screeg

[screeg]

I agree that goblins have too many little “gotcha” attacks, in addition to being fast, accurate, very hard to hit and cunning. If you think nets are bad, have you seen the shaman’s entanglement spell? It’s basically up to 4 nets at once (provided your guys are close enough to each other) and he casts it at will.

[screeg]

Danubian wrote:

-IMO map could use more objects, places to visit or interact with between towns. Lone taverns, or smaller hamlets, anything. Going down a road for 5 minutes is boring.

Please add a slider or other setting for faster (in real-time I mean) world map travel.

[screeg]

Love the game’s art, and this thread in particular. One suggestion: the number of weidergangers with only one eye is weirdly high. It seems like 70-80% of them in my games. I don’t object to undead having lost an eye, but it seems odd so many of them lost *one* eye and kept the other, while only a few managed to keep both eyes.

Also (and this is literally my only criticism of unit art), the empty eye sockets on the weidergangers just look like black holes painted onto an existing head. Even if the inside of their skulls had been completely hollowed out, I don’t think it would look like that. :)

[screeg]

Rap wrote:

The ctrl key rotates the view by 180°. There’s a bunch of buttons in the top right of the tactical combat UI (including tooltips that tell of their hotkeys) that many people seem to miss.

Okay, I know about that. How Left/Right equates with Up/Down is what confused me.

[screeg]

Sky wrote:

Well, then let me ask you if you know about the ctrl key in battle that swaps the up n down?

Not only do I not know about the ctrl key, I don’t know what you mean by swapping up and down…

[screeg]

I don’t think human beings generally are wired to eyeball percentages and gauge success. If the devs have double-checked the THCs for combat I trust they’re accurate. I also use bows and billhooks in every battle and I have no problem with their THCs. Yes, I’m disappointed when he misses that 72% chance 3 (or 5 or 8) times in a row. Doesn’t mean the math is off.

[screeg]

[screeg]

+1

[screeg]

mrbunnyban wrote:

Hey folks. We want this game to be successful, right? So give people more options to play it in ways they find more enjoyable.

Pandering to as many people as possible is one way for a game to succeed, and be like every other strategy game out there.

Another way is to make something so engaging and unique that “casual” players will want to give it a chance and discover they actually like being challenged by a game, and having an experience that they’ll remember and talk about a month later, instead of another throwaway time-waster.

[screeg]

The Hideout (and all the other “headquarters” type places, friendly and enemy) is actually a dynamic location, so when they send out a patrol, units are deducted from the total at the Hideout, thus reducing its difficulty.

[screeg]

arcweldx wrote:

3. Devs have a vision of how the game should be played.
Again, I respect that, but keep a sense of what people will actually enjoy.

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.

[screeg]

One more point: use the delayed action to your advantage. First, I often wait for all my enemies to move first, unless I get a clear ranged shot right away.

Second, if you have an adjacent unit ready to take a swing, think about delaying his action if you can first move others into proximity to surround the enemy, and also if a different unit has the opportunity to stun him, break his shield or wear down his armor before you strike.

Also don’t be afraid to play on Easy for awhile until you get the mechanics down. Normal from the start is bloody unforgiving.

[screeg]

Why not keep the game open and everyone play as they like?

I don’t know how successfully I can argue this in a blog thread, but: it’s up to the developer to create a consistent, enjoyable play experience. If the devs attempt to create a game where “everyone plays as they like”, you’re likely to end up with a muddled, unfocused, or at the very least, unbalanced mess.
Creating a game where the player decides who he’s going to start with, how powerful they are, what backgrounds, perks etc. is fundamentally different from what they’ve got now, and 99% of players are going to start with three professional fighters every single time. Overhype has so far developed a challenging, brutal game where the player experiences real consequences. Diluting aspects of that potentially changes BB from a tense, suspenseful experience that people will talk about for years (Dark Souls) to a good tactical combat game that people thought was fun (so what?)
Look at what the devs of Darkest Dungeon are doing. Do you think people would be raving about that game if they could save whenever they want? If they could get a do-over whenever their party was wiped out?

[screeg]

I’m all for better and more streamlined interfaces, but not if you’re suggesting adding a third map, “a map of the world’s map”. I also don’t actually want to know exactly where to go. I want to have to stumble out in the woods and find it. Contract givers are reasonably explicit about location anyway.

[screeg]

Simply restricting the system from “Crafting” to “Upgrading”, and folding it into the role of the Blacksmith, would make it a lot simpler and less intrusive. Also use currently available equipment parts as disposable supplies.

[Author]

Posts