Go ahead, Cheos, follow my steps.
That's how I started a year ago. My disappointment in 0.7 (in comparison to 0.6 which I loved) led me to rebalancing the whole thing.
Create your own balance. You don't even need the module system because almost all items and troops are now thoroughly sorted and properly named. Just alter the values and replace equipment.
Anyhow, I still wanted to mention that this is a feedback for how the game seems to me, based on my experience, I'm not here to argue with anybody so I guess its time to stop here.
The issue with losing of skill point - Losing the minimum skill point required for the weapon you use doesn't un-equip that specific gear so you can still use the same weapon with the reduced skill point for that weapon <- bug or intentional? also, companions taking a critical hit and leveling up receiving only that skill point other than the entire attribute point.. I didn't like that concept or getting a critical hit and losing Inventory management feels to me like a dull concept of chance and usually you just have to start stacking INT to cover loss of previous points.
I think hard mode would be a real challenge when player and companions alike would be kill-able(is that how we call it?) or maybe permanent penalty to maximum health - I'm shooting all directions here.
To my knowledge all of these skill loses in hard mode are suppose to be temporary. you tak e a bad hit, get injured, but when you heal it's back to normal. Now it is possible that there's is a lapse or conflict in code when it come of leveling up with an injury. I have seen that before. Just no one has pointed that out in perisno .8 yet.
I feel like your identifying a bug without identifying bug because your trying to state an opinion without understanding that somehow it's imp.... I don't know.
I'm getting confused and a headache trying to wrap my mind around what he's saying here. Can one of the devs really define the hard mode mechanics and whether anything is permanent. I think there's a lack of understanding here that is spiraling in some weird directions
Regarding Hard mode - If you have a weapon that require 5 points of skill points equiped and you have exactly 5 skill point for to be able to equip that weapon - losing 1 skill point while fighting with that weapon, you are still able to equip that same exact weapon, that's either bug or intentional I dunno, On top of that I suggest changing that system because its flawed and not challenging at all (suppose to be hard mode I guess)
Bankoleva 说:
Troops -
I'll first say that I'm fully aware troops are supposed to be different from one another and yet they are balanced compared to the different factions in game. I Know everything is well made by a formula but de-facto something doesn't work, certain advantages wasn't properly calculated and certain factors/variables are incorrect IMHO.
Preparedness -Impact of their capabilities in the different scenarios.
Mind the difference, e.g. Field encounter between Hakkon Sharpshooter vs Valahir Hersir, the Hersir would probably die before even reaching the Hakkon Sharpshooter, but in closer combat the Hersir is more than likely to have the upper hand, both are units that have very distinct advantage of range to utilize, but the Sharpshooter is far more prepared for most scenarios(Field encounter, offensive/defensive reinforcement wave, siege off/def, raid) VERSUS the Hersir that will do better than the Sharpshooter only when fighting in favored position (Like Defensive reinforcement wave when he spawn within enemies and just swing or within the backlines), Huscarl on the other hand has far better level of preparedness thanks to their shields and throwing axes and bastard axes, with more or less the same quality of gear the Hersir have, Huscarl is a unit with excellent level of preparedness for the different encounters, so in general evaluations on scale of 1/5;
Lets overview some main factions:
(I didn't go to the exact numbers because I believe its not necessary)
Elintor:Army units avg lv. 35-40'ish, light-heavy units with extreme preparedness capabilities, best preform...everywhere.
Hakkon:Army units avg. lv. 25-26'ish, med-heavy units with mediocre preparedness capabilities, best preform offensively.
Meccavia:Army units avg. lv. 27-30'ish. med-heavy units with poor preparedness capabilities, best preform defensively.
Reich Des Drachen:Army units avg. lv. 30'ish, med-heavy units with good preparedness capabilities, best preform in field combat.
Tolornia:Army units avg. lv. 23-26'ish, light-med units with mediocre preparedness capabilities, best preform in field combat.
Valahir:Army units avg. lv.25'ish, light-med units with mediocre preparedness capabilities, best preform defensively.
Just to get the perspective, again, if need be I'll conduct a very detailed spreadsheet but my point is;
Elintor will decimate nearly every of the armies listed above (and others!) in nearly every encounter, Meccavia doesn't stand a chance against the Valahirs, Tolornia, Elintor obviously, the Reich, and the Hakkon, and I can go on with further comparisons, and there are many other armies to consider too, so to me it feels like a mess IMO.
So to summarize troops;
Units are not evaluated properly for strengths in different scenarios of combat.
Gear is not distributed properly distributed to units of each tier within their army.
