Kalanar

[Kalanar]

Alright, you’re all grounded. Time out in the corner for not playing nice.

From a balance perspective: If you can easily chop their heads off when they are downed, they will become much easier to defeat, which would need a re-balancing, making them harder to down in the first place.

[Kalanar]

I’m considering have a party of all crossbowmen. Those things are brutal. Throw some decent armor on them and side-arms, should be in good shape.

[Kalanar]

kjellstor wrote:

Feb 14th! Battle Brothers: Arrow for my Valentine update (Brutal Cherub edition) !!
(I’m just shooting the shit here, I have no idea)

“Sorry that I missed our Valentine’s date hunny, but it completely slipped my mind! I hope you didn’t wait too long at the restaurant.”

[Kalanar]

(Total War: Medieval 2 shows this perfectly)

Lol.

[Kalanar]

After an unsuccessful caravan escort in which I fought off two bandit raider parties and a party of goblin ambushers at the cost of 6 lives and nearly all my decent equipment and money only to have a second goblin ambush party chase me half way across the map, until I lost them – I was two steps from the city when a group of orc scouts ambushed and mopped up the exhausted ill-equipped veterans. No militia came to help and there was no where to run to. Very demoralizing end to a short game. I don’t think I had any brothers reach level 4, maybe just one of them… I’m actually surprised I made it past the first group of Goblins, so at least there’s that…

[Kalanar]

…And that’s how you get angry in BB!

[Kalanar]

I enjoy the journey more than obtaining rare objects. You don’t, that’s cool.

My hope is that this is not the game you’re looking for if you’re grinding for rares. I disagree that named items need to be more common and disagree with the argument that time is wasted in seeking them. It’s the seeking that is enjoyable and unique about this game. It is difficult and unforgiving, which is appealing and the niche I think it will succeed in. I could be wrong of course.

(Side note) If one was to find that two different things are actually the same thing, then that would shake the foundations of one’s perception of existence, get it? No? Okay never-mind, I guess I was grasping after-all… I’m not a philosopher, I’m a little boy. By the way is Existential Crysis the latest Crysis game? That sounds interesting.

[Kalanar]

EVANS UA wrote:

Haha…Different battles? I have no more things to discuss with you,boy.

I don’t get it. Are you suggesting that fighting the same battle is just as different as fighting a different battle, possibly against different opponents in different terrain? I’m just a little boy, you’ll have to explain it to me. Or is this some sort of existential crisis you’re facing?

[Kalanar]

EVANS UA wrote:

Okay…Thats not such a good idea for now…Cause youre gonna waste tonns of time on finding and killing more “bosses”.Looting became interesting as said Paul,indeed.But it takes too much time and hard at some points(and named items not such great as time you can waste on them).Or you have a tonns of named items already? I bet you not.

If named items aren’t rare items, they won’t be as special. And why would you waste tons of time re-loading your game instead of fighting different battles? I think you might be playing the game wrong. Like trying to ride a bike upside down, of course it isn’t fun! (I’m kidding, of course you can play the game however you want).

[Kalanar]

I haven’t gotten my hands too dirty with the event system yet, but I do have beef pretty early on for two reasons…
I got an event that made a party member fat. No choices or options. The story goes he was eating too much or something but it just as well could have been “The Fat God has made you fat – end of transmission.”
Beef the First: I know realism isn’t typically a good basis for a criticism for a fantasy game, but in the context of my immersion into the world, it seemed strange. My party was about 3/4 way through a grueling march from one extreme corner of the map to another. We had barely stopped in all that time and we were presumably on foot. That’s a lot of exercise. But really the bigger issue is…

Beef the Second: I didn’t have any option in mitigating this problem. I would suggesting adding a few choices such as limiting his rations to avoid the trait at the expense of his mood. I’m sure you could think of a few good ones too. Events are great for flavor, except when they come off as unavoidable penalties.

To put it another way: I would suggest avoiding events that don’t give the player a choice. Even if both choices are bad, at least the player is effecting the outcome, further drawing them into the story.

