Topic: Would the devs or members of this community be interested in a comparative…
Home › Forums › Battle Brothers: Game Discussion & Feedback › Would the devs or members of this community be interested in a comparative…
- This topic has 23 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by Wolves.
18. May 2015 at 13:32 #4098
…analysis of the weapons & backgrounds (classes) in the game or is it too early for something like that?
If you are interested I would structure them based on usefulness & cost / benefit.
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!18. May 2015 at 16:18 #4111thenewromanceParticipant
I’d find it interesting. Don’t think it can hurt the development.18. May 2015 at 16:23 #4113SkyParticipant
Well, at this point it is up to you realy. If you want to do it, go ahead. Just think throught how you want to group the weapons up, by type or by tiers. Here is an example on Defensive Skills you can find similar topics to Offensive and Utility tree. With backgrounds I belive you will get a lot of help from The Wiki. And no, backgrounds are not classes. There are no classes per say, you can make up anything you want here. The background is what the character was doing before deciding to try the mercenary life.
It is always nice to see topics discussing the current state, and I’m pretty sure it does help the devs to get at least an overal view about player preferences, opinions. It is all feedback, the more the better.19. May 2015 at 00:12 #4136guidon101Participant
I support you writing it up :)
I think such info would be invaluable to new players, especially at this time the game is still so new, not a lot of info/discussions out there yet.
I, for one, had the BB Wiki, Sky’s skill discussions, and assorted game mechanics discussions open in the background all the time, to quick-check/reference while I played the game when I first started out. I still constantly refer to the BB Wiki for the background and traits info, but by now I have some familiarity and formed my own opinions of the skills, backgrounds, and traits, but I find it good to hear another perspective; I usually learn something new from other players to enhance my game or experience. But I am too lazy to write up a comprehensive guide/analysis, so please be our guest! :)
I would only caution that we’re in really early Early Access, so there is so much changing in the game in terms of content and mechanics, for example that some skill analysis discussions have already become somewhat outdated — so just keep that in mind, and maybe organize the info to lend itself to be easy to update.19. May 2015 at 07:44 #4147
Will start writing it this evening.
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!19. May 2015 at 09:34 #4151SkyParticipant
Nice, if you have questions just ask.19. May 2015 at 17:14 #4170
Well then, thank you Sky! Maybe you know a few certain things.
Is a narrov balance spread even a goal in the game / gaming experiance?
LIKE: In other words, is it a goal that all backgrounds are balanced against each other?
Are there hidden modifiers in regard to the potential chance to gain a certain perk for the different backgrounds?
LIKE: A HEDGE KNIGHT has a higher chance to be “brave” or “loyal” than a MURDERER ON THE RUN.
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!19. May 2015 at 17:45 #4172GODParticipant
1: To a degree, though only the devs know how much. The balancing I’ve seen so far is like this: a background like the swordmaster is rare and powerful, but comes with its own drawbacks and you need to put effort into making the most of him. He is also expensive and there’s always a chance of him having poor stats or traits, so you need to weigh your options. Similarly, a cheap recruit will usually be bad but might turn out to have good stats and traits. The game therefore seems to avoid straight upgrades and there is always a use for weaker tools or recruits, with weaker tools being cheaper and making for good backup weapons if you break all your expensive ones.
2: Yes, the traits a character can get and their odds of getting them depend on which background they have.19. May 2015 at 17:56 #4174
Thank you GOD!
“Average Bonus Level ON Start Coefficient” is RawBonusStats/AverageLevelStatIncrease
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!19. May 2015 at 18:01 #4175
3. Is there a average baseline asigned to all stats on char generation depending on the background?
2) Well, before we know this charts, a number based analysis of the different possible builds is a bit pointless. I Should ajust my approch on the analysis then… make it more experiance based (40h so far).
For example I never even botherd to recruit a GRAVEDIGGER so far, because stats wise he is just inferior to the GRAVEROBBER.
I always recruit LUMBERJACKS as heavy melee tanks, because its +25 for 10. So its, if the DAYTALER is the baseline (0 for 6), the LUMBERJACK gets 6,5 for every 1 upkeep as bonus, which is less than the avg 10,5 per level, but its a great base model to build a char on.
That said, with my playstyle I never run into problems with gold to far, based on ITEMS, upkeep on the other hand, blocks missions for you.
