Denjanjeau

[Denjanjeau]

If you want this to become a place of lively discussions, you must answer posts here ;)

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

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 :)

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

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 :)

[Denjanjeau]

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 :)

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

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 :)

[Denjanjeau]

EVANS UA wrote:

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 ;)

[Denjanjeau]

Jago wrote:

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.

[Denjanjeau]

SpiritofTheWolfx wrote:

I feel a that a two times speed would be good when you are going town to town trying to find a job. I agree with the pausing the game when an enemy enters sight. Make it an option in the the settings to toggle on and off.

Well x5 or whatever was perhaps too extreme… just an example :) I just want to reduce sitting and waiting around for no good reason. I want to play the game. Make decisions and so on.

But a part of the game so far is real time. Wathcing a caravan is EASIER in one way than going by yourself between two towns as the caravan will team up in a fight. Yet the reward is much greater. Partly because the party takes more upkeep, but I sense mainly because I have to sit and click and adjust to the speed of the caravan. I don’t really enjoy that…it feels like micromanaging something boring and investing real time instead of game time.

Now this is of course personal taste. But a game like battlebrothers promises to be doesn’t need real time investments as it’s FULL of decision making. Dilemmas is already appearing and so on. I am sure this will be balance to not be boring. The game is in early release. Just wanted to voice that this is an issue for gamers like me. It heavily reduceds the fun of a game if I have to arbitrary spend a lot of real time to get the fun that I could get without spending as much “dead” time.

And in this aspect I do believe that I am not alone :)

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

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.

[Denjanjeau]

Anonymous wrote:

I believe he meant that he was “done” as in – finished playing the fun part, not that he wasn’t going to continue playing when it was updated.

Although I am no mind reader, this is what I took from it as well. I am also “done” right now (uninstalled it to not be tempted to play again and get bored) because the game lacks so many features right now like story and so on. But devs shouldn’t stress out about that. IT’s early release. Just add things in steady pace and I will reinstall when I feel that I can discover new things :)

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

Here is an answer directly from the developer directly on subject of being able to see character’s traits.

Spot on! This link supports your impression of what the devs said they wanted to achieve and also explains the flimsy logic behind your argument in this thread as your argument is in line with the devs argument in that thread. Or at least the argument he refers to:

as for seeing quirks of mercs for hire….then why have any bad perks? why have good ones at that matter. if you let everyone see what they are buying, they will just chose the good one and there will just be leftovers that will cycle out in time. to me that would make the individuality of each merc pointless. at that rate the game and army’s will get very cookie cutter. in my opinion that ruins the idea that the devs originally had. now im not saying they cant change it or even shouldn’t. but if they do, they will lose a large amount of fan base from people who actually like this idea. to be honest it don’t even make any sens logically. the fact you say you save scum is not in tune with the heart of the game. again, im not attacking you, its your right to do that. but the nature of the game is to get a random chr, and deal with it. he will die or live depending on how you play. or live forever if you save scum. but the thing is, with the idea of reveling everything to the player kinda destroys the nature of the game. no randomness is not bb. its some other game. again if the devs want to do this thats fine. i already donated my money to them. but i would not do it any more due to the game going in the complete opposite direction of what they originally stated it would go in. i like this game because it reminds me of a cool rendition of dwarf fortress, but take away those element and i got nothing to like besides a nice artwork.

Although I totally respect and understand anyone who like gamble and uninformed decisions and being forced to live with that result, I always get a hiccup when someone strongly argues for reaching a goal and then not realizing they are buying tools that won’t lead them there.
Let me repeat why this is so (although evident in this thread):
A) The goal is to be forced to use characters with bad traits to assimilate them to the squad (or use them as cannonfother and recruit new ones).
B) As long as there is a save/load the practice of hidden skills will create the absolute opposite (because of the nature of the bad traits the characters can have) as most gamers typically save/reload to avoid this. Now it’s argued in the quote that this ruins the nature of the game. On the contrary, the game is created in a way to give incentive to save/reload because of this.
C) The only way to offer diversity in characters is to have no load/save for all (non-option), or diversify the bad traits so they aren’t just bad, or to make the bad traits lower recruitment cost (which basically is the same as making them not all bad, although it would still make them cannon fother).
Another disappointing (for me) answer in that illuminating thread is:
Question:
*In the recruitment screen, it would be good to be able to see what each background does, stat-wise, by hovering the mouse over the icon(much like it’s already done in the Roster screen).
Dev answer:

