Reply To: Give enough information to make decisions

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

If you find that word provoking (english is not may native language) then perhaps we should call it: “not keeping an open mind”?

Are you sure you’re using that word correctly? Because from where I am standing it’s not about keeping an open mind at all. Why? Because we are talking about a game that’s design and made in a certain way for certain reasons. I am simply pointing that out. The fact that I like said direction comes out from another fact that these features were advertised…:

If in fact the developers have stated that they want things to be random this way and people to save/reload rather than get information to form decisions, you are pointing things out and there is no reason to have an open mind. The issue is settled. But unless I am mistaken, you are not a developer, nor have you (so far) been able to direct me to a developer saying this. You seem to, from what I read, say that YOU think something. And thus I conclude that you are not addressing my suggestion with an open mind when YOU decide that people like me shouldn’t get enough information to make decisions on who to recruit.

Q: Will the game have flavor content or extra content like background stories for characters, areas, special weapons, statistics and so on?

Yes! We’re big fans of all those little details that come together to give a game that extra bit of atmosphere, sense of wonder and exploration. It’s one of the reasons we liked both the original X-Com and Jagged Alliance 2 that much. There will be short, proceduraly generated backstories for all Battle Brothers that also influence a Brother’s combat stats and traits.

…and I like such games, so I bought this one.

Sure! Me too. It has no bearing on the topic of my suggestion that we are discussing though.

Sure, you can add any suggestion you want. I am not questioning that. I am questioning the approach of going directly against what developers want the game to be.

And I question that you have the ability to judge this. Nor that that is actually what you are doing. You seem mostly narrowing in how you want to play the game and disregard my suggestion based on it having no merit from that perspective. I don’t mind you not caring for my suggestion, but your personal preference on how to play have no relevance for valuing the suggestion. Only as a fact about how one may play or appreciate the game, which I fully accept and think should be possible.

Yes, it’s [recruiting] a gamble, but the one that can be managed (as I tried to explain). And – much more importantly – working as intended. What would be the point of making various traits (including the negative ones) had the people been avoiding hiring them due to hints of characters having negatives? From design standpoint it makes no sense. You make such traits to be there, to be used. If not, then you don’t make them.

Of course it can be managed. I do understand your description how it can be done and how you do it. That is not something I question. I point out the fact that the large portion of random deciding the quality of who I recruit is diminishing the relevance of deciding who to recruit. It is more about recruiting a bunch and firing the ones I don’t want or using them as cannon fother. Or using save/reload. This is not necessarily a bad way of playing, but it doesn’t allow for informed decision. It is a gamble. Again, I have nothing against people liking to gamble. I am asking for improvements on managing the mercenary company.

It is, as you apparently have decided that you know, that the devs favor gambling and not managing a mercenary party. But I would rather they tell us so than you, as your personal opinion has no relevance on how the game will be developed (nor mine). Facts or perceived facts about game dynamics should be evaluated, and I supply some thoughts about this. I repeat, if it stands like today people will simply save/reload. If there is doubt that this will happen, make some statistics on how people act and this will be evident :)

b) I point out that in my experience this leads to users using save/load and make playing ironman much less enjoyable as you get stuck with team members you don’t want due to the random recruitment effect.

But that’s not a problem. If you’re playing a game in a different way than it was planned, then it’s on you. That’s what I am trying to say. While you are not forced to play “the one and only correct way” you shouldn’t reasonably expect game/developers to accommodate your play style. Especially if this play style goes against what the game stands for.

Eh. First of all, I don’t recognize your authority on deciding how the game is planned. Unless you supply information from devs, this repeated statement has nor merit or value. And the irony is that your text above is easily targeted on yourself. Why are you SO afraid about people like me getting to make informed decisions when recruiting? You can use random if you want? This seem very illogical.

Now, either you retreat on your position or you explain to me what gives you the authority to decide that I choose a play style that “this game doesn’t stand for”. It gets boring. If you are right, direct med to devs saying exactly this or ask a dev to answer me. Otherwise It has no value at all.

When I am talking about how to use the guys you get (and when I am talking about planning which ones to get) I am directly talking about making a decision that is the core of managing the crew by making an informed decision (basing on their equipment, background, salary and needs of my group). I do not hire men blindly, because it’s not a complete roulette as you suggested by asking why not randomly recruit a brother.

Now you are selectively choosing what part of the game that should be managable with relevant information and not random, with argument based on how the early release is currently looking. What is the point of that? It is totally arbitrary. For a discussion and “open mind” it is counter productive. It is also NOT any argument whatsoever that support your point of view stated earlier in this thread or this post.

If you think there should be less information everywhere, why not support removing all numbers from all characters so you only know their background? Why not suggest removing % of hitting i combat? You can guess? No? Then you must realize that an arbitrary stand on where to give information to make decision and where to not cannot be the foudnation of saying that my desire for more information when recruiting is against the nature of the game. That is illogical :)

e) You seem to not understand the philosophy about making informed decisions and question that I should ask for this to be part of the game when it comes to recruiting.

