GOD

[GOD]

I’m a lurker myself. I don’t post on forums or write reviews. Instead, I’ve been convincing the people I game with to buy it as well. It’s had a nice chain reaction so far.

Sarissofoi wrote:

Nice.
BTW No Steam user here(i make exception for BB). Where I can find Steam saves?

They’re not in application data or the steam folder?

[GOD]

I like it, but it also feels weird to have perks not do anything outside of vision range. Being heard is what’s important, but the orders wouldn’t be as effective if you couldn’t see who you´re ordering. How about halving the effect of the perks for every tile that they affect beyond your vision?

So let’s say you have vision 3 and Captain perk. Everyone within three tiles gets the full 20%, those four tiles removed get 10% and the fives tiles removed get 5%.

Buce wrote:

I like this idea! We can go even further with realism, every brother should see the captain if he want to get bonus from his traits.
Warrior with full helmet and decreased vision can’t see his orders so he don’t get any bonus ±’

The merc on receiving end of the perk only needs to hear the order, so their vision doesn´t matter. Otherwise you get the visual image of people pausing in combat to crane their head to look who´s shouting at them. :P

[GOD]

I don’t care for achievements one bit. They’re just a lazy way of trying to make it feel like the player has accomplished something, rather making them feel this way through their interaction with the mechanics. Imagine reading a book and the book going: YOU HAVE REACHED CHAPTER 2. GOOD JOB! What I do care about is cohesion and not putting in features that don’t fit the central themes of the game.

Your starting gear actually has larger impact on the starting difficulty than the traits you get. Sure, you might be able find some really good combos if you could select them, but you can’t. That’s part of the point. The game shouldn’t encourage trying to minmax your starting party, because it is a waste of your time both thematically and practically. They’re not the main characters and the game mechanics should reinforce this.

I can see why Crusader Kings 2 has a feature like that, but that is a very different game with different reasons for having it.

PsenBattle wrote:

Same for me. I just play with whomever I get. You have to adapt your tactics a little to your starting team. But after a few fights you should be all set no matter what bros you started with.
Okay, if you start with two beggars and a vagabond it might be more difficult :) But even thats doable, happened to me before.

One of my favourite random games was when I started on hard and got two servants and a miner for my company ‘Noblesse Oblige’. :P
They actually kept surviving and the miner ended up with Captain and Rally the Troops. The servants as berserkers.

[GOD]

There’s this one about stories. This one about how to play the game. Also this one about cool maps.

It’s easy to miss them, because lots of new threads get posted every day, although we don’t have a lot of story threads yet. Probably because the community is still centred on suggestions, discussion and bug fixing. :P

[GOD]

screeg wrote:

The devs’ vision is exactly what makes a game not only enjoyable, but truly memorable, the type of game people talk about for years (or decades, ie. X-Com). If the goal of making a game was to produce something everyone enjoys, all we’d have to play would be Candy Crush Saga and Angry Birds. Every allowance made on behalf of gaining a wider audience (allowing re-rolls, picking units from a list, etc.) dilutes the experience. In my opinion, in the end it won’t even result in more sales. If you want more sales, create a game that breaks the mold and does things differently, doesn’t give allowances for every type of player. A pure experience generates tons of word-of-mouth coverage, and draws in the casual gamers who might have been intimidated by the more roguelike experience. Making a vanilla game that goes halfway (hey, there’s a hardcore mode!) just doesn’t have the same impact on the community.
I’m not saying the devs should or shouldn’t allow any of the suggested changes *BUT* to say “Let everyone play the game however they want! Who cares?” is no way to achieve great game design.

Precisely. You either focus on mass appeal or on a specific tone, because if you try to do both the resultant mix appeals to nobody.

[GOD]

I think it would help if the thread list could get get longer before you get a new page. We tend to get a lot of new threads, so old threads wouldn’t get buried so quickly.

[GOD]

Not sure how they’d do this without having it stand out too much in the UI.

Ironman mode is going to get implemented according to the faq, but last I checked they were focusing on bug fixing and content first.

Something like achievements might get added. It comes up in this thread.

Random events are definitely planned.

Ethnical variety might get in if the Middle Easter expansion gets made. African mercenaries seem less likely though.

[GOD]

Seriously? Goddamn I’m good.

EDIT: You’re right. First action free, then 4 AP. Taunt has also been made more effective.

[GOD]

Part of what makes it feel weird is that Quick Hands seems like a perk whose theme is adaptability, but instead it seems more like a perk useful in specific situations, like the repeating crossbow. How about making only the first swap free and taking away the AP reduction? So the first swap in a round is free, but all the ones after that take the full 4 AP?

Malthus wrote:

What made me not choose the shieldbash perk was, that it may give you a little bit of damage but at the same time the description says it builds up 10 more fatique.
Description: The knock back skill now also inflicts 10 – 25 damage (50% vs armor) and 10 fatique in addition to its normal effect.
So it does not really sound much like an improvement.
Right now I just tested it against undeads. I saw that it costs the same fatique as without the perk. So I now assume the 10 fatique are added to the enemy? So the description is a bit misleading I guess atleast for me.

Yup. It adds 10 fatigue damage to your attack.

madmansam wrote:

Shield bashing has a built in accuracy bonus of +25 over standard attacks. If you take the perk, shield bash becomes a high accuracy attack good for finishing off enemies already gravely wounded .
I’d suggest rather than stunning the target, the target gets a -10 reduction to their melee offense and defense for a turn to represent being off balance.

