Topic: Give enough information to make decisions

  • Author
    Posts
  • #5501
    Jago
    Participant

    First: I’m sorry for not reading all of your posts. I haven’t been following this topic from the beginning and reading this much text at once is a bit much for me.
    Sorry if I say something that has been settled already.

    I agree with Holy Death, that it is one of the main objectives to manage a band of faulty men. Having shortsighted fools and old swordmasters is essential part of the gameplay, as well as dealing with all the problems that result from choosing your companions.

    However it’s silly if you cannot recognize a one-legged character before you hire him. There are some things the player should hve control over. That includes things we could control in a realistic scenario. Here I could see if that Miller is fat or athletic. Taking this control from the player is a punishment.

    Of course there’s the background info on each character. These include hints on the less obvious character traits and with playing BB you learn which traits are more likely to appear with which professions. My point is, that this could still be improved by making a bigger variation of background texts and with more hints on the easy-to-see traits.

    Aside from that, some people will still play the game in a way “it’s not supposed to be”, and that’s alright. Things that could be considered “unfair”, like blending out negative traits that the player should be totally aware of, should be reworked in order to prevent frustration.
    But that’s just my two cents.

    #5502
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    You cannot force people to play a game exactly the way you want when it goes against the nature of people. It doesn’t make sense. […] I am looking forward to a dev explaining the thought behind incentives to save/reload.

    The fact that something is not following your point of view doesn’t mean it makes no sense. Here is the direct response to that:

    I can imagine not having all character traits be permanent, and your reasoning on this is sound. One thing to consider, though, is that those character traits are also character-defining to some extent. Having “the fat guy” you came to love suddenly being “the regularly-sized guy” among a bunch of other regularly-sized guys makes him also less special, which is what those character traits are all about. Then again, maybe he just started out as “the fat guy” and has long since become “the axe guy, slayer of dragons and sole survivor of the battle of xy”. I suppose this warrants some more reflection once we’re further on with development of the campaign worldmap.

    Regarding your other point, the thing is that everything can and probably will be “gamed”, as you put it. We can discourage people in this instance by making the difference between 2 positive and 2 negative traits just strong enough to be taken seriously, but not in any way crippling. We can discourage throwing away people for their traits with prohibitive recruiting costs and recruits being rare. But ultimately, that mindset of powergaming can apply to everything, and attempting to design the game in a way that suppresses this without having gameplay suffer for it is a fool’s errant. Some people will reload the game for everything, from unfavourable battle results to characters gaining negative traits like being traumatized, as Levi suggested. That shouldn’t stop us from adding such traits in the first place. We’ll do our best to make this a balanced game that doesn’t necessitate or encourage any such powergaming, but ultimately, it comes down to how each individual player chooses to play the game for him or herself.

    Although I think the answer is intelligently put and correct in that the background is so much more than +5 x and -10 y as planned. It makes little sense to listing those bonus/penalties as it just forces people that care about it to go to a wiki or record it for themselves.

    Nothing is stopping them. If people want to game the system, they’ll do it.

    Anyhow. Thanks for clearing up where your view of devs intentions came from and (indirectly) why your argument was firm but inconsistent. I see now that you were right in your impression of what the devs said they would do.

    Right. Impression. I actually read developer’s diaries (Character traits and backgrounds, Character generation, hiring, shopping) as well as the FAQ and some other stuff that can be easily found on the internet if you look for it. That’s not an “impression” when something is stated clearly.

    #5505
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    You cannot force people to play a game exactly the way you want when it goes against the nature of people. It doesn’t make sense. […] I am looking forward to a dev explaining the thought behind incentives to save/reload.

    The fact that something is not following your point of view doesn’t mean it makes no sense. <a class=”d4pbbc-url” target=”_blank”

    The fact that it doesn’t follow my taste is not the reason that I say “it makes no sense” :) But you are TOTALLY right that that would be no good reason. I like that attitude.

    The reason I say “it doesn’t make sense” (which again might not be the perfect words – I appreciate that you interpret it in a friendly way) is because it doesn’t seem to (based on the information I got) to correlate with what devs and you are saying the purpose is.

    It’s like (imo) painting the hall way red and saying it’s because it should be soothing for newcomers, while all studies show that the color read ISN’T soothing. I may also personally dislike the color red… because it’s not soothing. But that isn’t my argument.