The question would be “How much informed must one be in order to make his decision informed?” and “Why so much?”. But I will ask the most important question: “Would you hire that man, had you known all his traits?”. Then here comes the part speaking about the design and why you don’t put features that people avoid. Then I think the conversation should drift towards talking about the sensibility of cutting a large portion of the game – and developers’ vision – because of that.

How much information you need to make decisions that can be seen to be informed is of course also a judgment call and taste. Do you really need that you have 76% to hit? Would “over 50%” be enough to make that decision and think it’s fun?

But about the converstion about the developers vision – again – where do I find a comprehensive document that describes this in this area?

And… what do you base your conclusion that a large portion of the game has to be cut in order to abide to my suggestion (or something similar)? I haven’t said that. So it’s a conclusion you came on your own on a topic you seem to not fully grasp.

If the advantages and disadvantages on each character where known on recruitment, their value would have to be reflected in the expense or upkeep. Otherwise, as you apparently conclude, there is seldom reason to recruit a character with really bad values. Just as there is little reason now. Just save/reload as most will.

I think I covered this in the beginning of this post, but I will add that this developer’s post plus quote from the FAQ should be enough to come to a conclusion that by “We want you to pick up less-than-ideal candidates and mold them into mercenaries […]” they meant hiring people who come up with less than ideal traits. Note that they also meant: “[…] and we want you to keep an eye out for fitting recruits as you roam the lands […]”, meaning that they do seem to believe that you have enough information during recruitment in order to know which recruits will be fitting.

You are interpreting things to mean something that it doesn’t necessarily mean. The quote that they want users to have to recruit mercenaries that aren’t perfect doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t know that they aren’t perfect when recruiting them. It doesn’t follow. And, again, it won’t have that effect anyhow. People will just save/reload. In order to encourage people to recruit less than perfect mercenaries, the game will have to limit the access to the best classes (which in fact is what the dev in the quote is responding to) or give another reason to recruit those less than attractive mercenaries (cheaper and so on). This is alreay in play with different backgrounds and different prices.

So perhaps read back? Either you seem to misunderstand the whole purpose of my suggestion, or perhaps you didn’t read the thread you try to use as argument against it. Either way, feel free to argue as long as you bother to understand first and question later?

But I do understand your position. I simply argue against it for reasons mentioned above. Maybe I am the minority, maybe I am wrong or whatever. Ultimately it’s up to the developers to make the final call, but I am speaking my mind, because I think it’s better to have feedback than to be silent.

You should speak your mind. But you are repeatedly telling me that you KNOW what is in the line of the philosphy of the game without any foundation of doing so that I am aware of (based on information given in this thread and linked). You may be perfectly right that devs NEVER will make something like I suggest. But I see no merit in you knowing so.

As a parallel I read in another thread (was it in steam?) that devs answered that they consider people to be able to choose their starting squad in some way instead of it being random. I have less issues with it being random because it has nothing to do with my decisions. But I do understand that line of thinking as well. And that could easily be seen as and indication that devs DO think that it is in the philosophy of the game to control more than we do today, don’t you think? I am not drawing any lengthy conclusions about that though :)

One more thing, you put “Random vs. Decisions” in your thread. This is quite telling on its own, but also wrong – it’s not really “random vs decisions” as you suggest. It’s “decisions and more decisions caused by the outcome (which is based on some randomness)”. In a big scale you could just as well say that “this game is all about randomness” (and I did hear many people saying that about any game with RNG involved), but that’s why I say it’s about managing your luck. Can you manage what traits your man will have? No, but you can give him stats after you level him up and decide on the background (thus impacting his stats) as well as pick skills.

No, it is not wrong :) You are messing with this issue and twisting it all you can to support your idea of the game being as it is because forcing save/reload when recruiting should be part of the vision of the devs. Again – show me support of that or retreat from a position you cannot hold.

The quote above is impossible to write if you understood what I answered I think in my first or second reply to you. I said that there are and should be many random factors in the game. But when you make decisions they should be informed decisons. If they are not – if there are arbitrary random factors that pollute the merit in your decision… it is not a decision – it is a gamble. Which you said so yourself earlier in the post I am answering no less.

So I conclude (and you seem to agree) that recruiting today is heavily affected by random. The effect of this will NOT be diversity, but save/reload. You like the gamble, and that is fine. But then it is gamble and not a decision worth the name. Loot drops are also random, but is just an effect that you cannot control. So that doesn’t make a mockery of anything. When you make decisions on how to act in combat you get “enough information” to act by getting the % to hit and order of action and so on. But state (and you seem to agree) that when recruiting I am NOT given that information and that makes it a gamble.

Now, I have no problem with you liking that it’s a gamble and not an informed decision. But I do not accept that you try to twist your own personal opinion to claim that I am wrong or go against the philosophy of the game when you have no foundation to state that. That is just…. annoying. Speak your mind, but do it with respect. Respect is not trying to hit someone in the head with an authority you do not have. Your claim is also HIGHLY inconsistent with how the game is created so far.

Again, all this said, I have no issue with devs deciding whatever they want. I will respectfully inform what I think the effects are and if we can agree on facts, we can disagree on taste. Regardless it’s their game. But until then, I like constructive discussions about real issues. Not being hit in the head with imagiend authority.