Sekata

[Sekata]

Nibblewerfer wrote:

Frankly all they need to do is allow modding, if that is even possible at this point, as if players can mod the game in any meaningful way the lifespan of the game will increase and so will sales. To add modding now would probably be difficult and if it takes to long it might be to late for more people to buy the game because of it.

That would be a great idea. I could see pouring tons of hours to understanding the code to make a few tweaks here and there. The game is awesome as is and I can definitely see it as the type of free roam game players keep coming back to over and over.

Just wish the devs were a bit more involved in helping guide community feedback.

[Sekata]

Really depends. You can just about avoid having any chance of finding them if you don’t do a few things with a fair amount of frequency.

1. Do you pursue tavern rumors of unique items that you hear when buying a round for the bar (not for your company)

2. Do you visit armories frequently? The chances that this will work are greater when you have good standing with the house that owns the armory, and after escorting a caravan to a stronghold with an armory.

I’ve seen them much less frequently in the hands of bandit leaders and orc warriors. Of the above two strategies, I’ve found the second most useful for actually finding unique items.

[Sekata]

I wouldn’t consider them weak at all. Any unit with a halfway decent base range can pick up a crossbow and be extremely effective (+15% accuracy), while the bow requires several levels and 60+ ranged skill to see any serious damage from the user. I can hire a brother and give him a heavy crossbow and he becomes a major threat with next to no training. The graphs are nice, but they only track damage under controlled circumstances that don’t exist consistently in game (always assuming a hit). The fact is that before a brother is heavily trained in range, the crossbow easily compensates for the single shot capacity by its higher accuracy. It doesn’t matter if you can shoot twice with the bow if each shot has 15% to hit and both fly wide. The strength of the crossbow is its easy usability. Between that and the fact that it always boasts superior armor penetration, it is a strong weapon that stands on its own. It may not get three kills in a row, but I’ve seen quite a few rounds where it’ll get a killing shot on a unit, trigger berserk and fearsome, and get a killing critical shot on a fully armored enemy.

Crossbow is not weak at all. Nothing to be sneezed at.

[Sekata]

Crits apply like you’d think. I’m not too sure how much base hp Hedge Knights have, but they can and do die with a fair amount of armor intact. I know for a fact that a crossbow trained brother with fearsome and berserk can get 2 kills in one turn on a good dice roll. A crit + kill on the first roll activates fearsome and the next shot can do heavy damage if it doesn’t outright kill the target.

[Sekata]

@Namespace

Namespace wrote:

Crossbows have the same armor effectiveness as bows right? So why would a crossbow be better against heavily armored targets? I rather attack twice with the bow and shred more of their armor than do a tiny bit of damage against their HP.
Also, against orcs I have to move my ranged units around a lot so their warriors don’t get any ideas to knock back one guy and go after them.

I think crossbows would have to be tweaked so they can make use of the berserk perk. Famed crossbows are probably also a lot better if they can literally one-shot any raider. Then again, famed war bows are probably even stronger.

Tier by Tier, the crossbow has advantage on armor piercing stat. The only exception appears to be the masterwork bow, which has 75% armor pen. Even then, it’s equal to the heavy crossbow in the armor pen stat, and eclipsed by it if the brother using the crossbow has the Crossbow Mastery perk (+20% to top out at 95% pen). I’m using the wiki for the numbers, so this is reliant on them being up to date. Either way, the crossbow mastery perk gives it an edge that bow mastery doesn’t confer.

[Sekata]

@Namespace

I had the same experience. Loved the Undead and Greenskin Invasions. The Noble War is my least favorite. It’s not as bad if it comes up last though since you should have super mario brothers by then. The fact that “allys” Can steal your kill and all associated rewards (loot/exp) no matter who did the most damage doesn’t help much. I’ll save that critique for another thread though.

[Sekata]

It’s still really good. What’s the morale of the brother wearing it? It’s most useful on a player with already high morale (55+) since they have a better chance of avoiding the other checks that it doesn’t guard against.

[Sekata]

Mike wrote:

Oh look, it’s THAT thread again…

It’s true that the game has a pretty steep learning curve when you first try it, but there’s a lot of guides out there. Use them and play accordingly. Invest into shields and spears, avoid difficult battles, play defensively.

Also understand that losing men in BB is neither a failure nor amything unusual, that’s how the game is supposed to play.

GL & HF

@luzarius I’m not convinced that adding a bunch of different difficulties with the arbitrary changes in game values it would bring is the right answer. BB would be just as fine with a single difficulty fine tuned to present a consistent challenge. By that I don’t mean screwing over the player and justifying it under the tossaway term “RNG”. The world map spawns need an overhaul. As it stands difficulty spikes randomly depending on where you are in the world and what enemy army just happens to be around. That doesn’t change with difficulty designation in the current game, so adding more is not a great solution. BB seems to be an amazingly well-developed passion project, but it is heavily lacking in transparency and could you a few balance tweaks. Many veteran players here will defend it stubbornly, so don’t be surprised if you run into the “git gud” attitude a lot on the forum. I’m guilty of it at times as well.

