Topic: Amazing game: Some suggestions for improvement

  • Author
    Posts
  • #4816
    Invictus73
    Participant

    What an amazing game! I congratulate the devs on this gem of a game, and I wish you (for my game enjoyment sake!) a long, unbroken prosperity in your future endeavors.

    Now, having said that, I have a few quick suggestions. They will have to be quick, because I have a broken hand (and thus typing is an immense chore just using one hand), and I am still a novice to this game who needs to use his proverbial ears more than his mouth yet. I apologize if I am covering issues already discussed amply by other players or slated for future development (as we are still in early part of early access). For the aforementioned reasons, this is hardly an exhaustive nor an informed list of things. Just consider this as a first impression of things that stuck out for an experienced TBS/RGP gamer:

    1. Lack of documentation:

    There is very little ingame. This may be due to the early access status or financial resource driven. But there has to be a bit more. In the least, there can be PDF files or even webpages where basic stuff can be listed. I know that you are promoting a Wikipa site for this, but even there most of the stuff is missing. Where exactly am I going to find even the most rudimentary stuff like what undead units possess in terms of abilities? Why do they keep resurrecting, and how do I make them stop doing so?

    2. Empty map/lack of direction:

    I won’t delve into this, as I understand it’s very early part of early access, and the devs will add a lot more. But this is the first thing you notice.

    You could also use a minimap badly, as things are sprawled out, and everything (including yourself) is hard to locate.

    3. Racial (lack of) diversity:

    I know that you are aiming for a low magic, low fantasy world, and that funds are limited. Still, could you reconsider implementing Elves/Dwarves at some point in the future? You already have Orcs/Goblins/undead; so excluding Elves/Dwarves seem fairly arbitrary, unless there is an absolute financial necessity. The latter two races will so dramatically enhance game atmosphere, tactics, and ultimately replayability.

    4. Character Development:

    Really well done and well balanced. Among other things, I love that the fact that you seem to have (I assume intentionally) prevented the possibility of one man army type of character that is both killy and durable: You have to choose to have either a killy or durable character, because of that brilliant concept of Utility tree, which requires its own massive investment for all toons.

    So even at this early point of inception, I say the Perk system is consummately well done. My only major issue is that the Offense tree is so lacking at tier 1 compared to Defense and, especially, Utility trees. Tier 1 Offense tree really seem to have only 2 universally worthwhile choices so must be boosted.

    5. Quest variety/limit/payout:

    Too few quest types, which may or may not be addressed. The artificial limit of 1 is a far bigger issue, and I assume won’t change (unless there’s a major rethink). Given a) the time spent/distance traveled on individual quests and b) the typically low payout, I don’t see any justification for this at all. And this leads to the next issue of payout: Most of them pay way too little. In particular, you are still mostly inundated with these 200 gold quests well into the game, and 200g won’t even pay my troops for a single day!

    6. Tactical combat issues:

    Deep and satisfying in general, but a few issues:

    My biggest issue without question is the low sight radius (which is multiplied by the better helmets). This issue is in particular exacerbated when fighting ranged units you cannot see until you are literally right next to them. Perhaps all this was intended to preserve a sense of the “fog of war” and enable some sort of hit and run tactics. But it’s ridiculous and unrealistic that units can shoot twice and thrice further than one can see from a realistic perspective; it also dampens my enthusiasm for fighting ranged units. I feel that it may become a nightmare once Goblins are introduced.

    Another issue is the dearth of display info on opposing units. This is somewhat tied to my first category, the lack of documentation. But this is also a separate issue. I’d like to know things like how many HPs the opposing units have, as well as their build in general, special abilities, etc. I need more than simply unit name and portrait and a few bars.

    Also, I’d like some sort of unit defection mechanic, where you can mind control or simply persuade an opposing unit to join you. Perhaps we can have an Orc that has gone through a Drizzt like conversion? :) (Perhaps we can ultimately enable recruitment of Orc or nonhuman units as well, with a few of their own distinctive Backgrounds).

