Ledgren

[Ledgren]

You know, thinking on recruitment further, can think of a way to do it that makes sense and gives a gameplay cost. I say this fairly certain that the devs are not going to revisit the matter, but it’s just something for us forum-heads to chew on.

It would make more sense if the company had a designated man to test trainees. The level of this character, his experience, would determine just how much he could suss out about potential recruits. There could be a further wrinkle of possible wounds.

Letting your level 1 peddler attend to the tryout of a hedge knight might give you the result of very serious injuries and little at all learned about the potential recruit, since the peddler doesn’t now his ass from the sharp point of a spear.

Having a level 11 peddler whose seen many many battles handle the testing would allow you to see the other character’s stat spread. If the devs wanted to get fancy, they could even make it so that certain backgrounds are more likely to suss out certain traits/debuffs regardless of level simply because of their background. A miner might know someone with breathing problems just as one example.

Then of course you’d have everything in between, where a mid-level bro can get some details on potential recruits but not a great deal if they’re near his level.

A system like this would pose the constant danger of injuries, and make it much more difficult hiring top tier talent at lower levels as opposed to once your company has serious combat veterans.

It would probably be a pain in the ass to code though. Makes more sense to me than believing a good merc captain would make a payment to a recruit on the hopes that he’s not bullshitting on his resume at least. “I’m totally a hedge knight, give me 10,000” he said in gear stolen from a roadside corpse.

None of this is anything other than forum chew though. I agree with OP’s statement. Best medieval turn based strategy game of all time, and definitely the most impressive debut game of any indie company I’ve ever seen.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

@UXBrother
I love your changes almost universally. But that’s just between us fans. I think the dev team is either burned out on community feedback or just not checking the forums. Game’s a success (I hope), so I’m not sure how plugged in they are. Can’t please everybody. In fact, even if the devs made a perfect game in a very specific way, they’d have people wishing it was something else. And that’s fine.

The only changes I would object to on personal preferences are the changes on the port, since as Koburn has pointed out, there are already trade offs associated with the mechanic in-game and the logic followed is sufficiently in-step.

I would however object to one of the points made by @Koburn.
The original Poster’s point on hiring is that most people don’t actually use the in-game hiring system as presented. Although it likely does appeal to people who want an experience where the player is forced to make do with what they get, some of the most downloaded mods are consistently recruitment change mods.
This strain of thought is also counter to one of your other statements, a statement that I agree with. Chiefly, as a mercenary manager, you take responsibility for information involved with running a company. Now with this in mind. What thoughtful manager hires someone for an ungodly amount of money with no idea what his capabilities (stats) are? Who would hire a hedge knight for 8000 crowns without first giving him a training sword and getting a good idea of how well he can use it (melee attack stat)? I’d argue that no prudent manager would. The mechanic as it stands in game is more artificial difficulty conceit straight from a skinner box style of design than something a careful manager would put up with.

Those are my opinions anyway. Still a great game.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

I am well aware, but it’ll be a good 2 months.

Feels like they’ve been trying to shuffle away from BB for some time now, but even quality of life improvements coming with it will hopefully make the base game a joy to return to. I highly doubt the new game will grab me like this old stand out in my library does, but they were bound to move on to something new eventually.

It’s bittersweet, and yea, unpredictable. Like many things in life.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

@Dray I’ve been playing the game since it was in beta, the perk tree was unrecognizable and armor was an extra health bar with no deeper mechanics.You don’t need to explain the mechanics or the risk to reward ratio.

This is a game where the devs early on stated that Mount and blade and similar games were inspirations. Xcom was too, to be fair, and Xcom is a game that lends itself to play-wipe rouge-like style sessions. Where you play, you take hard knocks and you might have to restart. That’s fair. They’re drawing from two different pools of ideas and they appear to clash sometimes. That’s not the say that the game can’t be played in the sub-100 day fashion you mentioned. It’s just not the only way to play the game, and feeling like the devs are making a decision for me as a player of how I should interact with the game outside of mechanics is a little frustrating.

That said, unless I’ve missed something, I think that enemy encounters are based heavily on renown level and the strength of your group when it comes to crisis gen. I think that if you’re super high up by the time the green skin crisis rolls around, you can still fight that kind of group. I’ve been wrong in the past though and it’s bound to happen again.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

Not quite. That text was never there after the 1.0 release and has only popped up recently. I guess it might be as recent as the norther barbarian DLC, but it’s definitely a later addition to the game.