1. OP has no way of knowing how many times this post has come up. If he’s a new player trying to give feedback, there’s nothing wrong with giving this feedback.

2. The game has a steep learning curve because there is no official guide provided by the developer. The player has to figure out EVERYTHING through trial and error including which enemies represent a greater threat than others. It’s odd to suggest that a new player be a bit frustrated when playing a game that lacks a great deal of transparency but suggests Iron-Man play. If there’s a guide that you suggest, it would be better to post it as a source than say “Go find this thing that exists that should absolutely help you”. Personally I have not found a single steam guide that prepares a new player for this game.

3. Mike is absolutely right about losing brothers. That’s something you just have to get used to as part of the game. A lot of things frustrate me about this title, but that’s not one of them. It’s part of the design and the theme. I’m not as ok with it in all cases as some other forum goers, but in most cases it’s perfectly reasonable.

If it helps at all luzarius, I’ve put a ridiculous amount of time into this game and am still convinced that the enemy camp/spawning algorithm needs an overhaul. Iron man play is only tenable in a game where save-scumming is unjustified by the completeness of the tools provided to avoid pitfalls. Seeing as there is no official guide and a high level army can decimate you on day 10 without you knowing what to avoid and what not to, I’d suggest against it. It is not currently a game that deserves for you to stick so strongly to the Iron Man rule, since it does not treat with you in good faith with transparency. Full disclosure, I say this while playing on Iron Man because I hate myself. I still stand by the statement that BB does not currently deserve the full effort and patience that it requires from a new player.

[Sekata]

If it broke, it broke in a recent patch. It worked for me about a week or so ago.

Just to be clear let me ask you this.

Is he himself breaking from the scream, or is his moral check being triggered by other brothers breaking from the morale check? A morale check triggers for your unbroken units when a unit breaks. If one happens after the other immediately, it may be hard to distinguish the two. A cascade can make it unclear if the unit with the item is breaking from the scream or watching another brother panic.

[Sekata]

I think it prevents being affected by fear abilities, like a geist screaming. I’m not so sure that I prevents a brother from breaking under normal circumstances like taking health damage above 15 or watching other brothers break.

Did the break occur from a geist scream (which should be prevented), or from one of those other conditions?

[Sekata]

Holy crap, you’re right. It’s gone Jim.

It’s also possible that it’s there but is invisible because of other UI adjustments made for the seed bar and the permanent destruction option, in which case the exclusion was not intended, but a UI problem. I doubt they’d take it away on purpose.

[Sekata]

Anonymous wrote:

hruza wrote:

Yes, but only in that it makes chance to hit target more probable in general. It does not increase chance to hit head specifically, which is probably what you are asking for.

So … “no” then would have been a better answer.

No, the answer Hruza gave was the better one because it addresses an indirect condition and provides more clarity. If the chance to hit the enemy is higher in a given circumstance then the chance to hit the head is affected indirectly even if the stat presented does not change. If I have a 100% chance to hit the target, then I can take the 25% chance to hit the head at face value. If I have a 12% chance to hit the target, then I absolutely will not roll the dice with the expectation that I have a 1/4 chance of getting a critical hit.

The stat “Chance to hit head” only tells you the chance to hit the head on hit to target. It is static and assumes a static situation. Your real chance of hitting the head from situation to situation changes even if the stat itself is not programmed to show that change statistically.

[Sekata]

To be clear, I have issues with quite a few things in the game. Maybe you can recover from a bad dice roll. Is it fun? Is the player under the impression that adequate tools were given to cope with a situation and he/she simply failed to use them? These are my standards when judging a game that encourages Iron Man play.

The End Game crisis is fun but feels rushed and slightly unbalanced. I say this having played through 2/3 of them successfully in one campaign before restarting the game. It’s incredibly immersion breaking to be sitting in an army camp with a noble house and have to dodge 3 randomly generated bandit armies to save strength for the actual quest encounter.

Quests randomly punish the player by having encounters that cannot be anticipated or avoided (stolen good caravans/ mercs after package). These are things that may be intended, but are not fun and do not lead me as the player to believe that I have much ability to change the results in the game. I’m not sure that’s the atmosphere that is meant to be cultivated in an Iron Man intended game. I will point them out here in the forum. I have no way of knowing if its intended if I do not comment on it and give feedback.

The negotiation system, worldmap spawns, relationships, all of these things could use a once over. There is no feeling that the player can actually negotiate with the leader of a town that he has saved many times form orc invasion or werewolf scourge. It seems like flavor text. I say that as feedback, because I do not know if that feeling is intended, or if the system is implemented that way for time constraints.