    7. Bugs/glitches:

    I haven’t seen much, except that there seems to be a few during tactical combat. Sometimes there are dark blobs where there should be units; at other times there are shield like symbols. What’s going on here?

    Phew; I wrote a lot more than I intended and must definitely stop. But once again, congratulations, good luck, and please forgive me if I broached subjects already being worked on or planned!

    (And sorry if there are typos or coherence issues, since I am typing on one hand, and don’t want to spend more time.)

    #4818
    PipBoy
    Participant

    1. Lack of documentation:

    There is very little ingame. This may be due to the early access status or financial resource driven. But there has to be a bit more. In the least, there can be PDF files or even webpages where basic stuff can be listed. I know that you are promoting a Wikipa site for this, but even there most of the stuff is missing. Where exactly am I going to find even the most rudimentary stuff like what undead units possess in terms of abilities? Why do they keep resurrecting, and how do I make them stop doing so?

    Agreed. I’d also say that it’d be cool to slowly learn about enemies as you fight them.

    2. Empty map/lack of direction:

    I won’t delve into this, as I understand it’s very early part of early access, and the devs will add a lot more. But this is the first thing you notice.

    You could also use a minimap badly, as things are sprawled out, and everything (including yourself) is hard to locate.

    I don’t think a minimap is really needed. You can zoom in/out and the entire map isn’t THAT big. Also, you can hit the Shift key to center the map on your party.

    3. Racial (lack of) diversity:

    I know that you are aiming for a low magic, low fantasy world, and that funds are limited. Still, could you reconsider implementing Elves/Dwarves at some point in the future? You already have Orcs/Goblins/undead; so excluding Elves/Dwarves seem fairly arbitrary, unless there is an absolute financial necessity. The latter two races will so dramatically enhance game atmosphere, tactics, and ultimately replayability.

    It sounds like the devs are focusing on making a low-fantasy thing first, I doubt we’ll see elves/dwarves. Although I sorta agree, low-fantasy+orcs seems to defy the very definition, but then again, it’s not my setting!

    4. Character Development:

    Really well done and well balanced. Among other things, I love that the fact that you seem to have (I assume intentionally) prevented the possibility of one man army type of character that is both killy and durable: You have to choose to have either a killy or durable character, because of that brilliant concept of Utility tree, which requires its own massive investment for all toons.

    So even at this early point of inception, I say the Perk system is consummately well done. My only major issue is that the Offense tree is so lacking at tier 1 compared to Defense and, especially, Utility trees. Tier 1 Offense tree really seem to have only 2 universally worthwhile choices so must be boosted.

    Have to disagree. I think the Perk system is one of the things that needs the most work. It’s got a lot of great ideas, but needs a ton more balancing (the Defense tree is nearly worthless, for example)

    5. Quest variety/limit/payout:

    Too few quest types, which may or may not be addressed. The artificial limit of 1 is a far bigger issue, and I assume won’t change (unless there’s a major rethink). Given a) the time spent/distance traveled on individual quests and b) the typically low payout, I don’t see any justification for this at all. And this leads to the next issue of payout: Most of them pay way too little. In particular, you are still mostly inundated with these 200 gold quests well into the game, and 200g won’t even pay my troops for a single day!

    Questing does need some work, and I’m sure it’ll get it. But also, keep in mind that you can run from one side of the map to the other in only about 2 days. So a 200 gold quest to go from one town to the next is generally a profit. It’s how I make money early game.

    It is, however, a little boring. I can basically farm as much money as I want while avoiding fights I can’t win by running from one town to the next. So, I agree this system needs work.

    6. Tactical combat issues:

    Deep and satisfying in general, but a few issues:

    My biggest issue without question is the low sight radius (which is multiplied by the better helmets). This issue is in particular exacerbated when fighting ranged units you cannot see until you are literally right next to them. Perhaps all this was intended to preserve a sense of the “fog of war” and enable some sort of hit and run tactics. But it’s ridiculous and unrealistic that units can shoot twice and thrice further than one can see from a realistic perspective; it also dampens my enthusiasm for fighting ranged units. I feel that it may become a nightmare once Goblins are introduced.