Auto-calc strength of units versus their actual combat abilities is inaccurate when not participating in combat
Weapon proficiency (I barely mentioned that) is not properly estimated, e.g. 75 Archery won't be able to hit mounted enemy, 150 will be able to headshot a mounted unit.Crossbow which suppose to come as secondary range choice with slower rate of fire is some units main weapon, it is somehow better thanks to the damage boost but still a second look to weapon prof is necessary IMHO I know its another Pandora box..but this is also something that matters.
Despite balance - that exist - between lord parties, the units themselves are not balanced for a player perspective.
Your entire point seems to run in a weird circle that i'm just not understanding. Yes different troops would fair differently in different circumstances. That is the point. If every troop had essentially the same capabilities is the same circumstances, you would simply be picking troops based on their looks. You seem to requesting that every unit essentially just be bland copy of each other with the same everything. Again maybe I'm just simple and not grasping the complexity of your thoughts here but I really don't get what the issue that your pointing out...
Additionally on the concept of balance.... or imbalance as you seem to be claiming, I haven't seen any faction steam roll any other faction and no one else has complained to witnessing such an occurrence in .8. There's complaints about Elintor being too hard defensively in sieges but none has complained they are winning all over the map. So far from what I've seen everyone has held their own with the exception of the minor factions, who in my game are far more resilient than I would expect. Your making a claim that doesn't seem to be proven in actual game implementation. It's been 2 weeks since .8 launched and thus far you thoughts of imbalance seem to mostly what you think is imbalanced on a spread sheet and not what is being witnessed or seen in game implementation. If things were so messy and out of whack as you say, we'd see it in full detail in the game itself.
Finally, as I said, there are tools to help you craft this closer to your vision of balance. Hot fixes will not effect the changes you make using these tools. The point of the hot fixes is for them to stay save compatible. You can play around all you want and see if your theory of balance works better in your private game. You don't have to worry about the changes until .81 drops. I believe they are purposely saving game and save breaking issues for that update.
Regarding Troops - I pointed out the following;
1- Units are not evaluated properly for strengths in different scenarios of combat.
Because having all army using ranged weapons despite their actual power,speed,prof which can be correct by numbers to perfectionis still flawed because they are simply more effective than initially thought. because some units will ALWAYS do better [SPECIFICALLY] within player perspective.
Simple example of two units;
Unit1 using a bow/arrow IS NOT EQUAL to Unit2 using the SAME NUMERICALLY calculated THw even that they are both just a recruits and their stats were calculated with equal amount of points - it seems right when you look on the numbers because you may think that if the THw has triple the amount of damage and speed than its equal to the bow/arrow but as a matter of fact IT IS NOT - again - [SPECIFICALLY] within player perspective, the fight is still leaned towards the bow/arrow simply because Unit2 is not a unit prepared properly to fight in the MAJORITY of scenarios the bow/arrow would shine DESPITE having exactly the same amount of stats, give Unit2 a basic shield and Unit2 will be far more useful in combat instead of raising its THw damage as done which supposed to seem right looking on the spreadsheet..
I will also present it that way; even more simplified example, considering only damage as a variable.
-Inaccurate evaluation inside the formula of unit DE-FACTO abilities and advantages.
(Now I've radicalized it purposely for it will be easier for you to understand what I'm trying to say here, and before jumping to further solutions make sure you understand what I'm saying its all here.)
2- Gear is not distributed properly distributed to units of each tier within their army.
I gave the Valahir Hersir and Huskarl example about levels off preparedness, just read it again its all there.
3- Auto-calc strength of units versus their actual combat abilities is inaccurate when not participating in combat.
You may find the best way to beat Elintorian archers in siege by having high amount of elites [any] and just order your soldiers to charge, if you'll participate your army will be shred to very small pieces, if not, you'll win, that's the problem here;
4- Weapon proficiency (I barely mentioned that) is not properly estimated, e.g. 75 Archery won't be able to hit mounted enemy, 150 will be able to headshot a mounted unit.Crossbow which suppose to come as secondary range choice with slower rate of fire is some units main weapon, it is somehow better thanks to the damage boost but still a second look to weapon prof is necessary IMHO I know its another Pandora box..but this is also something that matters.
5- Despite balance - that exist - between lord parties, the units themselves are not balanced for a player perspective.
You can have Lord1 with 10 elites and Lord2 with 100 peasants equal in power and therefore the map seem balanced, but its not because in a fight Lord1 will always win.
So examining the spreadsheet you'll find that the different VARIABLES are not evaluated properly PER UNIT and PER ARMY mostly out of PLAYER PERSPECTIVE versus AI perspective.