My assumption is that I am free to give feedback and the devs can decide that it’s intended or unintended. If these sorts of things are intended then I am simply not the intended audience for this type of game. Even that is worth knowing. Much of it could be me misunderstanding a lot about the game and the intended audience. That’s perfectly possible.

[Sekata]

TLDR:

The necros do follow me on the worldmap. note: The two battle sites.

They also spawned from the building type, which itself spawned on or before day 21. note: The banner above the worldmap army and the banner above the base. Note also the base description which alludes to it being a place for hemovores- the previously used name of necrosavants.

(1) Being required to take injuries or combat losses from a roaming army that cannot be evaded is a punishment for the player being at the wrong place at the wrong time. This means a loss of time and resources without a clear mistake that justifies it. That is not a problem that exists with any other enemy in the game.

(2) The game does not need to be ‘fair’ but it should give players the tools in the form of mechanics or knowledge to hedge against loss. In most encounters where the player is overwhelmed, that tool is retreat. It is not a tool that applies to necrosavants, and again the player takes loss in the form of time and coin for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. This would not be the case if the army did not roam.

(3) Just because the game over is not automatic, that does not mean that the design is balanced. By creating a loop that punishes the player without clear reward (the necro encounter was not the quest encounter) and without a clear mistake, the player learns that the game will punish them whether they make an error or not. Again, fine for gambling and fine for certain gamers. Not fine for other kinds of players (like me) or games that imply that skill is more important than RNG. It’s the difference between dark souls and poker. One game is brutally difficult by nature of the enemies the player is facing and RNG is not the primary factor. The other game is challenging because of its random nature. These games attract different kinds of player.

(4). I never said that I wanted the game to be easy or that I don’t enjoy challenge. That’s a suggestion that you have made to de-legitimize my issue with this enemy type. As far as I can tell, you have ignored my words in previous posts just so that you can make the allegation. I have previously mentioned being perfectly fine with the state of enemy types that can wreck the player, like the ghoul re-work, since it made them a threat. I would have been fine if the necros were confined in the quest location, since it ties them to the quest/reward loop, and means that they are confined to the location. An army roaming on day 21 and the instant punishment that it implies for the player is where I have an issue. I am not sure whether or not it is intended to fit in the balance since the game has just released and am mentioning it here. If it is intended, I stand by my statement that I don’t like the design because of the implications for the risk/reward loop and punishing the player outside of a mistake being made.

I will take your points seriously and will be civil in debates of design and philosophy. I will give you the benefit of the doubt as a player and assume that you understand the game and are simply fine with its current state. I will cease to be civil (or take your seriously at all) if your basis for responding to my own critiques depends on suggesting that I hold opinions that I have not clearly stated (your 4 thugs scenario) or am incapable of playing the game. I can play, very well, and find certain design choices lacking.

[Sekata]

hruza wrote:

If I understand you right, those necros were not part of the quest. They were simply roaming around while you were heading to the location of the quest (otherwise they would not follow you on the world map).

You could as well run in to them while doing anything else in the game.

As for not able to evade …you can always hit retreat button once in the battle. Yes, you would get your mercs injured repeatedly since they would catch you again, but those injuries does not stack, it takes the same time to heal single injury as it take to heal five injuries (approximately).

So only issue would be loose of the morale and it would be race to find some allied party before your mercs start deserting you.

It’s not automatic game over. Even if you would loose most or all the mercs it would not be automatic game over unless you have no spare equipment and no money at all. You can almost always recover.

Gambling? Yes, luck plays role in this game, but more often it’s your own decisions that matter. You seems to insist in your post that game should be somehow fair and balanced. I disagree. It’s an open world sandbox game, fact that you can run in to enemy which is well beyond your ability is something I consider good, not bad design. Fact that enemies can overpower you IS fair. Because you can also overpower them. Would you complain on the fact that you as a player took on group of 4 enemy tugs in rags and clubs with your party of 12 veterans? I don’t think so.

The possibility of running into them anywhere is exactly my point this early in the game.

They very clearly follow me on the worldmap, which is why there are two battle sites on the screenshot. In the last necrosavant post, that necrosavant army followed me on the worldmap and I was nowhere near a visible undead camp.

Notice the banner above the undead worldmap army and the banner above the structure . They were spawned from that location, and the location description mentions hemovores, which is what necros used to be called in earlier builds. This is an enemy that guarantees loss in the form of time or crowns one way or the other. The punishment is simply for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Choosing your engagement isn’t a factor because you can’t outrun them on the worldmap. You have to engage at one point or another.