    Another issue is the dearth of display info on opposing units. This is somewhat tied to my first category, the lack of documentation. But this is also a separate issue. I’d like to know things like how many HPs the opposing units have, as well as their build in general, special abilities, etc. I need more than simply unit name and portrait and a few bars.

    Also, I’d like some sort of unit defection mechanic, where you can mind control or simply persuade an opposing unit to join you. Perhaps we can have an Orc that has gone through a Drizzt like conversion? :) (Perhaps we can ultimately enable recruitment of Orc or nonhuman units as well, with a few of their own distinctive Backgrounds).

    A. I agree that the “vision” system is a bit skewed. It seems like the penalty to fatigue for wearing heavy helmets is enough, and the “I can’t see more than 5 feet in front of me” thing just doesn’t make sense. Maybe it should become a penalty to ranged attacks, instead of sight range? That way an archer shouldn’t be wearing a heavy helmet, but the tank up front can still see.

    B. I sorta agree with more enemy info, but I like that you only have a general idea instead of an exact number of HP left. But after fighting a few battles with enemies you should be able to learn some basic things.

    C. Pretty sure the devs said that the players group will only ever be humans. Maybe mods can change this in the future. Also, future enemies will have mind-control abilities. Though I think the devs also said that the player will never be able to use magic (although enemies will).

    Grimdark low fantasy yo!

    7. Bugs/glitches:

    I haven’t seen much, except that there seems to be a few during tactical combat. Sometimes there are dark blobs where there should be units; at other times there are shield like symbols. What’s going on here?

    Huh, I’ve never seen that one. The one bug I’ve gotten is the UI disappearing on the world map, but that’s easily solved by a quick-load or mashing escape a few times.

    #4825
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    Point is not to have more races, but have varying enemy factions that would be in opposition to the player. Game doesn’t really has to have all canonical fantasy races if what we have accomplishes these goals. By not shoving “racial diversity” and by trying to keep their design somewhat realistic – as well true to the real medieval time period they aim at – they have managed to create a unique feeling of the world. At least I get that impression. How they handled enemies is part of this. Another is restricting the use of magic. It’s quite rare so far and I like it that way. Mages and magic became so commonplace in other fantasy universes that not having magic users spamming spells left and right is quite refreshing.

    I would say they can add more atmosphere/tactics/replayability by introducing more enemy types/weapons within already existing factions (which is already planned). We don’t need dwarves or elves. They’d either end up being token races (which would ultimately result in having low variety units/weapons/armors, etc. within their ranks) or soak resources that could be used to expand the already existing factions. By the way I love how undead are done in this game: their weapons and armors give them a lot of personality, even when all are skeletons who share an identical model. Zombies have even more personal touch due to their unique faces and the fact they are using an actually degraded human equipment.

    #4839
    PsenBattle
    Keymaster

    Hey there, here are some quick ones:

    1. Lack of documentation:
    True :)

    2. Empty map/lack of direction:
    We havent scheduled it yet but are already working on the planning and design of a big worldmap redesign. This will include the size, factions, layout and basically everything on the map :) Cant give you any details yet though.

    3. Racial (lack of) diversity:
    As others already stated there wont be elves, dwarves or orcs fighting for the player. Our plan is to include more human cultures in future add ons depending on their setting (Scandinavian, Eastern, Arabic, North Africa etc)

    4. Character Development:
    Regarding the perks there are so many different oppionions flying around, we have to do some intense playtesting and judge for ourselves. One person says: This Perk is the bomb! While the next one says: Its totally useless!

    5. Quest variety/limit/payout:
    The contract system will get a big rework with our worldmap redesign and the event system and reputation system.

    6. Tactical combat issues:
    The range of weapons and sights plays out pretty well in my personal oppionion. You may be able to recruit “enemy” human characters through events, but thats not in yet.
    Documentation will be improved when we finally get to put in a right-click-info-window on all enemies, where you can hover over their skills and status effects to get some more intel. HP numbers will never been shown though, thats a conscious design decision by us.