That’s probably not something we want to do. You have to realize that stats are a tiny part of what makes up a background. They also influence heavily the traits a character can get and will have a huge impact on the coming event system. Sure, a Tailor may seem somewhat useless now and a Swordmaster a must-have just based on their stats, but things will become much less clear-cut as we add complexity to characters over the coming year

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.
To me this is a very strange attitude. 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. If you want people to not care about things you need to address it in another way. Not tell anything at all or not have any -/+ like they have now, but instead all those “soft” effects from being a tailor or rat catcher only. In that case the feeling of the background is the key. But if you give “hard” bonuses like today… OF COURSE everyone will care about them. Why add something relevant that all know, and then think people won’t care about it and record it? Won’t work :)
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. Very disappointing to me that they would create a game that gives massive incentive to the use of save/load button. Personally I will do my best to only use that to override the nonsensical uninformed decisions and never to reroll battles (as that takes away the fun for me).
I am looking forward to a dev explaining the thought behind incentives to save/reload. One cannot “hide” behind a vision for the game that the dynamics don’t give you incentive to live up to :)

[Denjanjeau]

Atheist wrote:

First of all I do not want fast travel in this game.

Fair enough. I am eager to hear why and see if I can explain myself better or if we just have to agree to disagree because we value things differently.

It would make it extremely boring because what then would you do?

Play the game? Managing your mercenary squad? Fighting? Solving quests? The same as now?

Go along the road to the next town fighting whatever you come across… or do it in 3 seconds. It would get rid of the entire point that the enemies are moving too and you could run into them.

How is it more fun to do exactly what you write but do it in 30 seconds? That is just wasting time for no reason?
Perhaps this will change (I mean it’s early release), but at the moment I spend most of my time with an new squad just running back and forth between cities without fighting anyone. And it takes a lot of real life time. For what reason? Is it fun? No. Is it thrilling? No.
The game kind of starts once I have enough men and quality to take other quests like razing things. Or if I happen to be ambushed along the way or forced to protect a caravan.
So the game play don’t get different whether it takes 3 or 30 seconds to travel besides that you don’t waste as much real time.

I like having to move between the town, and what I think you want is a merc company without the roleplaying, because so much happens on the road. I recruited my fav merc when he tried to steal some supplies from when I was camped travelling to the next town. [quote]
And why cannot that happen because the pixels that move along the road before you get that event moves 5-10 times faster? ;)
[quote]
I really support the real time being spent, because it makes you value your targets, and makes it more realistic.

That is fine. Personally I like to play a game, make decisions, be unlucky, be lucky, loot and so on. Sitting and watching and icon move from one place to another for a long period of time without any skill involved (besides not falling asleep) is just boring to me. Once bandits or something turns up or a random event I am interested. But between that it’s just my life wasted.
Sure… this is mostly at the start of the game… but I imagine it will be boring further on as well. Just that you travel less.

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

If you find that word provoking (english is not may native language) then perhaps we should call it: “not keeping an open mind”?

Are you sure you’re using that word correctly? Because from where I am standing it’s not about keeping an open mind at all. Why? Because we are talking about a game that’s design and made in a certain way for certain reasons. I am simply pointing that out. The fact that I like said direction comes out from another fact that these features were advertised…:

If in fact the developers have stated that they want things to be random this way and people to save/reload rather than get information to form decisions, you are pointing things out and there is no reason to have an open mind. The issue is settled. But unless I am mistaken, you are not a developer, nor have you (so far) been able to direct me to a developer saying this. You seem to, from what I read, say that YOU think something. And thus I conclude that you are not addressing my suggestion with an open mind when YOU decide that people like me shouldn’t get enough information to make decisions on who to recruit.

Q: Will the game have flavor content or extra content like background stories for characters, areas, special weapons, statistics and so on?

Yes! We’re big fans of all those little details that come together to give a game that extra bit of atmosphere, sense of wonder and exploration. It’s one of the reasons we liked both the original X-Com and Jagged Alliance 2 that much. There will be short, proceduraly generated backstories for all Battle Brothers that also influence a Brother’s combat stats and traits.

…and I like such games, so I bought this one.

Sure! Me too. It has no bearing on the topic of my suggestion that we are discussing though.

Sure, you can add any suggestion you want. I am not questioning that. I am questioning the approach of going directly against what developers want the game to be.