    Not ironclad parallel perhaps… but that is what I try to argue. I will voice my own personal taste in hope that it’s something that others like, but this entire thread has mostly been about me explaining what the effect will be of certain things. And that are perceived facts, not personal taste.

    href=”http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=136754.msg5206518#msg5206518&#8243; rel=”nofollow”>Here is the direct response to that:

    I can imagine not having all character traits be permanent, and your reasoning on this is sound. One thing to consider, though, is that those character traits are also character-defining to some extent. Having “the fat guy” you came to love suddenly being “the regularly-sized guy” among a bunch of other regularly-sized guys makes him also less special, which is what those character traits are all about. Then again, maybe he just started out as “the fat guy” and has long since become “the axe guy, slayer of dragons and sole survivor of the battle of xy”. I suppose this warrants some more reflection once we’re further on with development of the campaign worldmap.

    Very charming. And you are now supplying information to change the circumstances. I wrote last post (?) that the only way to make people (mainstream) not save/reload to avoid bad traits (as they are too bad) is to balance them. This is a perceived fact that I believe that I am quite competent in saying. Also that that is bad for the game as it diminishes feeling to save/reload. For that reason it’s good to address this.

    Now, if the bad traits are balanced (not purely bad like some of the traits already) or/and they can change over time, then one is addressing part of the problem. As you say, one cannot force people not save/reload to optimize. But that is not what I am saying the game should. The game should give incentive to act in a fun and interesting way. Right now it does not. Which is what I pointed out in my suggestion and suggested a change. The answer may be that there is change coming in this area that will change the issue. But if not changed, then there IS an issue. Saying there isn’t because someone doesn’t want there to be doesn’t make it go away :)

    Regarding your other point, the thing is that everything can and probably will be “gamed”, as you put it. We can discourage people in this instance by making the difference between 2 positive and 2 negative traits just strong enough to be taken seriously, but not in any way crippling. We can discourage throwing away people for their traits with prohibitive recruiting costs and recruits being rare. But ultimately, that mindset of powergaming can apply to everything, and attempting to design the game in a way that suppresses this without having gameplay suffer for it is a fool’s errant. Some people will reload the game for everything, from unfavourable battle results to characters gaining negative traits like being traumatized, as Levi suggested. That shouldn’t stop us from adding such traits in the first place. We’ll do our best to make this a balanced game that doesn’t necessitate or encourage any such powergaming, but ultimately, it comes down to how each individual player chooses to play the game for him or herself.

    As I wrote in the paragraph above, the point isn’t to make sure no one can power game. This is a single player game so who cares? My point was that currently the game “forces” main stream user to save/reload because the recruitment situation is to “unfair” and is not an informed decision its a gamble. I am very sure that this perceived fact is correct and this causes trouble.

    What the game shouldn’t strive for is therefore to make main stream users not wanting to save/reload but enjoy the game. That is my point! :) Exactly how can be debated of course. My suggestion was to give information so that you don’t have to. Other ways is indeed to alter the effects of traits and so on, although that is a much harder way. It’s very easy to end up with an either or situation. EITHER the bad traits are bad, and then people will save/reload to not getting them by mistake (it’s totally different if you know they are there) OR they are not that damaging to the character, in case they are really not that important. More of charm.

    But, I have no objection against the latter. It’s charming and quirky. Right now, the disadvantages are sometimes REALLY damaging to the character (imo).

    Although I think the answer is intelligently put and correct in that the background is so much more than +5 x and -10 y as planned. It makes little sense to listing those bonus/penalties as it just forces people that care about it to go to a wiki or record it for themselves.

    Nothing is stopping them. If people want to game the system, they’ll do it.

    Sure. But now you are just stating something obvious instead of extending it as an argument. Lets do that then. “I think it is irrelevant is a majority of the main stream gamers save/reload in order to avoid the bad traits”. That is what you are saying right?

    Why do you say you want to achieve something and then say you don’t care if you implement things in a way that will totally ruin that aim. Because that IS what you are saying.

    You are saying that you and the devs (links provided) want people to recruit merceneries that are NOT perfect and instead mold them into the squad. I have absolutely NO objection to that. Have you grasped that? Instead I am saying that the way it works now (and any similar fashion of ruining a recruitment with arbitrary bad traits) will cause massive save/reload for a majority of main stream players. Which means the game doesn’t offer most gamers what it says it wants to offer. And that is why I am suggesting a change here to avoid save/reload spam.