    7. Bugs/glitches:
    I think you have to adjust the camera height level with “+” and “-” keys. When you lower the camera hills will get “cut off” and the characters standing on those tiles will be represented by small icons.

    Cheers!

    Overhype Studios - Let´s roll!

    Facebook Youtube
    Twitter

    #4845
    Jago
    Participant

    1. Lack of documentation:
    There is very little ingame. This may be due to the early access status or financial resource driven. But there has to be a bit more. In the least, there can be PDF files or even webpages where basic stuff can be listed. I know that you are promoting a Wikipa site for this, but even there most of the stuff is missing. Where exactly am I going to find even the most rudimentary stuff like what undead units possess in terms of abilities? Why do they keep resurrecting, and how do I make them stop doing so?

    You are right. I’ll see if I can update the “Factions” on the Wikia in the next few days.
    On second thought, I don’t really what to add. You can already find most info on the “Monster” page.

    3. Racial (lack of) diversity:

    I know that you are aiming for a low magic, low fantasy world, and that funds are limited. Still, could you reconsider implementing Elves/Dwarves at some point in the future? You already have Orcs/Goblins/undead; so excluding Elves/Dwarves seem fairly arbitrary, unless there is an absolute financial necessity. The latter two races will so dramatically enhance game atmosphere, tactics, and ultimately replayability.

    Does High-Fantasy even has a clear definition? There are Elves and Dwarves in the Witcher series, but I’d still consider it as low-fantasy, mostly because it has such a realistic, grim-dark medieval setting.

    #4847
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    I think this is a pretty good summary of High Fantasy:

    The core elements of High Fantasy are:

    Setting – A world other than ours. It may have a nominal connection with present day Earth, such as being our remote past or future, but this plays no role in the plot. Mythopoeia is often put into play to define the very metaphysics of the world. Nevertheless it often resembles medieval Europe, and is often peopled by People of Hair Color.

    Scale – Epic. Power politics, wars, the death of nations, gods walking the earth, and the real threat of The End of the World as We Know It. This is what distinguishes High Fantasy from Heroic Fantasy.

    Great evil – An enemy which is near enough Evil incarnate or fundamentally abhorrent

    Methods – Victory is not achieved through force of arms, the main feature distinguishing High Fantasy from Heroic Fantasy. If Aragorn had killed Sauron in hand-to-hand combat, that would have been Heroic Fantasy. In short, a Supporting Leader or the Reluctant Hero will be offered up instead of the rough-hewn barbarian of, say, Conan the Barbarian or Beowulf.

    And here are some good points on Low Fantasy:

    Human dominance: worlds which are populated mostly (or even exclusively) by human beings rather than the usual Tolkienesque mix of elves, dwarves and other humanoids.

    Plot scope: Tends to focus more on the survival and tribulations of one or a few individuals rather than the whole world. A villainous king who steals a magical artifact is less likely to be trying to bring back the Infernal Legions of Hell and conquer the world, and more likely to be trying to make himself immortal, or conquer a few nearby kingdoms.

    Heroism: High fantasy heroes are usually all-around nice guys who stand up for the little guy and fight the bad guy. Low fantasy heroes tend to be bitter cynics desperately clinging to their broken moral compass or devil-may-care anti-heroes who save the woman from the evil sorcerer just for the sex. At the very least, they tend to be closer to one of the many shades of Anti-Hero than a Knight in Shining Armor.

    Methods: Victories achieved through physical combat, not magical battles or moral superiority – the defining feature of Heroic Fantasy.

    #4853
    Jago
    Participant

    I think this is a pretty good summary of High Fantasy:

    The core elements of High Fantasy are:

    Setting – A world other than ours. It may have a nominal connection with present day Earth, such as being our remote past or future, but this plays no role in the plot. Mythopoeia is often put into play to define the very metaphysics of the world. Nevertheless it often resembles medieval Europe, and is often peopled by People of Hair Color.

    Scale – Epic. Power politics, wars, the death of nations, gods walking the earth, and the real threat of The End of the World as We Know It. This is what distinguishes High Fantasy from Heroic Fantasy.

