your behaviors, your clear abuses of power given by the gaming industry, is overwhelming.


CHUCKLEFISH, CHUCKLE YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS!