Combat feedback (angry and annoyed)

[spamtaboo]

I happen to be one of them :) But the very first xcom, not the modern one, and Master of Magic, and the Jagged Alliance 2. And I, personally, find a lot of similarities between JA 2 and this game. All of the above mentioned games had random in their mechanics and were quite successful franchises and it is not only my opinion :) And calling fans of a very successful franchise “perverts” and afterwards claiming that you represent a “group” of people may be an indication of how small actually this “group” is :)

[RusBear]

since when is a successful franchise and a good game suddenly became synonymous? Compare beautiful JA2 and modern X com 2 (of course I mean it) is not quite correct. But the conversation moves away from the topic of discussion of shortcomings and advantages of BB. So I suggest to stop it.

[ghoulavenger]

spamtaboo wrote:

And calling fans of a very successful franchise “perverts” and afterwards claiming that you represent a “group” of people may be an indication of how small actually this “group” is

I think he was more making fun of the title of the game than the actual players behind it. X-com sounds like a pornographic game when it isn’t (anybody playing a pornographic game can be accurately labeled a pervert). I’ve only briefly played X-com and I think the game had potential but I really hated the implementation — it took me a couple hours to even figure out that I’m supposed to use certain jets to take down the UFO and then another to enter the mission scene. I then completed a couple of missions to run into a no win scenario. That really bothered me. If it were more like Battle Brothers is currently (tries not to give you too hard of a mission, lets you ditch a contract, actually has contracts and directs your experience) I might have enjoyed it much more. That being said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with some randomness in the game, but there is such a thing as too much in a game like this, because it takes all the strategy, preparation, and skill then turns it into luck.

[spamtaboo]

To turn luck to your advantage and manage the risks is as good of a skill as any.
And I agree with Rusbear it is time to stop the conversation.
The bottom line is – I like the idea of random, if you tweak it – it is no longer a random. One of the key of success of heroes 3 was complete random, placing a player in sometimes impossible or hard conditions. But when you overcome the challenge you get a huge amount of satisfaction. And I like current mechanics as is, because when there is 17% chance to hit, it does not mean that it is impossible to hit, it only means exactly what is written, and according to the theory of probability, there is a chance that 5% chance to hit will proc 2 times in a row, and 95% chance to hit will miss two times in a row, you just have to live with that. This mechanic gave life to huge amount of great games like JA2, UFO, Age of Wonders etc. This is a core mechanics of BB and I do not think one should mess with it. This is my personal opinion however. Of course it is up to developers to see if they need to do something with it :)

[Holy.Death]

RusBear wrote:

“Fun” – this concept extremely subjective – I’m fun to build a strategy and build a soldier will come out and it is work-you throw the dice? can then throw dice instead of battle on a tactical map? and developers easier and more fun to you!

And how would you determine effects such as positioning in tactical combat impacting the outcome, for example? We are throwing dices, yes, but we do so in a specific context of the tactical combat. That’s why reducing the whole battle to a single throw of a dice is a hyperbole that doesn’t help your argument. The very same battle can end very differently if you reload and play it again.

RusBear wrote:

Besides, I did not write that it is necessary to completely remove the random from the game. I wrote that it is too much and that it is especially felt in the early stages of the game. And it’s not just my opinion.

I played almost any RNG game on the market and I can safely say that people who complain about RNG will always complain about it for as long as it’s there. In any amounts. But let’s say we can reduce the amount of randomness: how do you suggest doing so? And how can we gauge when it’s enough and when it’s too much?

[RusBear]

when the RNG stops to influence on the outcome and will only tool for it’s correct behavior change – then enough.

Why do you think the developers had to do the first fight scripting – because under the existing game mechanics, at least 50% of the players were not able to start the game :)

But I’m afraid we’re talking about different things and in different languages. I am speaking that RNG as an accepted variant of replay value and false interestingness in games – a very bad fashion, and that the players and game developers (overwhelmingly) simply forgot or did not even see how you can do interesting complex games without RNG in all aspects of the game. And you’re talking about “complain”…

[Holy.Death]

RusBear wrote:

when the RNG stops to influence on the outcome and will only tool for it’s correct behavior change – then enough.

The point of the RNG is to DETERMINE the outcome of your actions. Like in traditional Pen and Paper Role Playing Games. It’s you who influence the outcome by changing the hit chance with your actions.

RusBear wrote:

Why do you think the developers had to do the first fight scripting – because under the existing game mechanics, at least 50% of the players were not able to start the game

…

Because you’re supposed to take horrible losses to fit the scenario of you ending up with only 3 mercenaries and explain why you yourself – the leader – are not being present in combat and how you became the leader?