And I question that you have the ability to judge this. Nor that that is actually what you are doing. You seem mostly narrowing in how you want to play the game and disregard my suggestion based on it having no merit from that perspective. I don’t mind you not caring for my suggestion, but your personal preference on how to play have no relevance for valuing the suggestion. Only as a fact about how one may play or appreciate the game, which I fully accept and think should be possible.

Yes, it’s [recruiting] a gamble, but the one that can be managed (as I tried to explain). And – much more importantly – working as intended. What would be the point of making various traits (including the negative ones) had the people been avoiding hiring them due to hints of characters having negatives? From design standpoint it makes no sense. You make such traits to be there, to be used. If not, then you don’t make them.

Of course it can be managed. I do understand your description how it can be done and how you do it. That is not something I question. I point out the fact that the large portion of random deciding the quality of who I recruit is diminishing the relevance of deciding who to recruit. It is more about recruiting a bunch and firing the ones I don’t want or using them as cannon fother. Or using save/reload. This is not necessarily a bad way of playing, but it doesn’t allow for informed decision. It is a gamble. Again, I have nothing against people liking to gamble. I am asking for improvements on managing the mercenary company.

It is, as you apparently have decided that you know, that the devs favor gambling and not managing a mercenary party. But I would rather they tell us so than you, as your personal opinion has no relevance on how the game will be developed (nor mine). Facts or perceived facts about game dynamics should be evaluated, and I supply some thoughts about this. I repeat, if it stands like today people will simply save/reload. If there is doubt that this will happen, make some statistics on how people act and this will be evident :)

b) I point out that in my experience this leads to users using save/load and make playing ironman much less enjoyable as you get stuck with team members you don’t want due to the random recruitment effect.

But that’s not a problem. If you’re playing a game in a different way than it was planned, then it’s on you. That’s what I am trying to say. While you are not forced to play “the one and only correct way” you shouldn’t reasonably expect game/developers to accommodate your play style. Especially if this play style goes against what the game stands for.

Eh. First of all, I don’t recognize your authority on deciding how the game is planned. Unless you supply information from devs, this repeated statement has nor merit or value. And the irony is that your text above is easily targeted on yourself. Why are you SO afraid about people like me getting to make informed decisions when recruiting? You can use random if you want? This seem very illogical.

Now, either you retreat on your position or you explain to me what gives you the authority to decide that I choose a play style that “this game doesn’t stand for”. It gets boring. If you are right, direct med to devs saying exactly this or ask a dev to answer me. Otherwise It has no value at all.

When I am talking about how to use the guys you get (and when I am talking about planning which ones to get) I am directly talking about making a decision that is the core of managing the crew by making an informed decision (basing on their equipment, background, salary and needs of my group). I do not hire men blindly, because it’s not a complete roulette as you suggested by asking why not randomly recruit a brother.

Now you are selectively choosing what part of the game that should be managable with relevant information and not random, with argument based on how the early release is currently looking. What is the point of that? It is totally arbitrary. For a discussion and “open mind” it is counter productive. It is also NOT any argument whatsoever that support your point of view stated earlier in this thread or this post.

If you think there should be less information everywhere, why not support removing all numbers from all characters so you only know their background? Why not suggest removing % of hitting i combat? You can guess? No? Then you must realize that an arbitrary stand on where to give information to make decision and where to not cannot be the foudnation of saying that my desire for more information when recruiting is against the nature of the game. That is illogical :)

e) You seem to not understand the philosophy about making informed decisions and question that I should ask for this to be part of the game when it comes to recruiting.

The question would be “How much informed must one be in order to make his decision informed?” and “Why so much?”. But I will ask the most important question: “Would you hire that man, had you known all his traits?”. Then here comes the part speaking about the design and why you don’t put features that people avoid. Then I think the conversation should drift towards talking about the sensibility of cutting a large portion of the game – and developers’ vision – because of that.

How much information you need to make decisions that can be seen to be informed is of course also a judgment call and taste. Do you really need that you have 76% to hit? Would “over 50%” be enough to make that decision and think it’s fun?

But about the converstion about the developers vision – again – where do I find a comprehensive document that describes this in this area?

And… what do you base your conclusion that a large portion of the game has to be cut in order to abide to my suggestion (or something similar)? I haven’t said that. So it’s a conclusion you came on your own on a topic you seem to not fully grasp.

