ghoulavenger

[ghoulavenger]

spamtaboo wrote:

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

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

[ghoulavenger]

dltoster wrote:

Do not like a removal of randomness at all.
There are games with everything fixed. Like Warlock. And there are games where dices are rolling. No need to mix them. Are you content with damage randomness? When you want to remove bad rolls you also remove good rolls. For the sake of your unbelieveng that rolls in the mass are averagly equally fair to you.

I’m not quite sure I follow you. I don’t know what you mean there are games with dice rolling etc etc. Random numbers are pretty much the core of every game that has ranges. RPG elements such as character development are almost never purely random, while their attack and defense rolls usually are. By proposing that stats become more background deterministic you don’t remove all that much randomness from the game — you just make it more consistent. Backgrounds are still random, their starting stats are still random it is simply how you develop them that is not.

And actually I believe the farm hand makes an excellent front line soldier, give him a spear (easier to hit), a shield, and the heaviest armour you can find (he has a high health and stamina pool) — does just fine.

[ghoulavenger]

Based on my 30 or so hours of playtime, I would approve of changing stats to be background deterministic. It would make a clear divide between the non-combat oriented backgrounds and the combat oriented ones. Right now they just have some base higher stats and events, with a huge price tag upgrade in comparison to say a wildman or brawler (which are currently on their way to becoming my favorite backgrounds).

Would this discourage the use of some backgrounds? Absolutely, but it also won’t encourage people to play the high priced backgrounds as much either. Think about it:
If you want a tanky character, you can easily go with the farm hand or the hedge knight.
If you want a melee dps character, you can easily go with the killer on the run, hedge knight, sellsword, adventurous noble, wildman or brawler.
If you want an archer dps character, you can easily go with sellsword, a witchhunter and I’m sure a few others.

Which means that each background still has its own inherent value. Are there a few that have very little use? Well yeah, but they can also be cheaper to be used as cannon fodder. Your first few hires are probably like that anyway, fishermen and such, whatever you can find and afford.

[ghoulavenger]

Marsh The Muddy wrote:

Well… For all I know, as soon as that happens, someone will make a WW2 gun mod XD …

Actually I think it’s far more likely they’ll introduce muskets/flintlocks (terrible accuracy, lots of power, reload on fire similar to the crossbow), or maybe a basic repeater (no reload necessary, 3-5 rounds, terrible accuracy, lots of power), as an upgrade to the crossbows. WW2+ style weapons just would seem so out of place in a medieval style game. The advance of early guns would make a much better fit, although still a bit of a stretch.

As far as your regular suggestion goes, it could work pretty easily if there were more nests of monsters. For example, if you wanted to play an orc, you’d need more orc nests in the game that you could visit to receive contracts from/recruit battle brothers. Towns would then act as extreme monster nests because of the spawning of militia near them. You may even want to stay off the road unless you’re required to, to raid a caravan. So basically it’s the same game, just a different perspective. I wouldn’t mind them doing this, but it seems like an awful lot of work to develop contracts for each monster faction, when there are few enough to be had for the human faction. I think this type of thing will be something that will probably happen either as a mod, or as expansion content (should there be any).

[ghoulavenger]

My experiences with Battle Brothers largely start with the world map update. So my opinion may seem a little bit different on this topic. I understand that people think that static choices can be boring, and that random ones punish players. So there are two ways we can go about this:

1. If the objective of random stats is to provide difficulty, then random stats should be part of the difficulties themselves. This adds depth to the difficulties while allowing people to choose how they want to play in a meaningful way. So even difficulty would be fairly static stats, challenging would be more random, and deadly would be very random.
2. If there is no real substantive reason for the randomized stats, it should be an option that is set for each individual campaign. This would allow players to choose but not change their minds in an effort to game the system.

Personally I find random stats a little annoying, but I didn’t think it was an issue til I saw this thread.

[Author]

Posts