Hello everyone, It has been a while since our prototype test of S.E.C. Inc. I received lots of opinions during this period of time. I will try to sort them out by following posts, here is one of them:

The strategy (choices of player)

The most feedback was about players felt lack of controllability in battle. Indeed. The game was panned to be auto-battle with minimal choice to save players' time. At the current design, players choose one of 3 rally points to deploy their teams. Retreating and backing off of each agent were added then.

This game was not planned as a tower defense or a micro control real time strategy genre.

The 3 choices were supposed to let players decide to save more civilian with deeper deploy location and danger. Or keep security of agents(to level up) while monsters find civilians first along the their way reaching team.

Unfortunately it seems no difference to players at this moment.

To-do:

I think a planning phase as choosing quests is a good recommendation.(Similar to rouge-like Ikarus) 3 routes in a battle to reach quest target:

1) More civilian to save. Players are supposed to deploy more devices to increase visibility to save civilians as many as possible. It takes budget, but increases reputation(which haven't planned properly as well) to unlock future progress.

2) More but low diversity monsters to handle. Player are supposed to keep a clear space ahead to handle and to kill monsters. Agents got leveling up after battle.

3) High level and wide diversity monsters to capture(yes we don't have these as well). More detaining monsters means more revenue from selling/synthesize items.