Reply To: Give enough information to make decisions

Avatar photoDenjanjeau

I just fail to see how getting a man less ideal than expected is a deal breaker.

I am sure you understand that the less information you are given when making a decision, the less the decision matters? That is the issue. It’s not a dealbreaker if you regard it as a gamble. If you regard it as a decision, the fact that we currently don’t have enough information to make the decision makes it a poor feature for decision making. If that is indeed the purpose.

You have to make decisions before and after you hire them. A dastard archer can still be useful. A blind wildman can still tank, thanks to his heavy armor and a shield (because he has bonus to stamina). A fat swordmaster will still hit – because he’s very accurate – if you handle him a billhook. A man who will never be confident (or starts with wavering morale right away) can benefit from Hold Out, etc. On top of that you can always level up the stats you think need an increase. Will this mean your men will be less potent? Yes. Will they be useless? No.

You are right in what you say, yet it doesn’t make it a relevant response to my argument. If in fact you think it doesn’t matter at all, then why choosing recruits at all? Why make a decision that is not so much a decision but a gamble? ;) So just add a recruit button and you get something random then? That would suit you just fine?
And don’t get me wrong. I am not judging the gambling approach at all. I just like to see things as they are. If the purpose is a gamble, then gamble. If the purpose is to make decisions, then give enough information to make one.

Aren’t these smart decisions based on situation?

Yes, your suggestions on how to use the recruits you get sound fine. But that isn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about the aquirment of the recruits ;)

I like the random nature of the game, because it prevents staling: everything can happen and you have to deal with it, rather than keeping the dices rolling until you’ll get the outcome you want (me and my friends did this while playing a board game, wasn’t thrilling, even though we “won”). You are free to save and load at any point you find suitable men/loot/whatever, but asking the developers to change the core of the game because your recruits have some undesired traits…?

Your taste is yours. However, you seem to arbitrary ignore my arguments when responding to them. I have in my suggestion pointed out that saving/loading will be a necessity for anyone who finds the gamble of recruiting boring. I respect that you like gambling, and I suggested a random recruit button for people that like gambling. Denying people like me the pleasure of decision making is up to the developers of course, but it’s not at all unreasonable (as your last line suggest).
Instead it does seem as it is you who choose to thin that your desire of random and acceptance that the game will “force” most users to save/reload “all the time” as people don’t like their decisions to arbitrary be punished by the game – as something desirable. I have an open mind and have no problem with your desire to play the game. I do have trouble with the narrowminded approach you have that embracing random is the way to go for everyone.
Given also that I “know” that save/reload will be what people will do. Thus NOT actually embracing the random. If you indeed are amongst those that do not save/reload to avoid bum recruits then I predict you will be in the minority. That means that the feature of random you cherish is easily avoided by save/reload which in my mind diminished the feeling for the game. As I know from experience many gamers share that feeling.
It is prudent to avoid users to be forced to save/reload for that reason in general. That doesn’t mean that the developers choose this path. They are in the right to do what they want. You are in the right to question my right to ask them to improve the game. And it is in my right to point out that that makes you narrowminded ;)