Topic: Combat feedback (angry and annoyed)

  • Author
    Posts
  • #13629
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    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.

    I don’t think they’d be fair. I think they’d only mess up a solid system we already have for no real gain.

    Misses being hits would only make heavy-hitting weapons even more powerful – think about Orcs. Or skeletons with two-handed weapons, etc. – and remove any reason for having nimble characters. Regenerating HP is just a poor fix here to cover the fact that this change would only encourage being tanky.

    Same goes for giving more attacks per turn – you’d have to factor is stamina, weapon durability (more attacks = weapon breaks sooner) and the fact that enemy can outnumber you (meaning they’ll get more out of the Overwhelm bonus). If you throw in “miss damage” into the mix we get really powerful combination.

    And on top of that you want to make shields even better… Sure, they would need SOMETHING with “every miss is a hit” mechanic but again, like HP regeneration, it’s just a way of fixing the effects of your proposed change. I’d rather not fix something that’s not broken.

    #13646
    Sky
    Participant

    Meeky, I took your post as an example for the rng reduction since it seemed to summarize the overall feel for reducing the rng even more and more people did agree to that.

    The things you mentioned will not reduce rng in any form. You are forgeting that the average of a dice is not the same as the average of same variety program algorithms never was and never will be. Nor will you have enought time enought rolls to get that average in a BB fight(each statistics is based on X number of tries, the more you roll the more correct the average will be). There will be not enought hits done by one person. While you statement is theoreticaly correct it does not apply practicaly to a BB fight. And as I already mentioned you as a player have opportunity to modify the rolls in variety of ways. You seemed to skip that part.

    If you use more nimbles with the other brother how is that breaking the game? It is your tactiacal choise to go with nimble tanks instead of full armored ones. Others go with full xbow and 2handed. I prefer to have a mix of everything. They are tough when in formation with others yes.

    Shields.It does not matter how much of dmg reduction we speak, if it is insignificant then there is no need for it at all, if it is a valid one then it will throw the balance making the strong even stronger. Since I prefer to use the nimble as an assault unit and the tanks being actual heavy armored pikemen and I did try nimble teams and full shieldwall partie, personally I do not see the OPnes of a nimble tanks over my current setup of 2-3 heavy ones. The only difference is that my dudes now do not stop being useful, do not lose strenght after being hit.

    As I said took your post as a summary of the previous anti rng dudes since it seemed to do it good. The hint was mostly for Rusbear who wants to make BB into chess or GO.

    Miaphysites Your “sarcastic” comment is childish and simply stupid, sorry.

    #13650
    Miaphysites
    Participant

    I like chess? You heard it here first folks, my comments are stupid! I think ya Meeky might be overstating his advanced math skills. I think flipping a quarter 10 times still makes the next chance 50/50 not a bell curve. Here’s something concrete though, you’ll never get a 95% hit rating on Battle Brothers, maybe that’s just because there’s no guns. Now its been a while since I did probability but I think they just say it like 50% of 10 that’s 5, 50% of 5 and 50% of another 5 , that’s 5. By the way, what does that mean Sky likes? Lucky 7 let it ride! Let it ride! Momma needs a new pair of boots! Face crit. Wait no Meeky’s right about what he said, same thing.
    What about a constructive comparison of the actual acts of, nimble parrying and a shield wall, how in the world is it 20 fatigue to hold your shield, do they know what they’re talking about? The ancient Roman testudo could only be held for 5 battle turns? And the Hamburgian Germanic wildmen, never ever grew tired of prancing around dodging crap, sounds like propaganda to me. Ya pretty sure that they stand there holding Gigantic shield for hours, waited for Germans to get tired by the 3rd wave, then have huge slaughters, like the actual battle tactics, goodbye super race. That reminds me , no Fatigued defense penalty that I know of? That’s when people get killed, tired and reckless, not that they only swing half as much, or what.

    #13661
    Meeky
    Participant

    @Sky Ah, okay. I see what you’re saying – you were pointing at my post a lot, but really meant to point at the anti-RNG commentary more. Got’cha. No harm no foul.

    And as I already mentioned you as a player have opportunity to modify the rolls in variety of ways. You seemed to skip that part.

    I read that part. The reason I didn’t comment is, well, I agree. Between Overwhelmed bonuses, using the terrain properly, picking the right stat upgrades, right weapons for the right situations, etc., you can increase your chances of success and thus help swing the RNG in your favor. The RNG still determines the result in the end, but essentially the more precautions you take = the more likely things will work in your favor. Things can still go to Hell, but that’s… normal.

    Misses being hits would only make heavy-hitting weapons even more powerful – think about Orcs. Or skeletons with two-handed weapons, etc. – and remove any reason for having nimble characters. Regenerating HP is just a poor fix here to cover the fact that this change would only encourage being tanky.

