PDA

View Full Version : Factions Live! Feedback - (Your experience and thoughts on Basic Units)



raven2134
02-19-2013, 02:02 AM
Hi guys :)

How has the live been for you? Did you enjoy it? Forums/chat was incredibly busy. What do you think of the new tutorials and that intro video? I thought they were friggin awesome!

What has your experience been like starting from basic units and with the new players :)? I've sent Arnie some thoughts on Basic units, and we came up with the fact that it might be better if we had some choice on how to allocate their stats.

Do others feel that way too?

Darial
02-19-2013, 02:19 AM
Intro and tutorial were great. But the transition from the end of tutorial to the city was a bit abrupt. For a minute I thought my game froze.

Starting from basic units was a drag, so I ended up spending some $$ to speed up the process. I definitely recommend allowing the new players the ability to adjust their basic unit stats for free so they can learn the process. This will prepare them for advance units and also level out the playing field a little when they fight against players with more advanced units.

GreenDread
02-19-2013, 02:25 AM
I literally got goosebumps when the narrator spoke the first few islandic words. Really talented people and the art was a feast for the eyes. Man, I think, I've never been so hyped about a game :D

About the base units:
Since the inclusion of the marketplace I only played with base units. Base-unit matches lack the huge dynamic of abilities, so decisions can be made faster. Fast enough to use the 30 second timer without too big problems. They are more brutal, because most base units have a relatively huge amount of willpower and often it just seems to be decided, who deals more damage in less moves.

However, by now I played about ten matches with base units and it starts to be less interesting.
Imho, the main problem is that you cannot change the stats of base-units. Every base unit of the same class has the same stats and those stats are far from optimum.

Being able to tweak base unit's stats, preferably at a lowered cost would enable new players to experiment with different builds without being overwhelmed by the huge dynamic of endgame. They could learn, what's working and what is not.

piotras
02-19-2013, 04:49 AM
Love the atmoshpere and the art of the intros. Also, it's great how you enter the tutorial as a continuation of the intro!

On the base units - when I played my first match ever I remember keeping all of my unit stats as they were, simply because I didn't have a clue about the game. I assumed that it's better to play a few games first and see what other ppl use or what's better suited for each unit.

I think the fact that you can't tweak base units is good for that reason and makes the learning curve less steep at the beginning. Having to restat on top of learning the game could be overwhelming. It's also a huge renown sink, so maybe better that new players can't waste their renown on silly things?

On the other hand I can see where the frustration of not being able to change stats is coming from after we were used to advanced classes. I only had time for 2 short games yesterday and I need to admit that I didn't like the basic play much, but I'm spoiled after being able to try so many advanced builds already! The current starting set up is very archer heavy (and I'm not an archer type) and typically for stand-offs between archer builds the player who initiates combat first and gets into range of the enemy archers seems to be in a disadvantage. Not my style of play and I think I'll be checking out the starter pack sooner rather than later ;)

Bloodaddict
02-19-2013, 05:46 AM
It is true that after playing over 100 games with advanced units (I played my 101st battle on Saturday! :) ), it is a little... hmmm, lets say less interesting to play the base classes. But I plan to play with them anyway, since I wanna see my team to earn the right to get promoted instead of just buying it. (Hope I will find enough battles against other basic teams!)
Maybe it would be a good idea to allow to change the base stats after playing five games or so. This way new players do not waste there renown immediately without knowing the basics, but after some practice they can start to tweak the stats.

Finjinimo
02-19-2013, 06:52 AM
The intro and tutorial on first login is excellent. I then went and watched the other tutorials as well. Really informative. I really like the tutorial integration as a way to draw you into the world. Perhaps I missed something though because I didn't really know why the big horned dudes kicked down the door. Not that it particularly matters.

I started playing with base units and did fairly well against similar opponents, got steam-rolled when playing against advanced units.

I purcahsed reknown, rather than upgraded units, then took my base guys with me on the journey to level them up. That has been really fun.

The difference now that I have levelled my guys up, and playing against new players, is a problem though. People will be pulled against me in matchmaker, see my levelled up guys, and quit before the countdown is up. That's fine, that's their prerogative.