But I would like to know the source of your claims, since you are using numbers to prove your point.

RusBear wrote:

But I’m afraid we’re talking about different things and in different languages. I am speaking that RNG as an accepted variant of replay value and false interestingness in games – a very bad fashion, and that the players and game developers (overwhelmingly) simply forgot or did not even see how you can do interesting complex games without RNG in all aspects of the game.

Or they made a conscious decision to make an interesting, complex game WITH RNG as intended. The same did developers of “Mordheim: City of the Damned” and many, many other RNG-based games. If you want game without RNG, then you need to look for different games.

RusBear wrote:

And you’re talking about “complain”…

Indeed I am. That’s what they do. They simply don’t understand how this works and blame everything on luck.

[RusBear]

I see … just about different things and in different languages. Futility.

[kjellstor]

I would think there’s a lot of X-com fans being drawn to this game, myself included :)
Battle is not like chess though. As long as your careful and pick your battles, you’ll avoid a lot of deaths… I especially try to avoid betting the life of a brother on a single dice throw, even if the chance of hitting is 90%. Have a backup plan.

But it would be nice with a defense bonus or something if you choose to flee the battle (a bit like company of heroes), so you don’t risk your entire company being decimated if a fight goes down south. It’s easier to flee a battle in X-Com, as it is ranged combat mostly.

[Meeky]

On the dice vs. no dice thing…

One of my favorite games to bring up in a discussion of this topic is a game called Battle for Wesnoth. It’s a free game, and a strategy game at that. Like Battle Brothers, it has RPG elements, but its focus is more on the strategic side whereas I’d argue Battle Brothers is more on the RPG side. In Wesnoth, you get a unit that usually has a couple random modifiers (like “quick” or “strong”), and a lot of units have alternating level-up paths you can choose. Each unit has attacks which deal flat amounts of damage but often make multiple iterative attacks in a series of strikes. You use melee attacks to respond to melee attacks and ranged attacks to respond to ranged attacks. If you lack one, you can’t do it. And each unit has a certain defense stat – a percentage – which clearly shows what your likelihood of being hit is based on where you’re standing. I.E. Elves have high defense in forests, dwarves have high defense in mountains and hills, etc. If an elf’s defense is 70% in the forest, that means an attack (without abilities like Magical or Marksman) only has a 30% chance of hitting the elf.

You can probably see a few similarities to Battle Brothers and some very stark differences, too.

So, let me just start listing reasons why RNG is actually GOOD in a strategy game.

1. It forces the player to adapt.

Now, I love Wesnoth, but once upon a time I thought the RNG factor was so stupid because I could be attacking a guy with 20% defense and miss four times in a row. I used to imagine that as happening all the time, too. One situation I recall pretty vividly is when I had an elf archer attacking some unlucky dude who got caught off-guard in the water. I had 4 shots with my bow, and I just needed one hit to wipe him out. One. Period. If he survived, however, he’d get enough XP to level up. That would be that.

Guess what? I fired four arrows. Whiff, whiff, whiff, whiff. No damage, no kill. Guy levels up, and later I lost the game and I blamed it on that there RNG.

But then I played more games. I found myself on both sides of the coin, sometimes winning or losing after the match. And I began to realize something: I didn’t lose because I had bad luck. I lost because I didn’t know how to work the system.

The real reason I was losing matches was because I didn’t know how to position my soldiers properly. I didn’t take advantage of weaknesses in the enemy line, nor did I utilize the terrain right. I bit bait every chance I got. I would over-dedicate and over-extend my forces. Most importantly, I didn’t do enough “worst case scenario” planning. I was always figuring that a 70% chance to hit = I should hit. After all, it’s the most likely outcome. Why shouldn’t it have happened? But that’s just not how the game works.

So, I started doing things like having units in reserve, moving my guys into defensive positions rather than throwing them at the enemy – some of this must sound elementary, but I tell you it’s damned tempting to launch a suicide attack when the enemy’s toughest units look pretty beat up and all you have to do is break through part of the front line and kill the healer in the back. I learned to always prepare for the worst outcome. I tried not to take actions that my whole game depended on, but instead took opportunity shots, picked the best possible terrain, tried to keep my enemy out of his terrain… In other words, I learned the system. And through learning the system, I started winning more in the games I’d play with people.