If the advantages and disadvantages on each character where known on recruitment, their value would have to be reflected in the expense or upkeep. Otherwise, as you apparently conclude, there is seldom reason to recruit a character with really bad values. Just as there is little reason now. Just save/reload as most will.

I think I covered this in the beginning of this post, but I will add that this developer’s post plus quote from the FAQ should be enough to come to a conclusion that by “We want you to pick up less-than-ideal candidates and mold them into mercenaries […]” they meant hiring people who come up with less than ideal traits. Note that they also meant: “[…] and we want you to keep an eye out for fitting recruits as you roam the lands […]”, meaning that they do seem to believe that you have enough information during recruitment in order to know which recruits will be fitting.

You are interpreting things to mean something that it doesn’t necessarily mean. The quote that they want users to have to recruit mercenaries that aren’t perfect doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t know that they aren’t perfect when recruiting them. It doesn’t follow. And, again, it won’t have that effect anyhow. People will just save/reload. In order to encourage people to recruit less than perfect mercenaries, the game will have to limit the access to the best classes (which in fact is what the dev in the quote is responding to) or give another reason to recruit those less than attractive mercenaries (cheaper and so on). This is alreay in play with different backgrounds and different prices.

So perhaps read back? Either you seem to misunderstand the whole purpose of my suggestion, or perhaps you didn’t read the thread you try to use as argument against it. Either way, feel free to argue as long as you bother to understand first and question later?

But I do understand your position. I simply argue against it for reasons mentioned above. Maybe I am the minority, maybe I am wrong or whatever. Ultimately it’s up to the developers to make the final call, but I am speaking my mind, because I think it’s better to have feedback than to be silent.

You should speak your mind. But you are repeatedly telling me that you KNOW what is in the line of the philosphy of the game without any foundation of doing so that I am aware of (based on information given in this thread and linked). You may be perfectly right that devs NEVER will make something like I suggest. But I see no merit in you knowing so.

As a parallel I read in another thread (was it in steam?) that devs answered that they consider people to be able to choose their starting squad in some way instead of it being random. I have less issues with it being random because it has nothing to do with my decisions. But I do understand that line of thinking as well. And that could easily be seen as and indication that devs DO think that it is in the philosophy of the game to control more than we do today, don’t you think? I am not drawing any lengthy conclusions about that though :)

One more thing, you put “Random vs. Decisions” in your thread. This is quite telling on its own, but also wrong – it’s not really “random vs decisions” as you suggest. It’s “decisions and more decisions caused by the outcome (which is based on some randomness)”. In a big scale you could just as well say that “this game is all about randomness” (and I did hear many people saying that about any game with RNG involved), but that’s why I say it’s about managing your luck. Can you manage what traits your man will have? No, but you can give him stats after you level him up and decide on the background (thus impacting his stats) as well as pick skills.

No, it is not wrong :) You are messing with this issue and twisting it all you can to support your idea of the game being as it is because forcing save/reload when recruiting should be part of the vision of the devs. Again – show me support of that or retreat from a position you cannot hold.

The quote above is impossible to write if you understood what I answered I think in my first or second reply to you. I said that there are and should be many random factors in the game. But when you make decisions they should be informed decisons. If they are not – if there are arbitrary random factors that pollute the merit in your decision… it is not a decision – it is a gamble. Which you said so yourself earlier in the post I am answering no less.

So I conclude (and you seem to agree) that recruiting today is heavily affected by random. The effect of this will NOT be diversity, but save/reload. You like the gamble, and that is fine. But then it is gamble and not a decision worth the name. Loot drops are also random, but is just an effect that you cannot control. So that doesn’t make a mockery of anything. When you make decisions on how to act in combat you get “enough information” to act by getting the % to hit and order of action and so on. But state (and you seem to agree) that when recruiting I am NOT given that information and that makes it a gamble.

Now, I have no problem with you liking that it’s a gamble and not an informed decision. But I do not accept that you try to twist your own personal opinion to claim that I am wrong or go against the philosophy of the game when you have no foundation to state that. That is just…. annoying. Speak your mind, but do it with respect. Respect is not trying to hit someone in the head with an authority you do not have. Your claim is also HIGHLY inconsistent with how the game is created so far.

Again, all this said, I have no issue with devs deciding whatever they want. I will respectfully inform what I think the effects are and if we can agree on facts, we can disagree on taste. Regardless it’s their game. But until then, I like constructive discussions about real issues. Not being hit in the head with imagiend authority.

