GOD

[GOD]

Malthus wrote:

Have you read my post from 17:47?
Yes of course it does adress a part of my concerns. To be able to carry tons of different weapons remains. And as I already told you this point is less about beeing overpowered and more about the point that it is uneralistic as hell and it does take away the hard choice to choose your weapon wisely.
I would suggest two handed weapons use 2 bag slots. Every merc should start out with 1 bag slot (so there is still room for a secondary small weapon). Bags and belts will then double the bag slots to 2 (then the perk could stay as it is with the fatique penalty taken away). Then you could take either 2 one handed weapons/shields or one two handed weapon in the bag.
This would still offer to change your weapon, while beeing more realistically and make choosing your weapon a tough choice as it should be.

Yeah, but I assumed you meant that you couldn’t switch back because the switching itself was disallowed, not because you ran out AP. As I said, I don’t actually use Quick Hands all that much, so I assumed it was just an old change until I actually used it for a bit again.

There was a discussion about this last week and having played a lot since then hasn’t convinced me that such a heavy nerf is needed. The weapon taking up one slot and potentially having four slots can sometimes feel less realistic, but it adds to the gameplay and would just cause confusion for the player if you change the value of slots. Why does a greatsword count and not a spear? Why are shields fine? It creates a distinction between items that is counter-intuitive. Also, bags and belts is now mandatory for ranged users if they want to have any survivability.

Starting with 1 slot that you can double, Quick Hands nerf, plus making two-handed weapons take up 2 slots is way too much of a limit on a playstyle that isn’t overpowered, but just out of the norm. People did not historically go into battle with just one weapon or with just one shield, because stuff broke or got knocked away. If realism is strictly necessary then a reworking of the inventory system is in order while still maintaining the possibility of multiple weapons, because the aformentioned changes would look very out of place in the current system. They only limit gameplay without adding any interesting choices to it.

[GOD]

That’s one of the downside to playing Early Access. We get to see the game evolve, but we’ll have to frequently restart along with it. ;)

For something like a save file editor we’ll probably have to wait until mod tools get introduced.

[GOD]

Works fine for me, but I’m playing on a fresh save after the patch hit. Did you carry over an old save? Maybe it’s somehow related to that, if that’s the case.

[GOD]

New patch seems to have Quick Hands lower the costs of switching to 2 AP, rather than make it free. Have you tried it out with your build? I don’t use it, so I’m curious if this adressess your concerns. :)

Rally the Troops also recovers waaaayy less fatigue. I might have to be slightly less trigger-happy now.

[GOD]

That would be very easily abused. There’d be no reason not to start with something like Student and then later switch it out for something else. Perks should definitely be something that you can’t take back once you confirm them.

I’m thinking that any update that changes which perks you get will also invalidate our saves.

[GOD]

It’s fine that it works, as that’s the point. You invest into the perks and stats to be able to use them this way. It’s currently not powerful enough to justify further nerfing.

[GOD]

A guy with a shield on a hill should be really difficult to dislodge, though. You should try to hack apart the shield instead.

Adding directions to abilities would also run counter to their decision to not have backstabs, but overwhelm instead.

[GOD]

Without the attack-then-switch-to-shield option available there’s no reason nerf it further. Billhook isn’t powerful enough and switching from two-hander to to sword and shield can be useful, but mostly in an adaptive way.

For more flexibility you need spend not just two perks, but you also need to aim for the appropriate stats and gear. Like, if you want to use the greatsword as a shield wielder you’ll need to put more points into fatigue than with a normal shield build, because you need the heaviest armour to survive while you’re using the greatsword, than if you were still using the shield. You also need to have enough fatigue to compensate for the fatigue hits you’ll take from getting hit more often. Those are points that are not being spent on something else. In return, you get more attack options under circumstances, that also leave you more vulnerable and therefore less reliable if you use them. Seems more than fair.

[GOD]

PsenBattle wrote:

Yeah, the more the better and its very positive as well :)
People have to hear about us. Its really difficult sometimes to get coverage when you cant show flashy pixel-animations and your whole game idea isnt described in 5 words.

Actually, I’ve been lurking on other forums and noticing that you’re getting the best press of all: postive word of mouth from gamers. People start playing, get excited and then get other people to start playing. The hardcore crowd in particular seems unanimous in its fervour, which is pretty unusual! Kind of funny actually to see the RPGCodex in particular be extremely positive, when they’re often known for hating everything and everyone. :P Your efforts at documenting your thoughts on gaming and being so communicative are also generating a lot of confidence and goodwill. Far more interesting to read the thoughts of passionate fellow gamers than some PR manager who only read about them and lots of people agree with bringing back more complex games.
There’s also a minor Hugo meme going on.