Battle Brothers operates on similar principles, although the risk is perhaps a little higher. You have to play every battle like you could lose everything. Use strategies that involve minimizing risk, and if you’re REALLY scared of a certain fight? Run away. The edge of the map is always there. Back up, back out, and just accept that not every battle can be won.

2. It actually simulates situations that would come up in real world strategy.

IF I’m a great fighter, there’s no 100% chance that I’m going to win a duel with a rookie swordsman who’s missing a leg. Let’s face the damned fact: in the real world, that guy DOES have a chance of winning that fight. It doesn’t matter how many accolades I have, how long a history of experience in war I’ve got under my belt, how quick I am or how impenetrable my manly thighs are. My blow can bounce off his shield at just the right angle to knock me off balance, or he might make a dumb move I didn’t expect that catches me off-guard, or maybe I’ll just make a good ol’ fashioned mistake. Whatever it is, I can lose the fight. I can miss, I can get killed, whatever.

Hell, did you know the U.S. Civil War might have been a Confederate victory if a Confederate messenger hadn’t, by chance, dropped letters outlying the ENTIRE CONFEDERATE BATTLE PLAN which the Union was then able to use to absolutely destroy General Lee’s army? He had to drop those letters, and they had to be found by Union forces. That’s what happened.

And that’s where RNG comes into play. RNG represents all those little things that happen in the real world summarized into a simple dice roll. It’s not always elegant, but it’s much better than assuming that strategy involves everything working exactly as planned. Which brings me to point 3…

3. Strategy is about overcoming obstacles.

Sometimes, things won’t work your way. Your charge is crushed. One of the flanks breaks and runs due to morale failure. Reinforcements don’t arrive. You get surprised and ambushed by archers you didn’t know were hiding in the trees. Suddenly, everything is topsy-turvy and you’re at a disadvantage.

However, you have not lost control. In a strategy game, you still can bring the situation to your advantage. It’s just a matter of figuring out how.

This ties back to point #1. RNG forces you to adapt because RNG presents obstacles. You CAN’T predict what every outcome will be, which makes you think of alternate solutions before you even attempt to solve the problem. You pick the best option, you ready the backup plan, and you proceed with your motions.

Battle Brothers has that element of presenting you with obstacles. Your enemies don’t play by the same rules as you. In fact, it’s unfair the advantages they have, sometimes. They have necromancers, orc warriors with massive HP, fallen heroes who can be resurrected by the aforementioned necromancers, goblin shamans who can entangle whole swathes of troops all at once… They’ve got numerical advantages (12 vs. 30), they’ve got gear advantages in the early game, they’ve got abilities you will NEVER OWN… You’ll be ambushed, and wolfriders will outflank you, and otherwise the point is you’re at a disadvantage in actual troop comparison in a lot of cases. Even the RNG will at times be an absolute asshat to you.

But you have the advantage of being able to develop strategies beyond the confines of what the AI can. You also can build your Brothers to specialize in different roles that make them really good at X or Y. You can get wardogs or hire throwaway characters to use as sacrificial lambs. You can minimize your risk, and you can make the numbers swing in your favor.

Can you still have your outcome decided wholly by the RNG? Certainly. But by and large, it’s strategy that wins Battle Brothers, and RNG is just the obstacle you have to overcome.

———————————————–

Now, with all that said, I do think there are a few things that could be done that could reduce RNG without removing it. And I think they’d be fair.

1. Give us Miss Damage. Make misses be glancing blows that deal puny damage, but at least do SOMETHING. Even if it’s just 10% or 5% of what a hit would be, it’d be nice to have, and it’d actually solve the problem of the Nimble Fighter ruling the battlefield in a lot of ways. Maybe couple this change with an ability to slowly regain HP lost due to Miss Damage? (Turns spent doing nothing at all?)
2. If you wanted to change the system, I could see having more attacks per turn for less damage each. The more dice you add to a simulator, the better a bell curve you’ll get. (This is partly why I love Perfect Focus: I can get 4 swings or shots in a single turn, giving myself more chances of hitting.)
3. Perhaps make shields grant slight damage reduction as well as defense?

[Sarissofoi]

I agree. No RNG = puzzle game

[RusBear]

to Meeky,
and here i see that This man speaks the same language…
good post

[Sky]

RNG is simply variety. If implemented good then it serves the player. The current stat system is a prime example in BB, earlier it was purely rng and you had no controll whatsoever. Now it is still rng but you have a choise, you still can chose the bad stat or instead go for something else. You know, just +4to atk or def on one guy on a lvl up will not make you win or lose the game. So far the current system compared to the blind rng is non frustrating to me in any way. Because I have a fking choise even with the rng in place.