I think that is an indication though of the power of levelled up units, and how much stronger they are than base units.

Considering you get an extra ability and extra stats, and are able to redistribute your stats to your liking, the difference between Levelled Units and Base Units really is profound. It is much more than the 1 point increase on their point value indicates.

Perhaps the matchmaker would have an easier time of pulling fairer fights if a promotion was worth 2 points instead. So 1 point for the promotion, then 1 point for the redistribution or whatever. So instead of each unit being 11 v 10, it becomes 12 v 10. The highest level play will be at 72 to base play at 60. That leaves a wider margin for matching up yes?

so 10 is base, 11 for a promotion, 12 if you redistribute points.

As your playerbase increases this may become less of an issue, however from my experience of playing against Levelled Units (it's not fun, but you do it for the grind), and my expereince of playing my own squad of Levelled Units and my oppositions reaction to that... I don't know. I feel that a lot of peoples first game may be too harsh an experience.

I am basing this mostly on the frequency at which I am being matched up with lower level squads, which is much more frequently than I play against even squads.

So, perhaps matchmaker could be tweaked? Or perhaps this will sort itself out in time as more players come.

It's an issue worth mulling over though.

Onto more positive feedback: I'm having a great time. I really dig this game and the players I have met all seem pretty friendly, which is really nice as well. Good stuff.

raven2134
02-19-2013, 06:59 AM
Wonderful stuff guys, keep it coming. Finjinimo, that's some really helpful feedback!

Veringatorix
02-19-2013, 08:55 AM
Loved the intro movies and all, really awesome stuff. As far as base units go, I'm enjoying using them, the tactics are a little more basic, but it does allow the player to focus on more basic ideas such as positioning and maximizing turn potential. I have not yet personally been matched against an opponent with more than 2 advanced units, but believe from my previous experience in the beta that more than 4 advanced vs 1-2 advanced creates an advantage for the player that can only be surmounted by superior tactics, and this is something only vets will truly be able to do as their understanding is sufficient. I do not see such matches being much fun for newer players as it will seem to them no matter what they do they will lose, and they may simply come ot the conclusion there is an inherent balance and leave.

As for a solution to this issue, I think something similar to Finjinimo's suggestion would work, or even a cutoff in matchmaking that simply does not allow players with certain team points to be matched against those with points above a threshold. As a part of this one could have an override button for slow days that would revert the matchmaking to the current system, (ie matching over all levels).

piotras
02-19-2013, 09:08 AM
even a cutoff in matchmaking that simply does not allow players with certain team points to be matched against those with points above a threshold. As a part of this one could have an override button for slow days that would revert the matchmaking to the current system, (ie matching over all levels).


+1, I'm pretty sure it was suggested before in one form or the other, nevertheless I do agree with Ver!

EDIT:

that would be great if you could set a +/- in point difference of the team you are willing to play against, that would automatically adjust to a suggested value when you hit the versus banner depending on the amount of players in general (or at your tier), if unhappy about it you could change it, if waiting too long you could expand it

StandSure
02-19-2013, 10:22 AM
I literally got goosebumps when the narrator spoke the first few islandic words.
Absolutely agree. How cool is this!

I had the chance to play 4 games last night (a big night for me, and went 3/4!). The thing that struck me with the base classes is that it does come down more to brute strength. One of my battles literally became line-against-line on the beach, hemmed in by the pilings, just wailing on each other. My advantage was my understanding of Puncture, so I was setting up my archers for big hits.