[Denjanjeau]

EVANS UA wrote:

Denjanjeau,forget about it,Holy.Death never understand what he reading and never talking properly.You wont get any results in here.
But anyway,way you described isnt too hard and long to deal with…

Thanks for the response!

That said it was wrong of me to say he was narrowminded here. I should have pointed out that it was a narrowminded approach. Any affect reaction from that is on me. Sorry about that.

[Denjanjeau]

Holy.Death wrote:

Instead it does seem as it is you who choose to thin that your desire of random and acceptance that the game will “force” most users to save/reload “all the time” as people don’t like their decisions to arbitrary be punished by the game – as something desirable. I have an open mind and have no problem with your desire to play the game. I do have trouble with the narrowminded approach you have that embracing random is the way to go for everyone.

I don’t really care how you play the game. If you wish to save-load in order to get whatever recruits you desire, then so be it, but going against the flow and then calling me narrow minded for reminding you that it’s here by design and you’re playing it wrong (and even asking to change a core feature because of that) is foolish. Here is a direct quote from the developer on the matter:

When lecturing someone, it’s important that you are right. Are you? I question that. I didn’t call you narrowminded because you reminded me on something (I am not sure you CAN remind me of what you think – not sure it is true). In the quote above, I even EXPLAIN why I call you narrowminded when telling me that I shouldn’t ask for more control when recruiting :) If you find that word provoking (english is not may native language) then perhaps we should call it: “not keeping an open mind”?
Lets recap:
a) I point out that there is a huge random factor in the usefulness in team members when recruiting as we get little or no information on the characterstics of the characters we recruit. We know what background they have, but we don’t get any information (unless I am mistaken – perhaps what he is asking in pay is a hint or the text? But I haven’t spotted a pattern.) whether he is big, tall, fat or any other characteristics that intuitively should be spotted. Besides this being unrealistic (not something I care that much about) it’s also gives the effect that it’s impossible to make a good decision. It’s a gamble.
b) I point out that in my experience this leads to users using save/load and make playing ironman much less enjoyable as you get stuck with team members you don’t want due to the random recruitment effect.
c) You point out that here is a charm in the random and that one may use ones skill to adapt ones way of playing depending on who to recruit – or to use them as cannon fodder or whatever.
d) I point out that I have nothing against a random feature for those who want to gamble, but I find it important (assuming the game is about making decisions) that management of the crew is more about informed decision and less of a gamble. Now if you want to make an informed decision to gamble.. that is your choice ;) Forcing those that want to make informed decisions instead of gambling to save/reload isn’t really a good practice imo.
e) You seem to not understand the philosophy about making informed decisions and question that I should ask for this to be part of the game when it comes to recruiting.
f) I (perhaps unnecessary) point out that that is a narrowminded approach.

The fact that you eliminated money as a concern when hiring characters is an achievement, but it doesn’t mean you should be able to do the same with quality of characters available, ever. Not that the recruiting system can’t be improved upon, but there is a reason it is like this. If we wanted you to always have the best recruiting options available, we’d do so. But we don’t. We want you to pick up less-than-ideal candidates and mold them into mercenaries, and we want you to keep an eye out for fitting recruits as you roam the lands, not to lay siege to a town until the right recruit strolls along.

And here comes a puzzlin part. The quote you supply from devs seem to NOT be an answer to my suggestion or informed decisions whatsoever. It kind of strengthens the perception that you seem to not grasp the concept.
The thread from where you quote a dev is about a user wanting to control what mercenaries that turn up in towns. If you read back in my response to you, I list this as part of the “random” that is part of the game and that I don’t question. The appareance of recruits in different towns isn’t a result of my decision – it is a world mechanic. I try to make the decision who to recruit amongst those available and would like enough information to make a decision instead of just gambling. That can mean picking up less than perfect mercenaries and mold them. Or not. I didn’t ask for the removal of negative traits. I asked for a choice to not hire mercenaries with those traits or hire them because they are cheaper or whatever or I don’t care about them because I need them etc. That is called management based on as much information as possible.

So perhaps read back? Either you seem to misunderstand the whole purpose of my suggestion, or perhaps you didn’t read the thread you try to use as argument against it. Either way, feel free to argue as long as you bother to understand first and question later?

[Author]

Posts