If I ran into them by clicking the structure and they were the quest enemies I would be perfectly fine . I can retreat, and they would be confined to the structure. But this is a roaming army that could have caught me on the road just as easily and did in another playthrough. This isn’t a case of making a risky attack or a long shot quest and being punished for it. It’s a case of being punished for being at the wrong place at the wrong time without clear error on the player’s part. The enemy type should not spawn as a roaming army this early, and it’s worth noting that the location and associated dangers came attached to a 2 skull contract.

As I mentioned, I did hit retreat. You can see two separate battle sites on that screen shot. The first is when they attacked me the first time and the second is where they caught up to me again after recovering from the retreat stun.

@hruza I try and give you the benefit of the doubt in other posts. I try not to assume anything that you haven’t said and I’m doing my best to very clearly read what you’re implying. Rather than implying that you don’t know the game, I assume that you’re a competent player and are simply fine with things as they are. Please do the same for me even if we differ on what we consider balanced or good design.

Do I ever use the word fair? No, I don’t. ctrl+f. Please, go for it. Only use of the word is in your post.

In the original Necrosavant thread I use the word, but I define the term. Fair is simply the player having the tools to handle the situation presented in game. By handle I don’t mean win. If the player runs into an overpowering enemy type, that tool is retreat. Necrosavants cannot be retreated from without taking injuries since they teleport. Fighting them this early guarantees the loss of a brother. Non-engagement is not an option since they are faster on the worldmap. There is no single tool that the player has at this point to avoid loss, and had I killed them there would be no reward associated with the quest. They weren’t the target even though they spawned from the site.

If a player takes on a risky quest and finds enemies that he/she can’t contend with, then the punishment is either losing brothers in a bad fight, or losing relationship by retreating and cancelling the quest. In the case of necrosavants, the punishment is double headed. Since the army roams and is faster than you, you HAVE to engage. Retreat without either injury or death is a non-option. It also means that since the army roams, it can find you outside of the quest/reward loop. Having to take losses associated with Necrosavants in the early game winds up meaning punishment for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. That’s what I have an issue with.

I do imply some form of balance be maintained. I consistently say that the player should be punished for making a clear mistake. I mention that I would have expected to run into a group of legionaries, an enemy type that I can in no way contend with. That’s a battle that I simply could not fight, they’re even more dangerous than the necrosavants in close quarters. Legionaries can be evaded without guaranteed loss in the form of injuries and brothers. They don’t teleport. They aren’t faster on the worldmap.

Notice, I’m not complaining about having to flee from 3 bandit armies at once. I’m not complaining about orc marauders sacking caravans in two star quests on day 15. I’m not complaining about a difficult enemy just to complain. All of those dangers can be avoided and losses mitigated even if the player fails the quest.

Running into an enemy that can overpower you with the option to run is not the same thing as running into an enemy that you have to take automatic heavy losses from (in the form of coin or time). In one case, you rolled a dice that you can’t overcome (legionaries), but you can salvage the situation by choosing not to engage, since its the best option to prevent losses. Time to leave and regroup. In the other, you rolled a dice that gives you absolutely no option but to take loss because there is no escaping the enemy type. If you don’t have gold to hire more brothers there is no option but to wait for recovery, and that costs money over the long run.

And yea actually. I would complain about the thugs scenario. One of the biggest issue with builds before the ghoul rework was that the enemy was not threatening and no fun to fight. Every time one of the contracts popped up I would roll my eyes. There was no challenge or danger to it. It was just guaranteed time eaten up hitting an enemy that couldn’t really do anything in the mid-late game. That was worth complaining about. Similarly if the game only spawned thugs into the mid and late game it would be worth complaining about. When I have a good team going, I regularly turn down quests where the gold yield suggests that there won’t be a good fight. A game without challenge is boring. A game that punishes the player automatically, which is exactly what it means to run into necrosavants this early and be REQUIRED to take injuries or deaths because they can’t be outrun on the worldmap, is frustrating.

As far as I know, I’m giving feedback to the devs following the release period about how I as a player experience the game. Is that a crime? They might intend for it to be this way. I mention that in the post. If the experience is intended then it’s a non issue. A game that wants you to play on iron man but punishes the player arbitrarily is just not my kind of game. I have no way of knowing, so I post here. If it’s not what they intend it can be adjusted. I thought that was the point of this forum. Never-mind though. One player is fine with everything in the game. It must be balanced. Shut down the forum, no need to give feedback. Hruza likes it all. We solved balance guys! Pack it up, time to go home.

@hruza Please do not put words into my mouth. I’m fine discussing balance and the place of RNG in design philosophy, but its tiresome to have to repeat myself over and over again because it’s easier for you to be right if I said something that I never said. We have different opinions of what balance is in an open world game. That’s fine, I have no reason to think less of you for it. I won’t suggest that you’re ok with things that you have not explicitly stated. Do me the same favor.

[Author]

Posts