    Now, there are ways to avoid this. Balancing traits. Or (as you said?) perhaps let ALL mercenaries have 2 good and 2 bad and so on. So MY suggestion to reveal isn’t necessarily the way to go. One may address i another way. But that still means that addressing my suggestion with “there is no issue” is faulty. And annoying for me. I always hate when people tell me 2+2=5.

    Anyhow. Thanks for clearing up where your view of devs intentions came from and (indirectly) why your argument was firm but inconsistent. I see now that you were right in your impression of what the devs said they would do.

    Right. Impression. I actually read developer’s diaries (Character traits and backgrounds, Character generation, hiring, shopping) as well as the FAQ and some other stuff that can be easily found on the internet if you look for it. That’s not an “impression” when something is stated clearly.

    It totally respect that. I should be humble about not having that total impression that you have yet, because I haven’t been around yet.
    On the other hand, the main “problem” in the discussion from my point of view is that there is an issue (perhaps an issue that is planned to be handled in another way I suggest) that isn’t about taste. And it seems that you repeatedly say there there is no issue because this is what devs want. The issue will still be there though. We are not helping in development by disregarding that there are things there that we don’t want to be there. We improve things by addressing them.

    If unclear… I have not issues with random in the game (although it has to be reasonably balanced to work). There are links to devs saying this as well. Like stat gains when leveling. I have showed this game to two friends and they would save/reload when leveling to get max they can. I will not because it’s just variation, not crippling. And it’s not a result of my decisions so I don’t feel a fool for having bad luck. My two friends would (well, at least one of them) save/reload before going into town in order to get the best recruits available (hedge knight and sword master). I would not – it would ruin my feeling. They would save/reload before each battle and reply until winning. I would not, as it ruins the feeling for me.

    As knowledgable in game dynamics I know that there is a line between power gaming and being “forced” to save/reload. I am pointing out that the situation with recruiting “forces” users like me to save/reload as it is now. I am not saying there cannot be other solutions than giving more information (although I would prefer that myself), but something should be altered here. Which is why we give information to devs what we think in early release? If you get all information and ALL mercenaries have 2 good and 2 bad. There you go – you will still be forced to mold mercenaries into your squad? And make an educated decision. Just an example of solutions.

    #5507
    EVANS UA
    Participant

    Denjanjeau,stop it.Youre wasting time.

    #5508
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    First: I’m sorry for not reading all of your posts. I haven’t been following this topic from the beginning and reading this much text at once is a bit much for me.
    Sorry if I say something that has been settled already.

    np. I write a lot :) Hopefully you read some of it :D I will simply repeat my arguments. Perhaps they get easier to understand each time I formulate them. They are crystal clear in my head =p

    I agree with Holy Death, that it is one of the main objectives to manage a band of faulty men. Having shortsighted fools and old swordmasters is essential part of the gameplay, as well as dealing with all the problems that result from choosing your companions.

    I do not disagree with that. I am saying that the way it is now, main stream gamers WILL not play like this as the unfair result of your decision of hiring a character is too harsh. Revealing the information is one way to go to solve this (the easiest way) and doesn’t necessarily mean that you only would buy characters with flawless background. Just like you don’t only buy hedgeknights (or whatever) now. They have other downsides – in this case money.

    However it’s silly if you cannot recognize a one-legged character before you hire him. There are some things the player should hve control over. That includes things we could control in a realistic scenario. Here I could see if that Miller is fat or athletic. Taking this control from the player is a punishment.

    It IS strange from a realistic point of view. That isn’t my main concern though, but it’s effect. My main concern is that I am asked to make a decision – who to recruit. I look through the characters available. I value their background (miller, mason, swordmaster, hedgeknight), their cost and my current situation and strategy. I make my decision and then turn out to get something good/bad that is a pure gamble. Obviously spending all my money on a hedgeknight that turn out to be a (for example) a Dastard and [add another really damaging trait here] suddenly turned all decision making into a joke as the result went bad. Similarly recruiting 5 cheap characters with irrelevant background sometimes is a jackpot. This is a gamble – not an informed decision. And as it is very important for the mercenary squad, most main stream gamers will save/reload to avoid to be disappointed (some will do it to get all good ones, but that is another level of power gaming – avoiding to be unfairly treated is the main strive).