I honestly think its a result of a design conflict in the game. BB has the infrastructure of a long haul experience like Mount and Blade. Levels, a deep inventory system, reputation that goes up very slowly over time, but game tips and text suggest the devs want it played like a rougue-like. Which is why you get “tips” like Losing is fun and BB may lose balance after the 2nd crisis.

Either way, there’s definitely a disconnect with how many players experience and want to interact with the game, and how Overhype views it being played.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

@Oh Brother, Yes. You still get the bonus.

@ Loci. Like negotiations, the involvement of other Mercenaries is woefully underdeveloped and underwhelming. The only purpose they really seem to serve is for a single ambition. Though to be fair, I’d consider the bounty hunters distinct from the mercs you see on the map. If nothing else, the mercs are a visible army chasing you. The bounty hunters just show up in an event, which is a frustrating oversight that can force you into a one sided battle depending on the status of your merc band.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

Ioci wrote:

I have played this game for 1110 hrs on steam’s record, but I don’t think it’s wrong that someone left a negative review for it even he/she mostly like the game. A game deserves both positive and negative reviews from its players. And sometimes, the more you love it, the more disappointment you will get from it.

That’s pretty much what it is. I love this game, and am sorely disappointed. The dev’s disconnect definitely didn’t help. You’ve been around for about as long as me if not longer. I’m only behind you in playtime by about 50 hours.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

Trappist wrote:

Am i reading this right, BB is one of your all time favourite games but you gave it a negative steam review? Why not go positive and then add a cautionary note to those that aren’t prepared to sink enough time to learn how to prosper in ironman?

…meant to quote your other post dude sorry!

When I left the review it was after the devs made the official announcement that they were discontinuing work on the game even though it didn’t live up to the goals it had in EA, when I initially bought the copy. I’ve been around since the armor bar was no more complicated than an extra health bar. After so many hours played and so many feedback posts ignored here in the forums, I felt somewhat cheated. Still do every time I see “losing is fun” in a loading screen.

I’m glad that Overhype decided to return to the game, but I’m under no illusions that they give a damn about forum feedback or plan to fulfill some of the original goals. When I paid for the game originally, I paid for the game knowing it wasn’t finished. It was an investment in a promise. I can’t suggest paying 30$ on steam to new players for what the game has become after Early Access.

Hell, I still get a bug sometimes during caravan missions where the bandits auto-win and the screen goes from worldmap to the caravan loss event. Map generation is still completely godawful and lacks any form of strategic choice, it’s pure RNG. The “negotiation system” is meaningless flavor text, and other mercenary bands are only relevant for all of one ambition. I mean whether you’re playing in a “graveyard”, a “goblin pit”, “orc camp” or “ancient burialground” the map tilesets don’t go beyond basic terrain. You look me in the eye and tell me this game was finished even ignoring the unmet EA stretch goals.

To be clear, coming back to the site and seeing that Overhype is working on BB again is the gaming news I’m most excited about this year. Maybe I’ll retune the review after seeing everything the new patch has to offer. At the moment, there are a lot of other games worth 30 bucks that are well polished and have a bit more respect for the players time. The condescending “losing is fun” tip might have tilted me to this side of the fence on that opinion.

A stubborn forum goer might think I’m being unreasonable. Posts like this one from the horses’s own mouth http://battlebrothersgame.com/dev-blog-22-battle-brothers-faq/ might add some substance to why I love the game, but can’t give a 30 buck thumbs up on steam. Frankly, I consider myself a saint on the issue. I left a negative but even-handed review. The fact is we’re going to have to buy crafting in the DLC, something that was originally announced when the game was in EA. Any consumer could take the studio apart just on that ballsy move alone. Close development on the game and move on to another project with it unfinished. If you need some extra cash, release what you promised the first time as paid DLC. I’m damn near Jesus Christ if the steam review doesn’t become more negative.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