The other thing that stuck out is that after 4 games, all of my characters had earned enough kills for promotion, but I really only had just enough Renown to promote one. As a result, I'm all freaked out about which one to promote and which class is the right one...I still have yet to pull the trigger. I was not ready for just how valuable Renown is. I suppose that is good since it stretches out the gameplay to truly build an advanced team, and also has me thinking hard about Marketplace purchases. With the level 2 and 3 characters coming, I'm not sure I can wait probably months to get there. You guys got me all hooked on advanced classes in the Beta, you sneaky dogs!

erom
02-19-2013, 01:09 PM
I absolutely LOVE games where each player has two or three advanced class units, with the rest basic. Playing an all-basic except a skystriker lineup against an all-basic except a warhawk lineup was one of the most fun matches I have ever played of this game (The game basically swung on a single RoA)

I also played a game with all basics (except the starting thrasher, natch) against a team that was 5/6 promoted and it was... hm... not fun. The line between a close game and a stomp is so frustratingly fine! I hope new players joining the game in a month or two after the bulk of the playerbase has leveled up can still find good games.

gaelvin
02-19-2013, 02:31 PM
I was wondering about the Underdog bonus... is it a set amount regardless of the power difference between the participants? Would it be possible to make it a sliding scale, so the more outclassed you are, the more of a Renown Bonus you receive for sticking out to the end of the match?

DThrasher
02-20-2013, 01:06 AM
I loved the intro and the segway into the tutorial. it really set the stage for the game. Great work, Stoic!

I'm actually enjoying going back to the basic units. Although I miss some of my special abilities, I'm really happy with the balance so far.

Like others in this thread, I've been shocked by the slow accumulation of renown. It's nerve-wracking trying to figure out which unit to promote first, but it feels right. Hiring and promoting units should be consequential decisions. I feel more attached to my characters, having made deliberate choices about promotion and upgrades.

piotras
02-20-2013, 04:09 AM
What I find interesting is that due to heavy archer use in early basic games archers are usually the first in line for promotion. Which in turn causes people to carry on archer heavy tactics later on... very interesting behaviour that I didn't expect! :)

Drew
02-20-2013, 05:05 AM
What I find interesting is that due to heavy archer use in early basic games archers are usually the first in line for promotion. Which in turn causes people to carry on archer heavy tactics later on... very interesting behaviour that I didn't expect! :)

You're right about it being interesting! It's somewhat natural for ranged units to be promoted first because it's pretty safe, right? Stand back and take pop-shots. But as players start promoting "quicker" units, defensive units, and pushing abilities, the archers will lose a bit of their edge and strategies will change.

Jorgensager
02-20-2013, 06:52 AM
Perhaps the matchmaker would have an easier time of pulling fairer fights if a promotion was worth 2 points instead. So 1 point for the promotion, then 1 point for the redistribution or whatever. So instead of each unit being 11 v 10, it becomes 12 v 10. The highest level play will be at 72 to base play at 60. That leaves a wider margin for matching up yes?


I really have to support this idea. As a new player I didn't have time to properly familiarise myself with most of the upgraded units before the beta ended. As a result I get totally owned whenever I meet experienced players. However, I still get renown and time to upgrade some units before public release.

So with the current system, I could knock off one stat from each upgraded character to get a team of value 60. Since I currently get matched up with better players my ELO will probably stay around 1000 (maybe even lower) until release, at which point I could, if I wanted to exploit the lack of value differentitation, have a level 1 team at 10/11 which will match me up with new players at basic teams and give me a really unfair advantage.

Conclusion; Levelled units should have a base value, as proposed by Finjinimo.

Also note that this exploit would not necessarily end by me gaining ELO quickly doing this, since when I get matched up with better players again I would lose the ELO and be allowed to continue.

Note: If I intended to do this I wouldn't tell you about it, so take it as an illustration of how it could be exploited by a certain portion of the player base.

raven2134
02-20-2013, 12:26 PM
Yep, tnankie also caught this issue and it will be addressed. Thanks Jorgensager for pointing this scenario out too :). Being transparent about it is cool and we appreciate it, no problem about the disclaimer at the end. Even if you did do it, as long as you bring it up, it's something Stoic needs to fix, and sometimes being able to capture evidence and show it, is also effective :). Thanks for really being a sport about it though.

Kord
02-20-2013, 03:59 PM
Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed with how heavily the progression mechanics are going to factor in. In the beta, I loved it because teams were always even and the only thing separating players was their skill and not their renown. Now I feel like the player base is going to be fragmented all over the place based on when you start and how long you play, there won't be much experimentation with builds, if you make a mistake and promote a guy you end up hating, it's going to take hours to fix... I just... ugh. It makes it a grind when you can't play with the team you want. It makes it not fun.