    Of course there’s the background info on each character. These include hints on the less obvious character traits and with playing BB you learn which traits are more likely to appear with which professions. My point is, that this could still be improved by making a bigger variation of background texts and with more hints on the easy-to-see traits.

    I have read the backgrounds, or I started to. But as for now, I felt it didn’t help me avoid things I didn’t want. And… if it did… wouldn’t that ruin the aim to make me get characters that aren’t perfect? ;) By investing some real time?

    Aside from that, some people will still play the game in a way “it’s not supposed to be”, and that’s alright. Things that could be considered “unfair”, like blending out negative traits that the player should be totally aware of, should be reworked in order to prevent frustration.
    But that’s just my two cents.

    Agree! I see no issue that it’s possible to power game. I believe that most main stream users will save/reload before each battle for instance. That is not bad in itself of course, but it takes away the “rouge” feeling. As I believe the battles already are pretty well balanced I don’t feel the need to do this. Living with the risk of defeat is important for the fun of the game to me. But I am a “soft” ironman gamer.

    Currently I save/reload:
    * before taking raze missions because it “randomly” asks me to raze things that are deadly or impossible. I think that information should be available to me to make a decision. Perhaps the amount of money offered is a clue? If so, I should learn and stop that.
    * before recruiting. After recruiting the ones I want – I check them. If they have “unfairly bad” features I will reload and avoid them.
    * when assisting a caravan regurlarly. As I can easily lose the contract after spending hordes of real time because I am sloppy. I get sloppy because it’s boring to sit and click around for several minutes as investment to get money. If there is a fight I am on! :)
    * I save before battles, but only reload if it bugs out (very seldom now) or if I make mistakes based on not understanding how the game works (come to think of it, I haven’t reloaded for that for ages, but soon new things will come ;)

    I see every reload that the game “forces” me to as something to look at as it diminishes the hardcore feeling. I hope the game will allow for ironman so users can get “credit” (a in game bonus of some sort would be cool – doesn’t have to be big) for not just save/reloading themselves through the game. But regardless I can hold that principle on my own if the game is avoiding to punish me when making decisions.

    As a note, if the game doesn not give me information about recruits and missions and so on, I would still play ironman and try to live with the consequences of the recruits. That would, however, lower enjoyment and probably cause rage quits and/or cannon fother tactics. This may or may not be a a feeling issue of wanting to make good decisions (which management is about) and not always about the exact effect of bad traits.

    #5509
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    Denjanjeau,stop it.Youre wasting time.

    Why? Since when is constructive discussion a waste of time? :) Generally it IS a bit pointless arguing on the Internet (even if you win you are still retarded), but this isn’t about winning anything. I am (and I am sure all are here) genuinly interested in assisting (if I can) to make this game as great as it can be. The devs have a vision and that is very important that they hold firm – or change it with awareness – and not adjust to user taste to appease people. That would be bad.

    So I respect vision and goals. But I happen to “know” from experience how certain things will work out, so I raising issues that I see. That is why I totally respect the desire to not have perfect mercenaries and I personally LIKE that. I am just pointing out that how it currently works won’t give that.

    The discussion has been fruitful to me as at this point I would probably post a different suggestion:

    1) Because the issues save/reload, informed decision vs. gamble… unfair result…. bla bla
    2) Reveal information, but make all mercenaries have 2 good and 2 bad
    3) make all good and bad more interesting than they seem now. Advantages and disadavntages and not just clear cut.

    That would be interesting to me. I really like making informed decisions and molding things into working well. I just don’t like trying to make a good decision and getting “slapped” because the game treats me unfairly. That annoys me. And I know it will annoy most main stream gamers. Although most main stream gamers will save/reload much much more than I will if I like this type of game. That is why I like rouge like games ;)

    #5511
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    Not ironclad parallel perhaps… but that is what I try to argue. I will voice my own personal taste in hope that it’s something that others like, but this entire thread has mostly been about me explaining what the effect will be of certain things. And that are perceived facts, not personal taste.

    Everybody knows that. It’s even in the developer’s quote.

    Very charming. And you are now supplying information to change the circumstances.

