ThisThe system is good, just unbalanced at the moment. Like everything concerning the pace of the game.
ThisThe system is good, just unbalanced at the moment. Like everything concerning the pace of the game.
If you are still around 5 years from now I'll respect your opinion.
The tricky part there is the way the skills are divided among the attributes. Most characters are either bow, crossbow *or* throwing, it's rare you'd want more than one on the same character,. Conversely when you get to the more cerebral skills it's quite likely a character will use and find all three useful. Really the issue comes down to the way the system is designed; we seem to be in an uncomfortable halfway house between an attribute based system (similar to Warband) and a pure skill system (Skyrim) with the difference being split in a way that the two conflict rather than compliment.I still think attributes should rise passively by gaining skills of their subset, so the multiplicator for the other skills also increases.
That's the reason for the problem though. Since leveling is dependent on the number of skill gains it's a lot quicker to have a companion use the skills they're the lowest in (which leads to relatively rapid gains up to the 50 mark, as you note) to gain levels than rely on what they're presumably supposed to be doing, at which point it will take hours simply because it's slower to level that skill. Though it comes back to the cap and the usefulness of leveling really; if my companion could hit maximum skills in those they require without needing to level then it wouldn't be such a huge issue.Companions are different, as they start at such a high level that level-ups are hours and hours away. However doing a lot of medicine stuff will increase their skill in that regard, if their focus is maxed out. Keep in mind that medicine, tactics, leadership and steward also scales with army size. The more you have, the more there is to learn.
In this case my learning by doing directly results in my taking a less optimal and less fun approach to the game.
Yeah, that is why I am particularly fond of set skill increases via quest rewards, and more skills interacting with each other. I also agree that the three ranged options should indeed go into different attributes, as control otherwise is just pretty one-dimensional. So you have melee, ranged and athletic-type in each of the top three attributes. You could make a case to put crossbows int as well. It does not really matter as attributes have no real additional effects.The tricky part there is the way the skills are divided among the attributes. Most characters are either bow, crossbow *or* throwing, it's rare you'd want more than one on the same character,. Conversely when you get to the more cerebral skills it's quite likely a character will use and find all three useful. Really the issue comes down to the way the system is designed; we seem to be in an uncomfortable halfway house between an attribute based system (similar to Warband) and a pure skill system (Skyrim) with the difference being split in a way that the two conflict rather than compliment.
That's the reason for the problem though. Since leveling is dependent on the number of skill gains it's a lot quicker to have a companion use the skills they're the lowest in (which leads to relatively rapid gains up to the 50 mark, as you note) to gain levels than rely on what they're presumably supposed to be doing, at which point it will take hours simply because it's slower to level that skill. Though it comes back to the cap and the usefulness of leveling really; if my companion could hit maximum skills in those they require without needing to level then it wouldn't be such a huge issue.
It's nothing I focused on, it's something that's leveled up on it's own.Why tho it's a useless skill it just gives you moral boost, the one you want to lvl up is stewardship its basically leadership from warband I did the same mistake too on my first playthrough
No, I am not saying i personally fight -every- battle, but if you can't admit that being encouraged not to in a game that is sold on the idea of personally commanding troops on the field is questionable I don't think we have much to discuss.
The primary benefit to tactician is to the auto resolver with most perks applying "to simulations" so I'm not sure what your point is, also the game isn't "soild on the idea of personally commanding troops" or there would be no auto resolver, arguably the least implemented feature currently is troop control as you can't even order them to use blunt weapons, and it was always extremely limited in warband. Warband is first and foremost an RPG, not a combat sim, that is why people are clamoring for the return of auto block, they preferred it for the RPG.
That being said USING THE AUTORESOLVE IS NOT THE ONLY WAY OR BEST WAY TO LEVEL THE SKILL:
You still gain tactician XP by winning battles at difficult odds (what you allegedly play the game for, or do you only charge in when it's 95 v 5?) or by making tactical retreats, I've gained far more tactictian XP from both of those options.
The game is sold on being a Medieval RPG where you can make your mark on a fictional continent and timeline, if you don't want to use the auto resolver don't use it, fight every group of 5 mountain bandits after waiting 30 seconds to load into combat - that's your prerogative. The place where we differ is I can say "I don't like loading in to a fight I know I'll win, so I prefer to auto resolve, take a few losses here and there and spend more time on the RPG aspects" but realize that is my opinion you're so full of yourself that you say anyone who autoresolves is having "less fun" because that's the "Less fun" route.
It is not "objectively" less fun, and your opinions are just opinions try to remember that.
It's an RPG not a combat sim.
If you're gonna bold all these things I said, would you mind quoting what I actually said, not a fantasy that is easier to criticize? Sorry, but I'm so full of myself that I really like to see my genius properly reflected.
Let's take tactics as an example, which apparently levels up best by autoresolving battles. In this case my learning by doing directly results in my taking a less optimal and less fun approach to the game.
Which is where the realism argument comes in - if you want even a basic understanding of medicine, you spend a few years reading books. I doubt there's many people who'd consider that fun gameplay
It's also still suffering the same problem; all they've changed is that you now have to kill 100 enemies to have the potential to practice engineering and improve at it, and once you've hit the limits of your potential in engineering the best way to raise that potential is ... killing 100 enemies.
You don't though, that's the problem. If you just have your character do it themselves they'll become skilled soon enough, and the incentive is to do it that way since the skill gains are necessary to level up so you can increase the cap on the skills you're interested in. That extends to companions too, particularly since they're usually of a higher level. It kind of speaks to the issues with the system in that if you hire a doctor companion, the most efficient way of improving their medical skills tends to be to have them do everything but medicine.
So this may not have been clear to you, but the discussion there was an example of one skill where the new system feels pretty off.
You've also yet to prove it is the "best" or that it is objectively "less fun", you won't be able to because it isn't, those are subjective metrics not objective ones so they don't mean anything. It is equally as valid for me to say "You just like to autoresolve battles" which is true based on your own statements.You are correct autoresolve is not the -only- way to level tactics.
I don't know about you but for me it is an option that occurs pretty regularly, whereas running away or getting into a battle against the odds doesn't come up for me very often.
Aptitude matters when discussing game mechanics, especially as players exist at different aptitude levels, the fact that this basic concept eludes you is extremely concerning.Whether or not I am capable of winning such a battle is really besides the point here, unless you need to 'git gud' in order to have a conversation about design and someone forgot to give me the memo.
You are correct that everything in my posts was my opinion. I had thought that while we were engaged in a discussion, commonly understood as an exchange of ideas and opinions, that went without saying but since it makes you feel better I'll say it now.
Do you actually have any points to make about the design of the progression system, or do you just want to shout 'You're wrong!' and resort to personal attacks?
I mean sure, you have some 'gotcha!' quotes here, and you bullet pointed them with numbers so you must be smart, but I'm not really understanding your ideas on how to improve the progression system, only that I seem to have personally offended you somehow, and in retrospect I'm sort of glad.