    Great evil – An enemy which is near enough Evil incarnate or fundamentally abhorrent

    Methods – Victory is not achieved through force of arms, the main feature distinguishing High Fantasy from Heroic Fantasy. If Aragorn had killed Sauron in hand-to-hand combat, that would have been Heroic Fantasy. In short, a Supporting Leader or the Reluctant Hero will be offered up instead of the rough-hewn barbarian of, say, Conan the Barbarian or Beowulf.

    And here are some good points on Low Fantasy:

    Human dominance: worlds which are populated mostly (or even exclusively) by human beings rather than the usual Tolkienesque mix of elves, dwarves and other humanoids.

    Plot scope: Tends to focus more on the survival and tribulations of one or a few individuals rather than the whole world. A villainous king who steals a magical artifact is less likely to be trying to bring back the Infernal Legions of Hell and conquer the world, and more likely to be trying to make himself immortal, or conquer a few nearby kingdoms.

    Heroism: High fantasy heroes are usually all-around nice guys who stand up for the little guy and fight the bad guy. Low fantasy heroes tend to be bitter cynics desperately clinging to their broken moral compass or devil-may-care anti-heroes who save the woman from the evil sorcerer just for the sex. At the very least, they tend to be closer to one of the many shades of Anti-Hero than a Knight in Shining Armor.

    Methods: Victories achieved through physical combat, not magical battles or moral superiority – the defining feature of Heroic Fantasy.

    Wow, thanks for the links! Very interesting!

    #4855
    PsenBattle
    Keymaster

    I personally would consider Tolkien (the books in this case) as low fantasy, despite the epic scale and elves/dwarves. As well as the Witcher.
    High fantasy would be something like D&D where you have bikini armors, flying castles and magic portals.

    A lot of this has to do with the visual design of the world and its assets and the overall atmosphere. It all depends on how you implement it, not what you implement.

    Overhype Studios - Let´s roll!

    Facebook Youtube
    Twitter

    #4857
    Invictus73
    Participant

    Have to disagree. I think the Perk system is one of the things that needs the most work. It’s got a lot of great ideas, but needs a ton more balancing (the Defense tree is nearly worthless, for example)

    I did point out that certain trees are really underpowered. And though we identified different weak trees, I agree that your choice is a valid candidate for the “worst tree” title.

    Questing does need some work, and I’m sure it’ll get it. But also, keep in mind that you can run from one side of the map to the other in only about 2 days. So a 200 gold quest to go from one town to the next is generally a profit. It’s how I make money early game.

    It is, however, a little boring. I can basically farm as much money as I want while avoiding fights I can’t win by running from one town to the next. So, I agree this system needs work.

    In addition to greater cash award, I also think you should get some marginal XP award as well. You don’t want to fight every time; besides, some really weak toons may first need some level up anyways.

    A. I agree that the “vision” system is a bit skewed. It seems like the penalty to fatigue for wearing heavy helmets is enough, and the “I can’t see more than 5 feet in front of me” thing just doesn’t make sense. Maybe it should become a penalty to ranged attacks, instead of sight range? That way an archer shouldn’t be wearing a heavy helmet, but the tank up front can still see.

    It’s horrifically bad, and I am even more annoyed with it than I was now I’ve played a lot more. Combined with ranged combat, it makes tactical combat downright unplayable for me. So I now avoid fighting bandits and will likely avoid Goblins in the future, too.

    Huh, I’ve never seen that one. The one bug I’ve gotten is the UI disappearing on the world map, but that’s easily solved by a quick-load or mashing escape a few times.

    Tactical combat also freeze/crashes at times, especially in a longer combat.

    #4858
    Invictus73
    Participant

    Point is not to have more races, but have varying enemy factions that would be in opposition to the player. Game doesn’t really has to have all canonical fantasy races if what we have accomplishes these goals. By not shoving “racial diversity” and by trying to keep their design somewhat realistic – as well true to the real medieval time period they aim at – they have managed to create a unique feeling of the world. At least I get that impression. How they handled enemies is part of this. Another is restricting the use of magic. It’s quite rare so far and I like it that way. Mages and magic became so commonplace in other fantasy universes that not having magic users spamming spells left and right is quite refreshing.