This was way more like chess, but now it's only like chess if you started off with pawns and had to work (or buy) your way up to a full set of pieces. If a chess game did that, no one would play it. It just takes away a lot from the game IMO, and makes me just much less interested in the MP. It's not necessarily the F2P aspect of it, but the progression. I just can't see how things can remain competitive, fair, and fun when you implement a leveling system into a MP game. People that get bored of the game because they don't feel like they're 'advancing', I just don't understand. Learning the game and getting better yourself is the advancement, and so few games today seem to realize that. Cosmetic stuff should be all that you grind/pay for.

Ideally I would think everyone should just have a set amount of points to make their team with, and not have to worry about how much time you've played or money you've spent making a difference (similar to how 40k works, or in Shogun 2, starting out with 500 point armies, and ranking up to use 1000 point armies etc., a more fair sense of progression I think because it keeps lots of players within certain limits rather than spreading them out, and you can play in whatever tier you want by switching your army up). I get that some folks like the idea of having their team change with them, and that's cool, but that's what cosmetic stuff should be for.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but I put almost 60 hours into the beta and loved it, and though I don't think there's much chance of it changing drastically, just felt I should throw my opinion up somewhere. I'm going to play it some more for sure, and keep trying it out. I really want to love this game, because literally everything else besides the payment/progression system I think is perfect.

The New Romance
02-20-2013, 06:59 PM
Kord's suggestion holds a lot of merit, in my opinion. The progression seems awfully slow, and combined with the difficulty of learning the game (I, for example, have not participated in Beta and thus don't know any advanced units or strategies, nor do I know anything about point allocation) it might put off a lot of players from the very beginning.

I think for an F2P to succeed, it needs to be the other way round: start with a fast and fun progression, show off cool tools and advancements, and then slowly have the progression rate decrease (so fine-tuning your units and tactics becomes more important). At the moment, with Factions it's basically a brick wall for a long time, and then all of a sudden a great endgame (apparently, as I haven't been there) opens up.

GreenDread
02-20-2013, 09:22 PM
I don't think the slow start is that bad. The start into the game needs some upgrades, but a lot of them are coming like achievements and restatting the base units (at least I heard so), so hopefully we will get closer to fun and fast progression. The progression system is something that most 'gamers' like, as they get some kind of progress for your efforts. Even now, it feels great, when you got those 50 renown together and get a new advanced unit with a cool ability.

Even more important is the starting phase. Factions is extremely complex and every newbie in beta was pretty overstrained during his first matches, even despite all those veterans turning matches into personal tutorials. I don't have any data, but I can imagine that this frustrated some of them.
Starting without all the abilities at once is certainly less of a brick-wall than it was before. And if we have achievements, you will hopefully get faster to your first two advanced units and that's the time when you can start playing around with advanced tactics.

However, I would like a slightly faster renown-gaining as well. But from the developers perspective it's always better to start low and increase renown gain than decrease it. (shitstorm-wise)

arteris
02-20-2013, 10:59 PM
After playing the game in Beta and loving it, I then playing the final release I was very disappointed. In addition to having no choice over my starting units and being forced specific character upgrades as part of the tutorial, the game is dripping with the feel of "Pay 2 Win". I didn't expect Factions to be the kind of game that requires constant grinding or cash to enjoy, and it seems that even the simplest of joys such as renaming your characters require renown. Since the rate of renown acquisition is so slow, and the market place is heavily promoting sales to encourage people to spend every time I see renown all I see is a dollar sign between me and a game that I used to enjoy playing with my friends.

Which is another point of contention in that by playing with friends instead of strangers we cannot earn any renown. I understand that it would be easy to potentially abuse this by throwing games for your friends, but unless I pay or grind my way to the particular style of army I want I won't be able to enjoy playing the game with my friends.