    I am merely proving that:

    – Developers know about gaming the system by save-loading.
    – Developers don’t think they should address that.
    – Not being able to see traits is a conscious design decision.
    – Developers think that backgrounds provide enough information as-is.

    #5532
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    I am merely proving that:

    – Developers know about gaming the system by save-loading.
    – Developers don’t think they should address that.
    – Not being able to see traits is a conscious design decision.
    – Developers think that backgrounds provide enough information as-is.

    Sure. And I am pointing out that what they say they want to achieve and YOU say you want to achieve isn’t achieved by how recruitment is made. Which is why I made the suggestion.

    To clarify – I mean you are saying that the aim is to make users recruit mercenaries with bad traits and mold them into the band (and you provided links to devs saying this as answer to another question, but also saying similar things to the exact same issue I bring up – so you seem to agree with what devs purpose. I have nothing against that purpose. I point out the fact that the tools currently supplied does not reach that purpose. So I am not sure what you argue about?

    In other words. You (and devs as it seems, althoug they haven’t answered directly in this thread) want the answer to an equation to be 4. I point out that it will be 5. So that means that if the recruitment system stands as is, both you and devs will fail to reach your purpose.

    I am not sure what is hard to grasp here :) Do you question that a majority of main stream users will save/reload to avoid a harsh random recruitment system? If so (and devs question this too) then they can add statistics to be collected that I am very confident will show what I predict. Or is it (as I think you have said repeatedly) that you don’t care if people save/reload. In which case you miss the point as that actually means that the result won’t be as you and devs want for a majority of users.

    I don’t think I can explain it more clearly. I am baffled about this discussion as it seems to be more about telling me that devs have made things a way and therefore my suggestion to not do it that way because it will not lead to desired results undesirable. But… isn’t the point of providing input in these forums to help out? How would you help out by uncritically applaud devs decisions even when they (assuming we agree on facts) don’t lead to the desired effect?

    Don’t get me wrong – devs are (of course) in their full right to do whatever with their game. But most devs during early release invite perceptive users to spot inconsistencies and point out weaknesses. Which is what I am doing. Of course other users (like you) help out and share information and relay links to devs previous statements and so on. And that is great. But I fail to see the purpose of just repeating things like the list you repeated above. That IS relevan information that devs have stated their opinion before. Although it is totally irrelevant repeated response to my indepth analyzis of the issue.

    I point out that the equation seem to end at 5 and not at 4 as devs (and you) say they want. I can show you why it ends up at 5 instead. You say that you don’t care that it will end up at 5 and that that is how the game should be. But… you have repeatedly said that you want it to end up at 4.

    It.simply.doesn’t.make.sense :)

    #5533
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    To iterate a clarification again. My objections to the current implementation seem NOT to go against the stated desire to encourage users to recruit different type of mercenaries with both advantages and disadvantages. Quite the contrary. It’s the current implementation that will lead to user having no or very few bad traits of their mercenaries as they will save/reload to avoid them.

    This statement of mine should be very clear. It doesn’t seem to go against the philosophy stated or derived. If it does, explain how (don’t repeat that you like the implementation as is when it doesn’t give the effect you claim you want it to). My claim that a majority of users will save/reload to avoid bad recruits if the implementation stands like this (and thus ruin the stated and derived goal entirely) can easily be falsified in case I am wrong.

    So falsify my statements, respond to them. Don’t throw a wet towel on good arguments and repeat mantras as “thing are like they are and cannot be changed regardless whether it works well or not”. Such attitude makes any discussion about the game utterly pointless. If this is the attitude that is encouraged by the devs and moderators of the forum, then I will of course back off and not provide my insights as it would be a total waste of time :)

    #5534
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    Not ironclad parallel perhaps… but that is what I try to argue. I will voice my own personal taste in hope that it’s something that others like, but this entire thread has mostly been about me explaining what the effect will be of certain things. And that are perceived facts, not personal taste.

    Everybody knows that. It’s even in the developer’s quote.

