I could of swore we could make repair kits out of iron at one time. Like I can't find one of the flowers at all for the heals. My issue is more the repairs kits and heals. Money issues is I have to skip some pays and give them big sums after doing a mission (I always deal to get max pay). I'm running a group of 8 fighters and 2 horses with a mix of boars and wolves tossed in when I capture them. Besides it adds a bit of management challenge, which is good for a management game. Originally posted by Romain:Size problem occur once you you cover all jobs, and almost all class. Is it feasible to run a single archer with a pack of wolves? That might be something to try. Not complaining, just looking for what way they might want to take it. But that depends on what the idea of the game is that they want to develop. It could be possible to run a strictly military operation without trading at all, or a survivalist hunt/fish and craft playstyle if the rewards were adjusted a bit. This is increasing incoming damage during fights, ( because the ponies are not actually fighting back yet) and ponies eat 33% more than a man, affecting the food bills disproportionately.īecause of the previous white leather bottleneck in crafting, it might be just disparity in gearing. It's possible that the engine is factoring in the ponies to increase the opposition by design, since the devs clearly want levelling up ponies involved in fights. Started to get issues around size 20 party, including animals and ponies.
Originally posted by The Wailing Ninny:What size party are you wanting to run that you're encountering problems generating enough income to accomodate? Scaling clearly is making things a challenge, which is not bad - but they need to adjust the scaling by Party Size so that Larger Parties can advance to Harder Contracts, which will provide more funds.
The Game could easily introduce "Very Hard" contracts based on what types of contracts the Team is taking - meaning that if the players are doing "Hard Contracts" on a regular basis, then drop "Easy" from the list and add "Very Hard". "Hard Contracts" will still need to be difficult, but not exceedingly so. Thus, a Large Party would find "Easy Contract" to be "Too Easy" and an "Average Contract" to be "Just Right" - note this would also make Higher Pay available more easily for Larger Groups. I would much prefer to see that as a player team grew, all Contracts should become Easier. Level scaling is quite simply a complicated set of equations - and the part of the equations where the game accounts for group size is not set (tuned) correctly. The enemy level scaling for party size definitely feels unbalanced to me at low levels - management of AP becomes more important, which clearly indicates an increase in overall difficulty (in excess of the difficulty for a smaller group of the same level). I think ur solution for contract award is reasonable - no real other way to do it for fixed difficulty contracts. Originally posted by Robin of Spiritwood:The problems with having a bigger party are basically 2 fold. This is something harder to do than just dropping the game difficulty. It's logical to pay a structured regiment of 15 hardened vets under an officer cadre much more than 4 farmer boys with pitchforks, and they wouldn't be doing the same work. Eg bonuses for having your Captain, bonuses as you add officers, bonuses as you level up. +11 credits at level one, +55 credits by level 5.Įxact figures and values would have to be balanced vs average player costs, and a projected reasonable profit margin.Īnother approach might be to offer pay based on your group composition. One Captain, and 3 soldiers = 110 credits. We could put in a multiplier for levels: +10% per party level for instance. One Captain, 2 Lieutenants, and 7 soldiers = 250 credits. Same contract could look like this- based on enemy forces 30 credits for a Lieutenant, and 50 credits for a captain. Experienced players can then try to squeeze more profit from bigger parties by winning more efficiently. In fact, difficulty seems to ramp up MORE than party size, making battles harder to win without taking increased losses for repairs and medicines.Ĭontracts payouts should be calculated based on the enemy resistance. Since the game scales difficulty with party size, there isn't a benefit to outnumbering the foes.
Since the contracts pay a fixed amount, the bigger the party, the bigger the losses from wages and operating costs per contract. The problems with having a bigger party are basically 2 fold.
0 kommentar(er)