To be honest, I will probably un-install Factions and just wait for the single player game. I can see there has been a lot of love and quality put into this game, I just think it needs some rebalancing in how renown is dished out to encourage people who don't have several hours every day to dedicate to grinding away. I'd rather play something else.

raven2134
02-21-2013, 12:41 AM
Hi arteris, thanks for giving your feedback, it's really great people are speaking up, because if they didn't, any potential problems could never be looked into and addressed.

I'm glad you enjoyed the beta, and do note, the marketplace was one of the last features put into the game, and that received the least amount of time to give feedback on. Even with the game live, it's something still in flux as stoic figures out what will be the fairest but most economical way to work it out.

I can say, for them, that their intention for the marketplace and the renown system, is NOT at all to milk players or require them to pay to win. They would like the players to be able to enjoy the game, as is, even without having to pay, and are putting in the utmost effort to figure out how to do that, but to also be able to support Factions on it's own, and generate additional income to feed into the single player, The Saga.

Please remember, Factions is being provided to us for free, and even if the game is just a portion split off from the single player, it still requires servers, hosting, maintenance, and other costs which can add up, which still need to be covered.

Again, the first priority still, for stoic, is for the players to have fun. The economics behind is for them to figure out and not for the player to be concerned about.

Having said all of that, how exactly do you feel that the game now requires a lot of grinding to enjoy? It's definitely something being discussed, and it would be good to know what is making you and others feel that way. When the projections were made for player progress and promoting units, what came out was that it would only take you a week or 2 to promote all the units given to you.

1-2 weeks and your playing with a team with full options...so to speak. What's left for you after that is hiring, promoting, and experimenting with other units.

Renown is earned at about 15 renown per hour, on ave. Do you feel that is too slow for the cost of things at the moment?

arteris
02-21-2013, 02:57 AM
Hi Raven. First I just want to say I didn't mean to imply that it was their intention to milk players, rather that as someone loading the game up and looking at the marketplace for the first time it resonated with me as the kind of game where paying has a distinct advantage in progress. First impressions count for a lot, and both me and my friend who have been playing it in the Beta were super excited to try out the near-finished product and after loading the game and seeing our limited initial options and the marketplace, decided to play something else instead.

Factions is being provided for free, true. And I can see it being a very useful tool both to help perfect the combat system and help generate revenue to maintain itself and I'm sure some proceeds will help develop the full game itself. But if the first priority of Stoic is to make the game fun, then here are a few of the things that killed our joy as soon as we loaded up:

- Being unable to rename your characters without spending cash or time.
- Not being able to choose or customize your initial party in any way, including during the tutorial steps when you're forced to choose specific promotions.
- Related to the above, all the players having the exact same units at start.
- Not being able to earn any renown by playing with your friends.

As a suggestion, perhaps you could have an option for a beginning and an advanced introduction, where beginners start with a set party and in the advanced players are allowed to choose their own units from an initial pool of renown points, but will end the introduction with the same final number of renown points as beginners?

One of the problems with the sense of grinding for me is a lack of connection to my team. Not being able to name them or customize them in any way in the beginning, I have no personal connection to the units and no vested interested in their success or well being. Asking for about 1-2 weeks worth of time to invest in something I have no immediate connection with is a lot to ask I feel.

I had a chance to play one versus round while I was waiting for my friend to join me, and I earned 10 renown for my one battle. That works as an average of five battles to promote each unit which to me seems high as it will require at least 25 battles to get the whole team up. If the average is 15 renown per hour, and 30 renown costs $2 (normally) that's like getting paid $1/hr to play the game. Obviously you're not actually getting paid, but with a dollar price on renown, and renown being the life blood of the game it's hard not to make the comparison while you're playing.

If Banner Saga: Factions was the only game I had, that would probably be less of an issue. But you're competing with a large market for the player's attention and players tend to gravitate towards games that feel rewarding with their limited time. Knowing that it will take me two weeks to get my team to where I would like them to be is even less motivating of a factor for me to pick the game up.