[Kalanar]

I would turn the argument back towards you, I haven’t heard a good argument that supports a battle save. The argument for it seems utterly alien to me. The “freedom of choice” argument I believe is valid, but not strong enough to influence a design decision in my opinion. It adds so little that it isn’t worth the trade off, which would be a reduction in the danger element that pairs nicely with the dark themes of the game. Having said – Would it ruin the game for me if a battle save was included? No.

I misspoke when I implied that I thought tactical battles were the only part I found fun. The campaign interactions are really fun too. I certainly did not mean imply that everyone should agree that battles are best part of the game. In fact, I made a point to express that it was just my opinion.

If I were annoyed at having to fight a battle over again, it would be more about a general annoyance with the tactical element of the game rather than having to fight the same party again. I don’t know about you, but the fun for me is the tactical fights of which the variation of terrain can effect the outcome.

The use of “I” and “I don’t know about you” is what I used to communicate that it was my opinion.
This is what I was getting at:

1. The battles will be different, even if you are fighting the same party over again due to the new generated terrain. That is my argument against:

Never mind the annoyance of playing through something I’ve already done.

Because in my view, meaning, not necessarily everyone’s – you actually aren’t playing through something you’ve already done. It’s different because the terrain changes. You are welcome to argue that the variation in the party you are facing off against is the more important variable – to which I will also disagree.

And more importantly:
2. How often do you actually need to step away from a tactical battle? They don’t last that long. As a 500+ hour M&B player, I can say that the time of battles is comparable and in some cases, longer than Battle Brothers(Like when the AI is in control and they take 10 mins just to circle their stinking armies around each other before they charge X-D).

I hope the devs don’t waste their time in implementing it.

[Kalanar]

M&B does not save during combat.

[Kalanar]

Oh I see. Then it is an overvaluation of your time.

But seriously, I do agree with you, I won’t sit in line at Starbucks either.

As far as the tactical battles – terrain changes when you re-load and fight it again. If I were annoyed at having to fight a battle over again, it would be more about a general annoyance with the tactical element of the game rather than having to fight the same party again. I don’t know about you, but the fun for me is the tactical fights of which the variation of terrain can effect the outcome. In the off chance that I have to step away during my limited amount of gaming time, it’s not a big loss on enjoyment, for me.

Also, if the doorbell rings, or if a family member needs something, I can leave the game running while I take care of whatever it is because I likely won’t be leaving the screen for more than an hour unexpectedly. Again we’re talking about a battle that tops out at about 20mins, with the easier ones taking between 3 – 10mins. If I know I have five minutes before I need to leave the computer for an extended period – it is not worth getting in a fight. Life hacking 5 minutes of battle time to come back and finish the remain 1-15mins is not worth it to me. I would probably just finish the battle and leave late. But that’s me, I’m not sure where the rest of the community stands.

Wait..

Are you a fireman? If so, thank you for your service and I suggest we get a “Fireman Mode” complete with battle saves for those who work in the profession, and can’t reliably track the next 5-20mins of their life due to alarms and fire-polls.

A save feature for battle? I guess so, I don’t really disagree with the points made about being able to play it the way you want, but I do disagree with the notion that time has anything significant do with that design decision, or that it is at all disrespectful. It would remove a danger element, that I don’t think is insignificant in terms of design.

In summary, I do not believe it is unreasonable or disrespectful to not include a save during battle.

[Kalanar]

You know what I’ve been doing lately? Playing a little Battle Brothers before I have to get ready for work. But if I’m about to get into a battle, and I know I don’t have 20mins (likely about the max amount of time a battle takes me)… I save and quit. Then later, I come back, when I have 20 mins, and fight the battle. If something comes up in the middle of the battle, that’s okay too, because the tactical combat is enjoyable enough to me, that having to fight the battle again isn’t so bad, after all, it’s only 20mins.

And why are we so quick to accuse a game indie developer of not respecting your time? That’s a little dramatic. I would hate to see how you behave in a line at Starbucks. It’s 20mins – you’re either exaggerating how little time you have (how long did take you to write your post? How many times did you save an come back?) or you are grossly overvaluing your time.

I don’t even care if there is a save option, but I certainly don’t think it is absolutely necessary or disrespectful if it isn’t included. That’s just silly.

[Kalanar]

Won’t let me upload the log for “Security reasons”

[Author]

Posts