This is regarding the balance, pardon my sarcasm.
Thanks.
First I'd like to apologize again if I got some of us upset and I'm well aware that you put a lot of effort and hard work into it and it's not my intentions to make you feel bad about it, all I'm doing is just posting my thoughts - out of my perspective as a constructive opinion, nothing more nothing less.
I was also hoping not to go to specific details because of the general nature of these discussions but I guess its necessary so I'll start over here on out with very detailed info, take in mind that I've read the latest posts and I will respond to every subject within this post;
-My only issue with editing the game myself is that every time I'll install a patch/hotfix it will be reversed so its not viable solution (regarding tweaking/editing text) -
Hard Mode - The issue with losing of skill point - Losing the minimum skill point required for the weapon you use doesn't un-equip that specific gear so you can still use the same weapon with the reduced skill point for that weapon <- bug or intentional? also, companions taking a critical hit and leveling up receiving only that skill point other than the entire attribute point.. I didn't like that concept or getting a critical hit and losing Inventory management feels to me like a dull concept of chance and usually you just have to start stacking INT to cover loss of previous points.
I think hard mode would be a real challenge when player and companions alike would be kill-able(is that how we call it?) or maybe permanent penalty to maximum health - I'm shooting all directions here.
-Deep breathe-
Troops -
I'll first say that I'm fully aware troops are supposed to be different from one another and yet they are balanced compared to the different factions in game. I Know everything is well made by a formula but de-facto something doesn't work, certain advantages wasn't properly calculated and certain factors/variables are incorrect IMHO.
Preparedness -Impact of their capabilities in the different scenarios.
Mind the difference, e.g. Field encounter between Hakkon Sharpshooter vs Valahir Hersir, the Hersir would probably die before even reaching the Hakkon Sharpshooter, but in closer combat the Hersir is more than likely to have the upper hand, both are units that have very distinct advantage of range to utilize, but the Sharpshooter is far more prepared for most scenarios(Field encounter, offensive/defensive reinforcement wave, siege off/def, raid) VERSUS the Hersir that will do better than the Sharpshooter only when fighting in favored position (Like Defensive reinforcement wave when he spawn within enemies and just swing or within the backlines), Huscarl on the other hand has far better level of preparedness thanks to their shields and throwing axes and bastard axes, with more or less the same quality of gear the Hersir have, Huscarl is a unit with excellent level of preparedness for the different encounters, so in general evaluations on scale of 1/5;
Lets overview some main factions:
(I didn't go to the exact numbers because I believe its not necessary) Elintor:Army units avg lv. 35-40'ish, light-heavy units with extreme preparedness capabilities, best preform...everywhere. Hakkon:Army units avg. lv. 25-26'ish, med-heavy units with mediocre preparedness capabilities, best preform offensively. Meccavia:Army units avg. lv. 27-30'ish. med-heavy units with poor preparedness capabilities, best preform defensively. Reich Des Drachen:Army units avg. lv. 30'ish, med-heavy units with good preparedness capabilities, best preform in field combat. Tolornia:Army units avg. lv. 23-26'ish, light-med units with mediocre preparedness capabilities, best preform in field combat. Valahir:Army units avg. lv.25'ish, light-med units with mediocre preparedness capabilities, best preform defensively.
Just to get the perspective, again, if need be I'll conduct a very detailed spreadsheet but my point is;
Elintor will decimate nearly every of the armies listed above (and others!) in nearly every encounter, Meccavia doesn't stand a chance against the Valahirs, Tolornia, Elintor obviously, the Reich, and the Hakkon, and I can go on with further comparisons, and there are many other armies to consider too, so to me it feels like a mess IMO.
So to summarize troops;
Units are not evaluated properly for strengths in different scenarios of combat.
Gear is not distributed properly distributed to units of each tier within their army.
Auto-calc strength of units versus their actual combat abilities is inaccurate when not participating in combat
Weapon proficiency (I barely mentioned that) is not properly estimated, e.g. 75 Archery won't be able to hit mounted enemy, 150 will be able to headshot a mounted unit.Crossbow which suppose to come as secondary range choice with slower rate of fire is some units main weapon, it is somehow better thanks to the damage boost but still a second look to weapon prof is necessary IMHO I know its another Pandora box..but this is also something that matters.
Despite balance - that exist - between lord parties, the units themselves are not balanced for a player perspective.
Gameflow -
Okay, Gameflow, The general guideline for the gameflow "should" be (and again, its based on my perspective) based on more smooth rate of progress, specifically when the game is stretched for the later-phase of the game which was kinda missing.