    It is in fact not clear in the quotes (at least not the ones I read) that devs do understand the consequences here. If they come here and say they do understand that their desire for users to have bad traits of their mercenaries will be void with the current implementation and that they don’t care about it, then I stand corrected. I would be very disappointed by such illogical conclusion, but I am sure devs can live with that :)

    What they ARE Saying is that the are aware that users (many, few whatever) will save/reload and that they are ok with it. But I am not sure they realize that a majority will and that the consequence is the one I am saying. That that fact means that there will be LESS diversity because of the hidden stats instead of more diversity. My hope is that they have missed this conclusion and when realizing this will rethink the issue. OR that they have other things planned as additions (I have suggested a few alternatives to revealing all traits in this thread for example) that changes the issue in an innovative and interesting way that I haven’t foreseen. I only respond to what I see and know. The game is early release.

    The fact that YOU seem to think illogical solutions is a good thing is fine with me. But it has no relevance to me as you are not a dev :)

    #5536
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    It is in fact not clear in the quotes (at least not the ones I read) that devs do understand the consequences here. If they come here and say they do understand that their desire for users to have bad traits of their mercenaries will be void with the current implementation and that they don’t care about it, then I stand corrected.

    If you want to ignore what developers said and want them to answer you directly, then you’re free to wait. Good luck.

    #5541
    Denjanjeau
    Participant

    It is in fact not clear in the quotes (at least not the ones I read) that devs do understand the consequences here. If they come here and say they do understand that their desire for users to have bad traits of their mercenaries will be void with the current implementation and that they don’t care about it, then I stand corrected.

    If you want to ignore what developers said and want them to answer you directly, then you’re free to wait. Good luck.

    Nah. I don’t ignore what you said. I ignored what Evans EU said :) I kept wasting my time. I have this flaw you see. I have this idea that if I explain things to people well enough, or from different angles, they will understand in the end. I DO know that this isn’t how things work.

    The facts here are that you say that you and the devs want to achieve “4”, but the current implementation gives “5”. You choose to think this is okay, and argue that the devs do too regardless of argument. The latter may be true, but assuming that people cannot change their mind when faced with arguments is a depressing thought.

    Thanks for providing links and information that I wasn’t aware of! Much appreciated :)

    #5545
    Jago
    Participant

    @Holy.Death:
    Despite what the devs said in the past, they have already changed some aspects of the game. For example bars for health and armor were not supposed to be visible, especially not for enemies.

    I can’t recall more examples at the moment, but I’m sure there were more. And there’ll probably still a lot happen, especially when most features are added, the balancing follows.

    First, the quotes don’t proof much, as they don’t refer to that exact issue. The backgrounds can still be tweaked if the devs see that people don’t like it very much. It’s not like that would fundamentelly change the game as you state it.

    Second, it might help if you stop arguing with quotes. These are statements, but not necessarily explenations for why the game is designed the way it is. If you want to defend the current system, stop quoting, but explain why it should staying the way it is.
    Otherwise this conservation leads nowhere and is not much help for the devs, to see you quoting what they said months ago.

    Imho the backgrounds COULD be tweaked a lttle, to give more obvious info and more variation. That’s nothing game breaking.

    #5546
    RusBear
    Participant

    in my humble opinion – suggested by me above option with the disclosure of non-obvious character traits as you gain level up and game events and actions of the squad as a whole – seems logical, hardcore, and solves the problem with save/load if for whom it is a problem. In general I want to say that if “bad” features of brothers should be on understanding the developers part of the gameplay( and I honestly agree with this) that there are many options to make it more beautiful, logical and fit the game style. And I think eventually it will, just not ready yet more important things in the game plan.

    #5547
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    Imho the backgrounds COULD be tweaked a lttle, to give more obvious info and more variation. That’s nothing game breaking.

    The answer could be in linking positive and negative traits together – instead of having 4 traits (2 bad, 2 good) we could get 2 traits that’d have their ups and downs. That way even a negative trait would have some positives and there would be no obvious positive traits. A trade off. It is the only way I can see giving more info on recruits that could potentially work out while keeping the original idea (of having imperfect men around) in mind. The “only” problem would be then in developing and balancing such system.

    in my humble opinion – suggested by me above option with the disclosure of non-obvious character traits as you gain level up and game events and actions of the squad as a whole – seems logical, hardcore, and solves the problem with save/ download if for whom it is a problem.

    They said something about thinking on someone’s idea of hiring a recruiter (I am not sure if that’d be just another background of a battle brother or a follower, like blacksmith et al) that could unravel more about men for hire you encounter. But it’s merely a thought from the developer on a suggestion, so take that with a pinch of salt in regards to actual implementation. It might happen or not.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 35 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.