I’m suggesting putting an accuracy bonus on top of that of say 15 or 20%. You’re right though that you could use it as a highly accurate finishing move. Not exactly the point of the buff, so it’s probably a good idea to remove the damage modifier then.

[GOD]

So you saw the difficulty change on screen, while there were no reinforcements nearby? I haven’t seen that before. Could be a bug. You should see if it recurs and post the log in the bug section if it does.

[GOD]

I’ve got more of a question, actually. My playstyle pretty much consists of all offence, all day, every day. I therefore pay less attention to the defence tree, but I’d still like to know how people actually using Hold Out and Indomitable are liking the changes. Are they worth it now? I could see Hold Out having some synergy with Captain and Inspiring Presence.

[GOD]

The quick switching seems to have not been the intended use of the perk. That makes sense and it’s an appropriate nerf then. It doesn’t seem to add much to your adaptability now, though. Although I could be overlooking something. How do you guys use it?

Taunt I can see having some use that we haven’t seen yet, like it is with Fortified Mind. I’m cautious about recommending a buff, since it has the potential to be very powerful for a tier 1 perk.

Shield Bash I’m having trouble picturing as gaining a niche. The slight damage increase is simple not worth a perk point. The damage would only matter if the enemy is close to dying, in which case you might as well just hit them. Stun is still the most fitting thematically, but as noted before that might make it too powerful and infringe on other means of stunning. It would probably make it a must-have for shield users.
Some ideas:

– Give it stun. Make it a defence tier 2 perk that replaces of Nine Lives. Make Nine Lives an utility tier 1 perk. Important to note that I’ve personally never had Nine Lives make a difference when it actually triggered, so I’m not sure if it’s too powerful for tier 1.
– Give it an accuracy bonus so that you can use shield bash more reliably. Have it do a bit more damage.
– Replace it with another perk

[GOD]

Rap wrote:

GOD wrote:

That makes mod tools getting added sound a lot more definite than the last time I heard about it!

Just to avoid any misunderstandings – adding mod support has not become any more definite and is still something we won’t do any promises on.

I guess my reading was too optimistic, but it’s good to hear that you’re only making promises that you feel confident about. :)

[GOD]

thenewromance wrote:

Character generation is indeed a difficult topic. I like the possibility to customize, but I also like playing the cards you are dealt. Perhaps some middle ground could be found?
I would like to suggest one such option. I read that non-combattant Brothers are likely to be introduced – smiths, healers and the like, who are part of your company, but not represented as fighters. I think in this lies great potential, for the game as-is right now but for character creation as well. You as a player are at the moment not represented in-game. Of course, you give the orders and make the decisions, like a sort of “invisible general”, but you can’t see yourself and don’t have any stats. Now, if a “court” or “staff” or “council” that featured the members of your company who do not fight was introduced (like the above-mentioned smith), that would exactly be the place where you as a commander could be represented. You could have your own picture and maybe a few stats or skills that would influence your company and that could be chosen at the set-out. Of course, you’d still appear on the battlefield, but I actually think that is a good thing as that way no one gets frustrated when their “player character” dies.
I think this suggestions has a lot of advantages. The player has a representative, there’s a possibility for customization that influences the game, the (possible) non-combattant “staff” gets another element, and there’s no risk of creating supersoldiers or min-maxing the fun of the beginning away.

That’s actually not a bad idea, though I still have my doubts. I like not having a face in the game, as it takes away the confusion between what the UI is supposed to represent and who the player character is meant to be. That is, am I actually the character when I am inputting the commands or am I inputting commands for a character, who then executes them as if he were me. Abstracting this to the UI being the player is how it is currently done. Giving you an avatar reinstates the seperation, since you can now see ‘you’. It would also be strange how the enemy leaders do take to the battlefield, while your mercenary leader does not.

Come to think of it, are companions planned for enemy factions as well?

I like it better than customising your starting party, though. This would be your actual avatar, rather than a surrogate, while you avoid the problem of the player focusing their attention on the avatar in battle, since they don’t take part.
Just spitballing here, so I might actually come to vehemently disagree with myself, but you could have the player need to choose between useful traits for the strategic map. Like Mountain Expertise allowing you to reduce the movement penalty of mountainous terrain. That might put too much emphasis on how important you are as the head of the company though and infringe on the abilities of other companions (I can imagine there being a Mountain Guide companion). I’m not sure yet how you’d implement it in both a meaningful and balanced fashion. It’s important thought that the direct influence of an avatar like that in battle should only ever be felt through the players their tactical choices. No stats buffs or special abilities.

I’d really need to see more of what the planned companion system actually entails before I can get a clear idea of whether it would fit, though.

[GOD]

I think the repel effect is supposed to simulate how spears can be used to keep enemies from getting because of the spears reach. Without the repel, it’s not a worthwhile ability to use and would just be a weaker riposte. You’d then only equip the occasional low-level merc with spears for the accuracy bonus.

Looking forward to the pike. It’s such a logical weapon to have. I think it was mentioned somewhere that you were consdiering it as a replacement for the billhook, because the billhook was more of a weapon meant for cavalry.

[Author]

Posts