Maybe I'm just spoiled for choice, or maybe I was spoiled by the all-access nature of the beta to the units. What I wanted most out of Factions was a fun tactical game to play against my friends more than against strangers online. And it is a fun tactical game, but me and my friends can't play against each other the way we would like without first having to invest time or money into it. Since friend matches do not earn renown perhaps you could allow for "Mercenary" units that would be stock units you couldn't customize but could use for friends-only battles free of charge? It would also allow players to try out different units before choosing to spend their renown and regretting their decision.

I'm sorry if this is a bit rambling and disjointed, I'm sure there are people who will disagree with my views. It's late and I really should have gone to bed but I knew if I didn't reply tonight I probably wouldn't have been able to reply until late next week and that would've been too late to provide feedback.

I do want you to know I hold the quality of the game itself from the combat, the artwork, the sound and everything else to the highest of respect. It's because of this affection for the game I was playing, that I am saddened by the game I now have.

raven2134
02-21-2013, 03:18 AM
That's a really detailed post asteris, and the suggestions also help. Thank you for taking the time to post all that. I and I'm sure Stoic also, will appreciate it.

I'll bring this forward to them and I'm sure it'll be food for thought. Your point on having units for friend matches is quite good also.

To respond to some things :). I do think it's a drastic change to come from beta with everything, and then come into the live only with the basic units and no way to distribute points. We're discussing this actually: The points on basic units. But, also remember that when new players come into the game, they have no idea how the stats work and what stats are good.

A suggestion on this has been made where maybe, we can give basic units the ability to distribute stats, but be sure their initial stats are "ok". Then later on, players can play around with it as they like. (Still, this doesn't prevent a player from potentially screwing himself over, and then blaming the game...it's a delicate thing to figure out.)

In relation to this, with the current unit roster, if we gave player's a choice beyond the basic units, in the end I think we won't be able to avoid people avoiding basic units as a component of the game. I mean if rank 1 is "where it's at" why bother playing with basics, just save up, buy a veteran, promote it, and go rank 1 straight. Playing with a basic is more the long route only when the renown isn't available for the +40 renown in cost.

Of course, I think the solution to this isn't to restrict players, but to make basic units more compelling.

Giving player's access to a lot of advanced units, even with the limits on renown pool, also kill some progression. I mean you could try out an advanced team (maybe not all are advanced), and get bored with it after a while after thinking: "well it's cool and all, but there's nowhere to go after this."

I can also understand your concerns about taking 2 weeks to get where you want your team to be. But then let's say we do make that much easier (side note: what would feel right to you? that's a good point of feedback too :) ) and made it 5 days or even 1 week to get your team where you want it to be.

What's there after that? Having a long enough period to invest in to get where you want to be, is also as important as making sure it's not too short, or you're "done" with the game too soon (even from a perspective of fun and player experience).

On the friend matches, I also thought only having renown awarded for the first win in friend mode was a bit strange. I just want to explain why the team went in this direction

1. This is to encourage players not to isolate themselves in friend matches only, but to also venture into the regular matchmaking, and promote a more unified and larger community
2. To avoid players farming each other or accounts for renown (which is somewhat an irregular behavior but some will tend to do this

Still, I think this can be maybe modified so maybe your first match of the day (per day/everdyay per person) gives you 5 renown or even more. But succeeding matches only give you 1-2 renown

Last thing I'll respond to is the $1 - game time conversion. How do you feel about that exactly? Should it cost more or less? The renown from the marketplace, the way I look at it isn't pay to win, it's a pay to speed up what I can do/have. The problem of facing teams of mismatched power levels is the culprit at the moment actually, and based on the observations stoic has been making, the matches are mostly close, but when they aren't close...it's Bad. So the issue is with matchmaking. Nothing in the marketplace will affect a player who has been playing about 2 weeks casually.

This is a significant difference to many (bad examples of) free-to-play games, and 2 weeks compared to many other games that have their own stores, is very much less than the grinding in those games.