    This is an interesting point, and I won’t argue with it. There are probably ways this could be fixed (damage caps on misses), but you’re right about not fixing what’s already not broken.

    There is precedence for miss damage in various genres, however. There are Tabletop RPGs which use a similar mechanic (and again, I’d say Battle Brothers leans toward RPG on the RPG-Strategy spectrum). I want to say I’ve seen turn-based strategy games based on tabletop wargames do the same as well.

    Again, though: I’m not saying this is what I WANT, but it’s an example of what COULD be done and made to work for the present system if someone really wanted to reduce RNG.

    You are forgeting that the average of a dice is not the same as the average of same variety program algorithms never was and never will be. Nor will you have enought time enought rolls to get that average in a BB fight(each statistics is based on X number of tries, the more you roll the more correct the average will be). There will be not enought hits done by one person. While you statement is theoreticaly correct it does not apply practicaly to a BB fight.

    Actually, this particular point WOULD work just fine. I’ll happily say that miss damage would introduce a host of problems, sure, but including extra attacks for a total of the same damage as present WOULD mean you’d get an amount of hits – and an amount of damage – that hits the “average” result more often.

    If I have an 80% chance to hit someone, I’m more likely to get at least SOME damage in with two attacks than with one. That’s just basic math. I’m also more likely to get a miss, singular, because I’ve got more attempts to potentially miss. These things DO apply to a Battle Brothers fight, too, and it’s why I’m very careful about sending a low HP guy who’ll only get one attack to finish off the last enemy who can die in one hit. Even if my success chance is 70%, I’d rather put someone else in there to do the killing because if I DO miss, he’s going to murder my low HP guy. (Okay, he might miss, but I try to look at things as a worst case scenario.)

    One way to make more weapon attacks work without factoring in more durability issues and so forth? Just have every attack action be divided into two attempts with the exclusion of specific abilities like Repel, the hooking ability on the Billhook, Shield Bash, etc. Primarily damage-dealing abilities would get two attacks per attack action, each dealing 1/2 damage, and their weapon durability, fatigue cost, etc. would be calculated as it is right now (I.E. as a single attack). There might be some slight modifying to be done, but the point is you’d get more “average” results than before. RNG reduced. Yes, this applies to Battle Brothers.

    And, again: not the solution I personally advocate, but it’s an example of how you COULD reduce RNG.

    Overall? I like how the game’s core mechanics function right now. I agree with you two, @Sky and @Holy.Death, on that. It ain’t broke; don’t fix it. But if someone DID want to change it, there are ways they could do so, and I don’t think we should immediately dismiss the prospect of doing so.

    #13680
    Sky
    Participant

    No, we should not dismiss, but discuss it. When everyone interested will say their point of view why and how explained so everyone can get the maximum information out of it. A discussion should develope said point of views and push them forward modify them. Perhaps somewhere there the devs will see something that they like and can use to improve their game. As for the people in the discussion we get to see how and what others think about it and ofc why.

    All I’m saying is imho and probably will differ from others and thats just how things are. Opinions can be similar to a point but hardy ever identical. I do not wish to deminish others opinion rather to give mine to compareson and continue the dialogue.

    About the average. If you look at the bell curves morphing due to the amount of inputs you can see that 4 or 8 make not a big difference. Gamewise speaking it would insignificantly change the hits but at least double the time of the fights. You said you won’t risk the low lvl guy to make 1 hit and maybe miss opening the enemy a chance to kill him. This won’t change with twice as many hits. Even with two hits there is a chance that you don’t hit or hit once, and then there is the dmg rng. When you deal the lowest possible dmg and enemy does not die. More time same result. I can see how this can work with focus on an archer machinegunning down enemies, but other than that not so much.

    It is a risk reward afterall. Do you risk the low hp guy and get exp or wait for a safe option but he survives. Less rng less risk less risk less reward.

    #14088
    Whiskiz
    Participant

    “Things I would love to see in this game:
    Castle or stronghold assault missions inside buildings ect.
    The ability to buy horses to mount and carts to pull extra loot and storage.
    Custom armour colours and insignia.
    Voiced dialog from my men in-game, just like the orcs do.
    Enchantment slots for weapons and armour.
    Accessory slots for rings/necklaces and bracelets for the brother for mini perks ?”

    you realize this is a realistic medieval setting right? not sure the mercenaries of the medieval times used to run around with weps and armor that had enchantment slots, or ran around with accessorys like rings, necklaces and bracelets for the point of boosting their fighting capabilites :p

    #14091
    dltoster
    Participant

    you realize this is a realistic medieval setting right? not sure the mercenaries of the medieval times used to run around with weps and armor that had enchantment slots, or ran around with accessorys like rings, necklaces and bracelets for the point of boosting their fighting capabilites :p

    Do you familiar with a placebo effect?

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.