You say the rng in battle is bad, please… Go play a bit xcom2 the new one, that rng is hell. Constant misses with 97% come on.

You say give miss dmg, how the hell is that fair? So my heavy tanks in full armor will now be killed by ghouls? How is that fair in your mind? Nimble fighter ruling the field? Who are you fighting against, zombies and robbers? There is no way you can rambo in endlessly with one nimble guy. A year back when we had a lot of discussions about the perks someone made ONE guy army with the nimble. The moment he was surround he died, there is not enought fati for that or rngeesus. If you keep your nimble in tandem with other troops then how is he op? I mean he’s not alone fulfilling a role in your party… So the nimble argument is just false. Unless by ruling you meant something else than going in separated from the pack and just destroying all. My archers rule the battlefield, so do the 2h swordsman, or the tanky pikemen, the xbowmen or anyone else who is in my party. Alone none of them has a chance not even a nimble.

The bell curve. So I suppose you have recorded several of your matches having a statistic for every men in every match. Where you can see that the more RNG hits he does the less RNG it becomes? This is not a wildfire, it is rng. In the big picture it does not matter if you do 4 hits in one or two turns. The result will be RNG. The curve you are speaking about is the random number calculator I suppose that shits out numbers and the more there are the more middle the overall result will be. Now this is a tactical game where the randomly generated number IS dependant on many modifiers. And you as a player can manipulate those, equiping higher tohit weapons, highgrounds, surrounding enemy, etc.. If you have to do more hits with the same modifiers then the RNG will be just simply more RNG without any curves.

The shield thing. If you do that then you will make the big shield heavy armor dudes the OP ones who can go in with secoundary shields and be just terminators. But again, if they are alone that will not help, if they are in party then it does not matter, it yould only make the early game harder and bearing a shield a must have at least at the very beginning of the start, discouraging the trying other things and making it frustratingly hard to fight enemies early on.

If the RNG can be controlled, if the player has a choise a valid one then the rng is the friend. And at this moment i’m positive BB is there in most parts. Both stats and the meat of the game the tactical combat.
Did not play enought and there aren’t imo that many events there to form a conclusion. The enemy camps n groups feel a bit off from time to time with the composition and amount of members to your current status and days played progression. The town shops rng stuff is more or less okeish with few exceptions when they have pure usless trash, and no hunter bows or xbows for sale anywhere…

*hint* There are at least two well known pure logic no rng games, chess and GO.

Tipps for new players
BB Wiki

[Meeky]

Firstly, you seem to have missed the parts – the lots of parts – where I said, and I’ll quote…

Meeky wrote:

RNG is actually GOOD in a strategy game

…and how the majority of my post was in DEFENSE of RNG being in a strategy game.

However, I think there are things which can reduce RNG if people want that reduced, and there is precedence for these things. Let’s talk about some of the points you brought up one by one, Sky.

Sky wrote:

You say give miss dmg, how the hell is that fair? So my heavy tanks in full armor will now be killed by ghouls? How is that fair in your mind? Nimble fighter ruling the field? Who are you fighting against, zombies and robbers? There is no way you can rambo in endlessly with one nimble guy.

Because you’ll have miss damage too, and miss damage will be TINY compared to hit damage. Think of it this way: ghouls don’t do much damage anyway, right? Imagine what 5% of that damage might be. If you’re actually wearing really heavy armor – such as the 300 armor scale and a solid helmet to boot – do you really think even a miss from a ghoul is going to significantly harm you? Five misses (25% of a ghoul’s attack)? Ten (50% of a ghoul’s attack)? And if you could recover miss damage by resting, wouldn’t that help a lot as well?

One nimble fighter doesn’t break the game. However, I have an easy time winning when I have, say, 3 or maybe even 4 nimble fighters to act as meatshields while my polearm fighters and archers do their dirty work. When you’ve got 100+ defense on multiple guys, or at least 80+, tell me that we don’t have a problem with Nimble fighters. They’re awesome, and I love the build, but they’re still a very easy way to win and I expect them to be changed somewhat when the devs put out the sweeping changes for perks I’m sure they’re gonna do eventually.

Just to reiterate: I am NOT talking about using one guy to win the game. I’m talking about using nimble fighters in conjunction with other characters. Nimble fighters hit hard, are incredibly hard to kill, and can wear heavy armor like everyone else. They’re tough cookies.

Sky wrote:

The bell curve. So I suppose you have recorded several of your matches having a statistic for every men in every match. Where you can see that the more RNG hits he does the less RNG it becomes?