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!19. May 2015 at 18:09 #4176GODParticipant
3: I haven’t counted them up, but more expensive backgrounds do tend to end up with higher stats. However, this appears to be random to some degree, so I’m not sure if there’s an average baseline.
Nice work on the sheet! I’m going to avoid reading much of it, because I like to keep things intangible to some degree, but others will get a lot of use out it.19. May 2015 at 18:11 #4177
@GOD: My personal version has more data in it, but I’m still thinking about its relevance.
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!19. May 2015 at 18:13 #4178RapKeymaster
Just to complicate matters a bit; In the future you’ll also have to consider how different backgrounds play together and what they might bring to the team outside of combat. Putting a bunch of nobles together with a bunch of beggars and vagabonds may lead to social conflict as nobles refuse to treat beggars as equals, and having a Hedge Knight means that he’ll solve any potential disputes involving him the bloody way. An old swordmaster can make a good teacher, but age will also eventually catch up with him. Those things are hard to quantify, obviously.19. May 2015 at 18:18 #4179
@RAP: Thank you for participating! – That is a point I anticipated a bit. Tailor -> Repair, Bowyer -> Bonus Ranged Ammo etc.
Yes, that makes it very hard to base the analysis primarily on numbers. I maybe should simply give feedback on the current status and the tactics I use so far, could be of better use.
Shall I make a new thread for my general feedback or use this one? It would be like that:
SO FAR, I see no reason to recruit anyone with high upkeep (KNIGHT, SELLSWORD, SWORDMASTER), because they are simply not worth the upkeep, because they block you from certain missions like: GO there get 310 gold, SEARCH FOR X get 325 gold.
Balance for the Balance Throne! Skills for the Skill God! | Wolves - Spam for the Old Gods!19. May 2015 at 19:13 #4185guidon101Participant
Wow, you are going somewhere with this! :)
Wanted to offer some constructive considerations. Maybe you already had all this in mind, and you were just starting with the RawNumbers approach as a base… but in case it adds any value:
As with all statistical approaches, I worry that quantifying things empirically may get convoluted and misleading due to many factors, if the other factors are not taken into account properly: for example, (1) contextual value and (2) temporal value and (3) purpose/playstyle
It seems right now you are going for an “economic raw BB-stat optimization curve”; what’s most cost-efficient with highest raw stats, is that right?
Also, when you create those variable labels, like “RawBonus” I was wondering how you defined them? Is it the raw sum of the numbers from background+trait, so you are treating +1 mdef = +1 rdef = 1% xp bonus = 1 raw point ?
In that case, I would consider coefficients/weights associated with each stat based on at least:
(1) contextual value: In my opinion, not all stats are made equal depending on context. +1 mdef is worth more to someone prone to be in melee vs. not; +1 mattack is worth more to a melee fighter than +1 ranged. In this sense, it becomes not cost-effective to pay for a high-RawBonus +20mdef/+20mattack Swordmaster, only to make it an archer (not that anyone would, because we all weigh all these other contextual considerations when we decide)
(2) temporal value (another kind of context): for example, with the +%10 xp bonus trait, it becomes completely worthless when you reach level cap; it’s value is closely associated with the early game development; so in terms of the RawBonus points economic model, you are paying $ for 10 RawPoints, worth nothing at lvl 11
(3) purpose/play-style: if you are going for 9 tanks/3 rangers, you may optimize on specific stats; 9 melee-oriented stats, 3 ranged-oriented; I would never just look at the Raw numbers for this reason; some stats are more valuable because of my play-style/purpose. In one game, I opted out of using Rally Troops and decided to manage fatigue individually; in that game, I never saw cause to put points into Resolve since I had no “rally captains”. Or, for example, if I want a “Perfect Focus” character, I would value high-Fatigue stats more
Basically, depending on context, a player would probably place a value coefficient for each stat (whether we do it consciously through hard numbers or subconsciously through intuition). I imagine that is hard to model with high fidelity, but that may be a fun and informative challenge and maybe that is your goal/point.
Taking the “experience based”/experiential “normative economics” approach is also very useful, and maybe more preferable/easier to understand/relate to for most people.
With the level of detail you are approaching, I very much look forward to where you are going and the final result, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.