I mean, the fact that you finished one mission, the tutorial, and then refused both one and two skull quests that could have helped you get money and experience says quite a lot. Three skull missions are designed to either be unbeatable, a fight you should walk away from, or very difficult, a fight that will cost you a few mercenaries. Doesn’t mean they always play out that way. It does mean you shouldn’t be bee lining straight to them if you intend to get unhappy about losses. As for world-map enemies, running away from a lot of fights is very important until mid to late game.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

luzarius wrote:

I decided to try once more on beginner difficulty like before. I was able to kill the weasel guy. Now I’m trying to find a third mission. I went to four towns so far and the only contract available so far was a single skull. I refused and went to the fifth town and found another contract, a double skull, so I refused. Now I’m going to the 6th town to find a contract and I get attacked by bandits, 5 of them. They kill my entire party AGAIN, lol.

This has got to be the dumbest game I’ve ever played in the history of games. What a fucking waste. The game seems to have potential to be fun, but if a new player can’t even get past the third contract then something is severely wrong. I highly suggest a better in game tutorial or an easier difficulty than beginner.

Suggested difficulties to be added to the game:

Clueless
Rookie
Beginner
Novice
Adept
Veteran
Expert

I know I’m not being unreasonable. I’ve played tons of games on the hardest difficulty and even beat them without dying a single time. Hell, I’ve played Dark Souls 3 and got through 60% of the game without dying. I’m not some clueless person who has never played games before.

This game is seriously broken.

I take the piss out of this game pretty frequently. My steam review is negative with a tentative endorsement for only the most patient gamers to pick it up. Battle Brothers, despite its claims, is not a game that deserves to be played on Iron man. No matter how many people say “losing is fun”, the only reason that tip is in the game is to justify some absolutely glaring design flaws in map generation and two conflicting design philosophies concerning what the hell the game is trying to be. The game does not respect the players time, and progress made from perfect decisions in the past can be immediately erased by one bad map generation or world-map event. You can lose hours by having a high-level brother die to something completely outside of your control. The game isn’t broken, but it can’t claim to be built for Iron man, and whenever I see “losing is fun” I feel like the devs are taunting me by leaving the product in a state where I just have to “accept” bullshit passed off as “fun”. That’s not a feature, it’s a bug. Don’t tell me how to feel about losing the time I put into a product I want to have faith in and enjoy.

Despite all of that, you’re in the wrong. What you played in the past doesn’t matter. IF you played Dark Souls 1 and Dark Souls 2 kicks your ass, sure. There might be an issue. Those two games have essentially the same rules. I can be an absolute monster in Fifa on the console, that doesn’t mean my fifa skills are transferable to a fighting game. Don’t compare apples to oranges and say there’s something fundamentally wrong with the orange.

You’ll need to learn what fights to avoid and what to go after to level up. It doesn’t matter if you fought five “Bandits”. A team of raiders early-game will absolutely trash you right out of the gate. A team of thugs won’t.

I have no problems going to town on this game, despite it being one of my all-time favorites. It certainly is not unreasonably difficult. I beat Ninja Gaiden on Master Ninja mode. I would get trashed in fifa by anyone with even passing knowledge of sports game. Don’t blame the game and ask it to change. Learn the rules. Then trash it like do, because learning to love losing for something outside of your control is like learning to love being slapped in the face by a giant hotdog when you clearly wanted to get slapped by a taco. Now if you’ll excuse me, I expected this apple to taste like an orange. I’m gonna go complain to God.

New profile, old player.

[Ledgren]

Thanks for the question EdenGenesis, as glad as I am that the dev team is working on DLC, I’ve been detached from a lot of the discussion and had no idea a decision had been made on female characters. If you hadn’t asked, others wouldn’t know the source conversations for that final decision.

@ForceEcho, Eden has forum topics over a year old. He’s not a new member. And before you call me out, neither am I. I don’t have my old profile, but I’ve been playing this game and hanging around the forum at least a year before it came out of early access. If the forum hasn’t been scrubbed, I’m sure there’s a post with me bitching or arguing with someone somewhere here.

I appreciate you trying to put the debate to bed, but there are better ways to do it. Suggesting that ‘gynephilia” (wanting women in gaming) is some cultural abnormality that doesn’t belong in media you like and that Eden is a monster for even asking a question about female characters is not one of them.

“Women will not be in BB an the topic has been done to death <link here> would have been sufficient.

New profile, old player.

[Author]

Posts