1. March 2017 at 07:46 #19843mrbunnybanParticipant
Okay. This is the first update which released the “late-game” crisis concept and folks have been… well, panicking when the crisis starts at around day 80 haha. Let me quote Zosh on this one:
My concern though is generated from the fact that the allure of this game has been that it’s my game, my pace, my story.
The game has a lot of ups and downs. Periods where everything is rolling well and other periods where we see big setbacks. However, that’s ok, and I used to even call it “the best fun dying I’ve ever had”. Now though the game isn’t about enjoying being a roving band of sellswords and doing things your way. That has been poisoned by arbitrary timers.
Yes, I want 12 brothers. No I don’t want them by the arbitrary timer you have set on it.
Yes I want a late game crisis and I want it to be an epic fight. No, I don’t want you to start it based on an arbitrary timer. Add a contract or let me fulfill an ambition (that I”m not forced to take) which will result in triggering it.
Why is it a bad thing that you might want to prepare until turn 100 one game and I might want to prepare until turn 140? Or that another game I might feel ready to take it on at turn 100 or want to take up the challenge of doing it before a certain timeframe? Why is it a bad thing that I might want to slowly grow to 12 brothers and you might want to rush it? Do these things really need timed?
Here’s my take on it: A mercenary company should look at war and crisis and see opportunity (with risks), not feel “I’m not ready yet!”
It doesn’t matter if the company has just suffered a huge setback and needs to rebuild again slowly; there should be ample amount of work for mercenary companies of every level of power from the crisis. A company which has just suffered big losses should take advantage of these opportunities and keep on persevering, not realise they have missed the in-game timer and have to restart their campaign.
SO! Rename “Late-game” crisis to just “crisis”. Do away with the idea that crisis is ONLY for late-game, fully prepared mercenary companies. The crisis also generates a lot of low-level missions suitable for merc compnies which are not doing quite so well. The world of humans is not completely doomed if the player’s mercenrary company does not immediately take a pivotal role in main frontlines of war. Instead, the crisis, while generating a huge amount of work available for merc companies of all levels of power, also causes lots of inconveniences as you might imagine would occur when there is an active war going on: large enemy stacks roaming around the main contested areas which need to be avoided, settlements which fall under enemy control (but may be regained later by human forces, even without the merc company being at the frontlines). This means that settlements and buildings need to be rebuilt after being destroyed.
Well, that is my take on it. What do you guys think?1. March 2017 at 08:23 #19844nope100500Participant
That would make sense, if cities destroyed by orcs could be rebuilt.1. March 2017 at 09:27 #19845RusBearParticipant
You know, the more we study this update, the more I think that we need an option in the start menu “no crisis”. It would solve a lot of problems. Otherwise, developers will be forced to deal with the balance still half a year. The idea that the crisis must happen without regard to the condition of the brothers party , whether a player ready for it, whether he wants to crisis began – it is, certainly, correct, in theory, from the point of view of logic and “realism”, but not good for the game playability.2. March 2017 at 20:36 #19922WargasmParticipant
I’m not sure that it’s realistic for:
– a swarm of brigands to appear out of nowhere, a few millimetres away from you while you’re walking along a swamp path at x2 speed, just after you’ve killed a load of orcs and gained some valuable loot while also losing loads of armour that you don’t have the tools to repair
– the brigands to keep chasing you off the path into the swamp, but then (once you lose your patience and join battle) maintain a rigid unmoving defensive stance deep within the hidden reaches of the swamp, so that you either have to move laboriously through the swamp to find/attack them, or move even more laboriously in the opposite direction to retreat
– after refusing to move in the battle until you get bored and retreat, the brigands then break their defensive stance and start to rush at you headlong once again, so that there’s no escape from having to fight a tedious half-hour swamp battle in the early hours of the morning when you really need to be in bed
Even orc berserkers have been staying still and waiting for you to move on the latest release. It appears that they want you to advance because they think that one clumsy orc young with a bundle of javelins is going to snipe you all out before you can close on them. Ranged abilities may have been upgraded on 0.9.x, but not for orcs. Raiders may hit every time from 4 tiles with a height disadvantage, even if you’re in a shieldwall with a kite, but orcs miss every time from 2 tiles when you’re naked in a swamp with no shield, and they only throw one javelin per round, so that you have to endure 4 rounds of hopeless misses before the berserkers will actually advance …