    I see your point, but I remain unpersuaded that “low” fantasy is so compelling. It’s a halfway house that has the virtue of neither realism nor imagination. I guess it’s ultimately a matter of taste, and there is no metric to adjudicate this debate.

    #4859
    Invictus73
    Participant

    3. Racial (lack of) diversity:
    As others already stated there wont be elves, dwarves or orcs fighting for the player. Our plan is to include more human cultures in future add ons depending on their setting (Scandinavian, Eastern, Arabic, North Africa etc)

    Thanks; that is a bit more reassuring, even if not completely satisfactory still.

    4. Character Development:
    Regarding the perks there are so many different oppionions flying around, we have to do some intense playtesting and judge for ourselves. One person says: This Perk is the bomb! While the next one says: Its totally useless!

    I think it’s really well done and innovative. I think it is the bomb! ;)

    5. Quest variety/limit/payout:
    The contract system will get a big rework with our worldmap redesign and the event system and reputation system.

    As I’ve posted above, I’d also like to see some XP gains as well, in addition to cash and reputation rewards.

    6. Tactical combat issues:
    The range of weapons and sights plays out pretty well in my personal oppionion.

    Here I will totally and strongly disagree. Sorry, but I feel really passionate about this issue. First, as a general matter, even in games, severe departure from reality or extreme lack of realism detracts when there is no compelling reason for such a departure. Here, the reduction of sight radius from some helmets is just ridiculous. I am a medieval military afficianado (not just Western but including, even primarily, East Asian), and I’ve worn military helmets. They simply won’t restrict your line of sight the way you portray. You lose some peripheral vision, but not forward vision.

    Second, the biggest issue is how the low sight radius interacts with ranged AI behavior. A lot of times, ranged AI units do nothing but retreat, retreat, and retreat. They won’t even stand still and fire. So against ranged units, you spend all the time time chasing in the dark (literally!) in a game of hide and seek. It’s truly infuriating and made me give up fighting bandits altogether. Either the AI should be programmed to stay and fight more, or the sight of radius should increase (or more preicsely, “be normalized”). I bought the game to fight battles, not run a marathon.

    I apologize for the blunt and harsh language (especially because I think the game is so well conceived overall), but I think this part of the game is really broken; and without future improvements, adding more ranged units (and an entire race to boot) will make a bad situation worse.

    7. Bugs/glitches:
    I think you have to adjust the camera height level with “+” and “-” keys. When you lower the camera hills will get “cut off” and the characters standing on those tiles will be represented by small icons.

    Cheers!

    Could you explain this a bit more? I tried those keys, and they don’t work. But I do get those small icons quite a lot.

    #4860
    Invictus73
    Participant

    Addendum: Another option to deal with the maddening tedium of mopping up ranged units is to enable autoresolve after you kill all the melees.

    #4861
    Rap
    Keymaster

    Tactical combat also freeze/crashes at times, especially in a longer combat.

    Please report any such issues in the Bug Reports forum so they can be fixed.

    Overhype Studios - follow us!
    Facebook Youtube
    Twitter

    #4866
    Invictus73
    Participant

    Please report any such issues in the Bug Reports forum so they can be fixed.

    Thanks; I just filed one.

    #4868
    AGiantPie
    Participant

    My main problem with the vision penalty for helmets is how it stacks/interacts with fighting at night. Either vision penalty for wearing helmets should be removed, or the night time vision penalty should only affect *max* vision range, not your actual vision range. At night, my characters with full helms literally cannot see anything unless it’s in the square next to them. They can’t even use javelins at night and that makes no sense whatsoever. Having the nighttime vision penalty say that the maximum vision radius is 5 tiles, before factoring in any traits, would be a significant improvement I feel. Alternatively, not having vision penalties for helmets would fix the problem.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 28 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.