% to crit Crits shouldn't be in this game#222

In most successful competitive strategic games, luck-based efficiency that doesn’t bring startegic value on the table disapeared for good reasons

I’m not complaining about things being random here, randomness isn’t necessarly hurtful to a competitive game if it brings a strategic interest to it

An example of random elements of the game that brings strategic value is drawing cards. The cards you’ll get is random, but you’ll get the same amount of cards every time : You’ll have to form a plan with what the game gave you

However, %chances to crit doesn’t bring enough of this value : It’s only my opinion, but if a lot of competitive games got rid of it over time, that’s not a coincidence. There is no active decision in making a luck-based crit : It just happens, that’s all. And once it happened, it will only accelerate either your already built strategy, or your opponent’s strategy. However, it will very rarely make you rethink the course of your actions (it might, but very rarely)

If anything, it removes strategic value, and consequentialy fun value, out of a tactical game : If a player get lucky enough to score 3 or even 4 crits while his opponent got none, the win will simply feel more frustrating for the losing side, who won’t feel like his choice mattered as much as they should have

There are ways to implement interesting crits in the game, even random based ones. A good example is the Perfect aim ability that provide auto crit on targets that didn’t move last turn : It creates new rules in the game to follow for the opponent, and new things to pay attention to for the player who have this ability.

In some tacticals, attacks from behind gets extra dmg or auto-crits : It’s another good example of implementing crits through gameplay goals rather than mere luck

At least, remove crits chance on spells, that’s just weird tbh

I think this issue needs to be dealt with asap. Too many turn based games have been destroyed by too much rng. You can not balance the feeling of rng, as long as crits exist. Playing with chance to hit, is more then enough. Even that can be easily over tuned.

Completely agree. It adds a degree of swinginess to the combat that is largely misplaced in a tactical mini based game. The percent to hit isn’t my favorite but I can certainly adapt to its usage with the terrain effects and such, but the added crit chance just cheapens the combat without providing much in the way of value

Counter argument:
The existence of crits give players that are behind a reason to keep playing instead of giving up early. Lots of games have a combination of strategy and luck.

@Koltonkulis It does, but there are many healthier ways to add comebacks mechanics to the game to make up for the loss of crits. They bring a lot more problems than they solve

Crits force you to change your plan mid-plan. This can be a pleasing surprise (I killed that mini more efficiently! Cool, how can I repurpose this dude?) or disappointing. More variety of this nature = more replayability once you’re 2000 hours in. Disagree.

Does it though ? It almost alwyas just let you fo faster something already planned, it very rarely put you in a position where you have to rethink your strategy. It’s only an economy of action, and a super-unreliable one

It litteraly never feels right to lose because of a crit, that’s not a coincidence if most competitive games get rid of it

IMO Crits do not lead to replayability what so ever. Over doing randomization encourages people to give up all together. Random elements need to be within reason or a game is seen as unbalanced. When a character with one damage crits for an added 5…. that is not well balanced. Someone who is dominating a match due to intelligent moves, should not be beaten by pure luck. However, a good player should be able to turn things around through strategic thinking. Thats why the greatest strategy games of all time (chess for example) do not contain any random elements.

As for catching up when you are behind… There is no accomplishment in winning because one character randomly did more damage then expected. There is no strategy in throwing pieces in to suicide mode, hoping for a random crit. There is no such thing as being behind; more minions or more damage to boss does not guarantee a win. There is already enough rng without crits: card drawing, chance to hit and the fact that you are only responsible for half the moves on the board…..

I absolutely hate the crit mechanic. Can turn a well matched strategic game into oh i lose/win with ease because the rigth guy scored a crit. I really think it should be an ability that a few units get.

I’m confused by the people saying crits have disappeared from “most” tactical games when they still exist in most tabletop games I can think of. 40k doesn’t have “crits” per-se, but it does have some effects that trigger when you roll a 6 which is effectively the same thing. Warmachine has crits (though as someone mentioned above, they only matter for models that have crit effects, they don’t do anything for models that don’t), XWing and Armada have crits, Dropzone and Dropfleet have crits.

Having crit effects IMO does make sense in the context of Moonbreaker being a virtual tabletop game rather than a normal PC tactics game.

In every other way, it is a tactics game. Most table top games that have come to pc had to change up the rules else they failed misserably. Idk, maybe if we were watching a D20 roll around for every other action, it would make sense. Or maybe with a larger scale make like atypical war game, it wouldnt feel as important.

All I know is I have a discord full of their “target market” (Including a professional 40k painter) and they all dropped this game immediately. Every single person said the crits made it feel unfair and random.

“shrugs”

If characters had a range of damage (1-6), (2-4), etc…, instead of a fixed amount; this would bring the game closer to simulating rolling die for damage. The lower ends of the range could be a miss or minimum damage whereas the higher ends would reward maximum damage, which could be seen as the new critical.

It keeps an element of randomness and gives players an expectation of what characters can do, curbing the unfair feeling so many of us have experienced.

The devs recently did an AMA and it seems like they’re listening and making some big changes. I didn’t catch anything specifically relating to crits but that doesn’t mean they don’t have something in the works.

Thanks for adding more perspective to the topic and big ups to the devs for the continued communication

I would not mind crits being added as a keyword. It gives them less overall i just got lucky/destroyed feeling and opens up other possibilities for them as in per say having a crew with +1 crit damage or +2 crit damage vs armored units if it becomes a key word

I like crits, but maybe they should be restricted in some way, or a new ability that makes units crit immune.

I think random chances to do more damage probably feel worse when their game losing vs it just being a way to spice up battles (which is necessary imo as the game shouldnt just become chess with zero RNG and therefore reherseable optimal strategies)

However, if its your captain being defeated due to a crit and you losing the game then that sucks and so making them unable to be crit might help, idk

I agree Robo. It probably is all about what range of effect one crit may have. If it is a diffetence of taking half a units health vs all of it, the crit was too unpredictable. If its a difference of 5 to 10% of their health the risk is somewhat calculable and feel fare. Giving Captains a buff to say “crit resistance” could make them less suseptible and make game results less random.

We’re taking a look at this again. One of the hardest things to get right on this game!