Actually, this doesn’t require bookkeeping or a spreadsheet or anything of the sort to explain. What I’m about to explain is basic statistics – namely, probability.

Let’s say I’ve got a die that can roll any result from a 1 to a 20, or a d20. If I roll on that die, my range is 0-20, and my average is 10.5, and I’m just as likely to get any one result on the die as the other. There is no bell curve here.

Let’s change things up. Say that I have two ten sided dice, or 2d10s. Instead of rolling one of them, I’ll roll both of the d10s and add them up. So, if I get a 5 and a 6, I can actually get a result of 5.5. Etc. If you plot out ALL POSSIBLE OUTCOMES, you get the same range, only a slightly different average, but you get a bell curve instead of a straight line. You get more results around the middle because there are lots of ways to get an 11 total (5+6, 4+7, 3+8, 2+9, 1+10) than to get a 20 or a 2 total (10+10 for 20 or 1+1 for 2).

Let’s apply this to RNG in a video game. Let’s say that I’ve got a character who can hit for 10 damage but only gets one attack, and I’ve got a character who only hits for 5 damage but gets two attacks per turn. Both of them are attacking each other, and both have a 50% chance to hit with each attack. The first guy’s attacks are going to be much “swingier” than the second guy’s attacks. I.E.: there’s a lot more left up to chance, and he only has a 50% chance to hit in a given round. The guy who only deals 5 damage actually has a 75% chance to hit at least ONCE in the round. There’s a calculation of probability you can use to check this out. He’s less likely to get 10 damage, but he’s more likely to actually get results.

Let’s talk Battle Brothers now. Let’s pretend we could make all the attacks in Battle Brothers cost 1/2 the action points they do right now with a snap of our fingers, BUT each attack only deals 1/2 the damage. Suddenly, we’re seeing more of the “average” outcome happening – less RNG involved – but we still have meaningful amounts of RNG.

I’m not saying this is what we SHOULD do, note. I’m saying that if this WAS done, it’d be a totally acceptable way to reduce RNG while still keeping a healthy dose of it. As I said in the post before this one, RNG is good for strategy. RNG makes provides obstacles. Overcoming obstacles is what strategy is all about.

Sky wrote:

The shield thing. If you do that then you will make the big shield heavy armor dudes the OP ones who can go in with secoundary shields and be just terminators. But again, if they are alone that will not help, if they are in party then it does not matter, it yould only make the early game harder and bearing a shield a must have at least at the very beginning of the start, discouraging the trying other things and making it frustratingly hard to fight enemies early on.

We haven’t even discussed how many damage reduction I was talking about.

I don’t know exactly how much damage reduction I’d apply, but right now sword-and-board is the MUCH weaker of the two defensive styles. It really is, and NOTHING stops a Nimble Fighter from putting on a kite shield to fight off archers. A small bit of damage reduction wouldn’t be a bad thing.

Sky wrote:

*hint* There are at least two well known pure logic no rng games, chess and GO.

This sincerely makes me think you didn’t really read my post in its entirety. I expressed several times that RNG was GOOD, RNG is what strategy NEEDS, RNG simulates real world situations, etc. You seem to think I want a game devoid of strategy.

Let me quote myself next:

Meeky wrote:

Now, with all that said, I do think there are a few things that could be done that could reduce RNG without removing it. And I think they’d be fair.

What I’m saying there is that if you WANTED to reduce the RNG, there are ways to do so without actually taking it out of the game. And you shouldn’t take RNG out of the game. RNG is, again, GOOD FOR STRATEGY. But if someone wanted to know what you could do to make the game less swingy, the above examples are ways you can do so.

Also, I hate chess.

[Miaphysites]

Ya lets beat up on sky! Ya! Sky face crit. Now that I think about it, and who the world thinks about it like you, ya, seems like their game is really heavy on RNG next to comparable titles? You’d sort of know when a kill happens on Jagged Alliance, 2 turns ahead of time, ya round this corner, head shot. im guessing, maybe Battle Brothers gives it to the dice too much? Now, you aren’t talking about more clicking right? no thanks. XCOM even more so, so, I got this rocket launcher see, theres a hut over there with aliens running around in it, see. This Possibly can come to battle brothers, if tactics are emphasized, im not sure, I can’t visualize it, crossbows blocked Entirely by shield wall, Totally cutting through 2-handers, bows shooting over obstacles, unprepared bowmen gets slaughtered by a melee ambush.

[Author]

Posts