The only choice in playing is basically building (wool/flax/most expensive) enterprises within each and every town - easy peazy lemon squeezy - and you get yourself the ultimate gear you can find, becoming a sworn vassal is the easy part, and from this point onward the game is about grinding till a point you can have your own garrison for storing troops since money is not a problem at very early point, gear too, its inevitable that you'd be supremely powerful doesn't matter what are your strategic choices or build, the entire gameflow looks like this;
1---2-3---4--------------------------------5-end
1- Establishing financially, zero challenge, enormous benefits of infinite money.
2- Basic relations with lords/kings, somewhat benefits you, getting a garrison for your troops is pretty much the end of this milestone.
3- Have your army built up, everything is determined by number of elites you run, at this point you are a demi-god, no reason to even consider strategy in battles/map. You start conquering the map, you can't really lose and nobody actually pose enough threat for your faction.
4- Factions are starting to fade, whoever you join, wins.
5- You with your faction just won, relations come easy, renown is just there, and game is ended, just few clean ups.
You can do it by having your own kingdom or just joining a present one, there is also no much difference here.
I'd expect that a game stretched for long run would look more like this; (SUGGESTION)
1---2----3-----4-------5--------end
1- You build yourself along with hard work for relations.
2- You begin expanding military for renown(around 1K) and finally considered a worthy commander to take place in factions.
3- You establish an army with variety of troops that would also be somewhat related to your faction and wars is everything.
4- You finally rip the fruits of good finance, you are always on the hunt for advanced quests that require relations, renown, honor rating, and ultimate gear.
5- You conquer Perisno in a long and challenging STRATEGICALLY campaign.
regarding
As a Freelancer - I'm surprised nobody brought that up so far, you don't get any wages from enterprises, and you ALWAYS have to participate in a battle even the smallest one which is tiring and pointless IMHO.
I Also suggest that being enlisted to a lord means you gain XP passively IF that lord has Trainer, small amount that could assist you pass early levels since its IMPOSSIBLE to get any kills/exp shares as a fresh recruit, maybe also adding few quests during Freelance to break the same-old, I have some ideas.
As a Sworn Mercenary - THREE months is loads of time that cannot be stopped, that can be modified somehow, wages should be determined by renown other than -again- amount of troops (10% of their wage actually)
You can't really get much being a mercenary and this is boring, tweaking that a little with unique mercenary quests, advance options such as betraying current faction for gold or justice could change the entire game IMHO.
As a Sworn Vassal - Lets face it, you can't do much and the king NEVER listen to war declarations.
As a King - ZERO ability in terms of ruling, diplomacy, commanding or recruiting..should be looked into that IMHO.
As an Adventurer - Everything happens around you is meaningless except maybe the Zann invasion.
Well, I have plenty of ideas,but my point is that moving from one to another is just a dull step other than strategic matter and choice, with no much of consequences, challenges, or impact for the overall gameflow.
Companions -
This is something I could almost expect be implemented, making companions a main piece in the party - and having requirements for companions(!) <- SUGGESTION -> along with tasks for companions.
Graphics and design -
While taste is subjective I still think the coloring of units is somewhat disappointing, however, I'd like to refer to Tolornia and the banners of the different lords, it would be nice to see red as the main color for their banners since the entire troops wear heraldic armors, maybe adding some heraldic armors to other armies too? just thinking out loud.
About the difference between graphic quality, I can give more examples, anyway I'd also want to suggest that elites would have a better more intimidating gear that would reflect their rank more than the gear stats.
Also few notes; 1. Marriage is kinda simplified but doesn't really affect the game as expected.
2. Quests without quest notes, seems unfinished, also the quest line is stuck once you need to raid a Reich noble that was already eliminated by another party..
3. Map location of factions, the Reich will be most likely to get attacked by multiple factions due to their location, Aurlo are unlikely to go on offensive also due to their location, the realm of the falcon losing .. really?
I Hope I clarified my previous post better, I dropped some issues I mentioned earlier for the sake of the main things I wanted to discuss, again, nothing personal, just my opinion, thank you!
P.S. The reason I actually posting a feedback is because of my great expectations of you guys.
Hello,
There are several things that really bother me and I wanted to start a discussion about them..I apologize for my poor English in advance, I'm still learning, so back to subject, here is the things I find most important to improve in the mod:
[Hard mode, no cheats, no changes in...
Hey what's up,
Just to begin with, I didn't find many fantasy mods that are simply all about fantasy and made the way I would like them to be so I had this idea of making a mod inspired by Chess and fantasy.
I Decided to start it as a small project and see how it goes, basically what I had in...