Honestly, I was hoping for, but not expecting this kind of success until release. Great to know that games can still trigger genuine enthusiasm among gamers. :D

[GOD]

Malthus wrote:

Right now this is not the case. And while you only need 2 perks in the first row of the utility tree you can make these mercs damn hard offensive.
Think of Quick hands + Bags and belts + blody harvest + fast adaptation + crusher
+ berserk (with this you may score a kill get 4 ap back and then do either a second attack and end your turn with the 2 handed weapong drawn or go back to your shield and do a shieldwall, though in that case you would totally need a way to get rid of your fatique) + full force (you can give that merc heavy armor, as he will only wear the shield when waiting for the next turn)
+ hmm the last perk in the offensive tree is open for discussion I do like the killing frenzy perk but together with another merc with Rally the troops Perfect focus would be better
+ then you still have 2 perks left to spend as you please. If you use the shieldwall thing I mentioned regarding berserk you might like to go for 2 more points in utility with ending on Battle flow which also would work good together with Perfect focus IF you hit the easy critters first.
In which way is such a merc less deadly than any other? I would even say he is more deadly because he has the best weapon for as good as any situation at his hand at any time.

Thing is that the question isn’t whether he’s useful, but whether he’s more useful than builds that don’t go for that combination. You’re not just investing perks, but also stats and the appropriate gear into this flexibility. That becomes a problem when the less flexible guy can do the job better that you have in mind for him. He might be worse at something else, but that’s not what he’s there for.
Like Rally the Troops. Better suited to an archer with high resolve. Only really need to give him a stun weapon + shield for emergency. Billhook isn’t lethal enough and your melee skill isn’t high enough for it to be an interesting option. Greatsword is useless to him. Quivers are useful instead.

[GOD]

The other Smith also posted about it last year.
I’ve only seen positive press so far. Pretty good sign. :D

[GOD]

No base type location is currently planned. However, non-combat companions like a smith will get added eventually. They will probably not add passive combat bonuses though. If I recall correctly, one of the planned companions is the healer who’ll give your mercenaries a chance to survive the battle if they were brought to 0 hp and not decapitated or made undead.

Not sure what you mean exactly with the third, but it could be that it’s already part of their planned reputation system. They’ll also soon post a roadmap of their future future plans for the game, so they might have something on it too.

[GOD]

Malthus wrote:

So you tell me it is absolutely intended to use a guy with bags an belts + quick hands standing in front of an orc army having a bilhook, great axe, great swort in the bags and a onehand weapon + shield equipped?
Now as soon as the enemies have closed in on him, he does not need to move anymore which means, with full ap he changes his equip to lets say a greatsword because there are two orcs in a line. Bam doublekill. Switch back to onehand + shield for def bonus. Now his brothers dying left and right and he is surrounded by orks. HAA nice to have a Battle Brothers´ Swiss Army knife (Greatsword,Greataxe,Bilhook,onehand+shield all in one) take out your greataxe and show them the tornado of death then switch back to get your shield bonus again before ending the turn. Hmm now they are all dead, no orc inside the one hex range. AAHHH there is another orc right behind my next brother. Lets bilhook him to death.
This cannot be the way to go. This game is about taking meaningful choices aswell in choosing your mercenaries and their equipment and not to have alround fighters. The way this goes it takes all the cons of the different weapons away leaving only the pros…

Not necessarily intended, but not that big of deal either. This is a case where I’ll go with gameplay that adds more tactical options, over realism in combat. The cons are in that you have to spread out your perks and stats to make the most of it, resulting in a build that’s hardly an optimal killing machine. Being versatile then is your just reward, so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Granted, that’s as long it’s not actually overpowered. I barely use Quick Hands, so I wouldn’t know that. If it is actually overpowered, having Quick Hands not be usable after skill use should suffice to balance it out.

Zolw:

The strength and weakness of utility tree is that it synergises well with the other trees, but has less cohesive ‘build’ potential on its own. I’m curious how much of that is intended and how much might be related to gameplay that we haven’t seen yet (something like level drain to make Student more useful?)

I’ve also been thinking about the utility tree myself. The student perk kind of bothers me in that I dislike the idea of a perk eventually becoming completely useless. Haven’t really thought much about how to rectify that though.
I’ve also used Taunt more times with high resolve. It might benefit from making the effect slightly stronger, but I’m not certain yet. Perk has the potential to be way overpowered if you buff it too much.

[GOD]

You mean iron man? Yeah, that’ll get introduced as well. Not sure when, but they mentioned putting off stuff like that until after the bug-fixing.

[GOD]

You mean introducing the sea and everything that comes with that?
I´ve seen it mentioned that the sea might (big emphasis on might) be considered for a potential expansion. So don´t get your hopes up (´cause it will take at least a year before expansions become relevant), but it´s not completely off the table either.

Javelins were originally meant for Orcs, but they didn´t suit their combat style. Goblins, however, do use ranged weapons and are a part of the Greenskin faction.

A deployment phase will likely get added, unless you get ambushed.

Fighting in a village will get added, but as far as I know no sieges.

Probably no horses either

[Author]

Posts