If it was really realistic, you could use scouts to detect approaching enemies on the world map well in advance, and you could devise hiding places to circumvent them (there’s only around 10-20 of you, after all) …
But partly you want to play games for relief from “realism” (or at least from the tedious, time-consuming aspects of “realism”).3. March 2017 at 18:03 #19965Kuroi_KazeParticipant
You are right and my point of view is that world itself has to be alive and mercenaries are just a part of this world, not its center. New camps arise on its own, enemies there getting more experienced and stronger or get killed with time (undead actually can’t get stronger, but they can increase numbers with time and get more armored dudes and fallen heroes arised). So if some location stay untouched for a long time it will get pretty tough to destroy. Sure, locations with enemies close to players strength and ones with lower forces should also appear, and that will make enough contracts with all levels of difficulties. The same way crises should be just part of the timeflow as mrbunnyban sad. Also I started topic about crises in Game Discussion & Feedback with some thoughts about current feel of crises.4. March 2017 at 21:29 #19997
I think there way for “slowing things down” (if this is personal preference) — selection of noble houses war as 1st fixed crisis. No destruction of settlements (just raiding, nothing pernament), so you can live your own life (gain equipment and exp) while they fight. And only join big fight when ready.5. March 2017 at 20:42 #20050mrbunnybanParticipant
I think there way for “slowing things down” (if this is personal preference) — selection of noble houses war as 1st fixed crisis. No destruction of settlements (just raiding, nothing pernament), so you can live your own life (gain equipment and exp) while they fight. And only join big fight when ready.
I had hoped this would work. Can someone confirm selecting ” war” as first option means no damage is permanent?5. March 2017 at 23:00 #20062HarlathParticipant
Selecting the Noble House War means settlements suffer temporary damage from raiding and can change hands, but locations (and their attached mini-locations) don’t get destroyed. Good summary from the developers in this diary:6. March 2017 at 00:55 #20067
But I must say in current balance of game (on vet at least and higher)… if you play too long in “stasis” on nobles war (feeding up you mercs), orc and especialy undead crisis can achieve devastating levels of scaling, when you will be faced with hordes of elite enemies. This extreamly troublesome during event-related quests, when you, for example, can be forced to fight 2-3-4 times in almost row to achieve success in mission.
So, this safer way of prolonging nobles war can be a bit tricky on perspective.6. March 2017 at 13:55 #20096MikeParticipant
I agree that arbitrarily forcing crises on player is bad for the overall enjoyment of game, the appeal of sanbox has always been choosing you own way to play.
I think that the best way to handle the crises would be to make each one triggered by a short quest chain chosen by players at their leisure – say, recovering 3 powerful artifacts from tombs awakens the undead, raiding settlements for a noble house triggers war between factions, etc.
This way you can have them or not and exactly when you want to, making everyone happy… I think?6. March 2017 at 14:35 #20099
Or may be just simple option during start of game:
When 1st crisis starts?
90 day (i think this is current situation)
180 day (long time)
360 day (this is enough time for even most slowpaced player to be “ready”)
Never (if someone really wants this never)17. April 2017 at 20:19 #21528AarooonParticipant
Honestly speaking, I think it’s a better dies to have the late game crisis come about through “chance” and giving lower level missions as well as higher level missions based on your renown and ability.
I also think though, the player should have more capabilities to influence or stunt a late game crisis.
Mind you for example, if I go around slaughtering my way through hordes and hordes of orcs and goblins, destroying 10 – 20 camps in a dozen some days, it should lower the possibility for a Greenskin invasion, or even remove it fully for a set period of time until they have recovered.
Similarly you should be allowed to raid caravans and buildings more freely, but also face stronger pursuit for it.
If you did and had favourable relations with another noble house or any contract cam along that would implicitly damage another noble house, it would worsen relationships with the two noble houses involved.
I think the crisis should not be controlled by a player, but it should also no mandatorily happen.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.