To summarize though:
1. I'll bring the point on the names costing renown to the team. I think that's a good point you made. Customization is important and could be free/cheaper. They can explore MORE customization like titles, as a source of using renown (which makes more sense)
2. How having more units available for friend matches, is also something that needs to be considered
3. Some regular renown for friend matches

Jorgensager
02-21-2013, 05:52 AM
Since negative feedback is what tends to surface, I want to give my experience of this as well ~ largely the opposite view.

I can see how it must have been a big step to go from playing with a level 1 team for quite a while to basic units. From a new player's perspective I've found it to be a good thing not to have too many abilities to worry about in the start. It's a complex game and takes some time to get used to. The same goes for the lack of choice of units. My guess is that a lot of players would naturally tend to choose the units with the highest strength when they don't know the value of armour, willpower etc. and pick an unbalanced team.

Forcing us to play with all basic types allows us to find what we like, and beware of strengths in units we wouldn't normally choose (example: stereotype of mainstream player who would choose 2 warriors and 4 raiders (to get the point across) may discover that puncture isn't a bad idea to have on their side of the team... and not in the hard way). It also means we get to play with all countering options in all our first games, which I've found useful.

With the previous (1.5.70) renown costs [i.e. including 4 for stat point allocation] I seemed to get around one level upgrade per day. From the beta tester's point of view this probably translates to frustration over being unable to play with the units they want to play with, because they know the team they want, but for me it has given me sufficient time to familiarise myself with the upgrade choice I made ~> gives me time to reflect over what's good and what could be better before I upgrade my next unit. And with yesterday's update I don't think I have a problem with it... with the exception of things like renaming. It has no impact on the gameplay yet it costs 15 renown O_o And considering we couldn't name the thrasher during the tutorial, that's a bit steep since most people would want to focus on upgrades, not spending their hard-earned renown on changing name from "Thrasher".

Disclaimer: Not every player thinks like me!

piotras
02-21-2013, 05:58 AM
2. How having more units available for friend matches, is also something that needs to be considered
3. Some regular renown for friend matches

Very interesting points. If friend matches are the main experimentation grounds, than being able to try some extra units in those matches would be sensible.

I'm also a bit afraid that having too much renown from friend matches may lead to abuse. However, if we were able to try units we don't own in the friend match as suggested above, than in theory we wouldn't have to give out renown for friend matches - assuming we are doing our best to maintain balance/sense of progress but at the same time cater for players like arteris, who loves the gameplay but primarily plays with friends and can't contribute time towards building and progressing his team.

Conundrum
02-21-2013, 06:26 AM
Two main things stuck out from your post, arteris.


Asking for about 1-2 weeks worth of time to invest in something I have no immediate connection with is a lot to ask I feel.

I don't quite understand this argument. Look at so many other games - MMOs, online FPS like Call of Duty, F2P online FPS like Planetside 2, any RPG. The progression there is part of the fun and part of the accomplishment, and it takes *longer* to progress in those games. As long as the progressing is fun in and of itself, what's the problem?

(Disclaimer: Obviously this means I find the progression in Factions fun. People are free to disagree with me on that.)


Since friend matches do not earn renown perhaps you could allow for "Mercenary" units that would be stock units you couldn't customize but could use for friends-only battles free of charge? It would also allow players to try out different units before choosing to spend their renown and regretting their decision.

I think this is a really interesting idea. I don't know how much it might threaten to fragment the playerbase, but there will always be players interested in ELO/progression and players interesting in playing with their friends. I don't see a reason Factions can't cater to both. I probably wouldn't want all the units given to Friend Matches - maybe a rotating roster system similar to League of Legends would be appropriate?


And considering we couldn't name the thrasher during the tutorial, that's a bit steep since most people would want to focus on upgrades, not spending their hard-earned renown on changing name from "Thrasher".

I also think we should be able to name poor Thrasher whatever we want during the tutorial, but I'm guessing this is a technical limitation of the tutorial given that nothing else in it reflects your actual account (renown, roster size, etc).

Jorgensager
02-21-2013, 06:39 AM
I also think we should be able to name poor Thrasher whatever we want during the tutorial, but I'm guessing this is a technical limitation of the tutorial given that nothing else in it reflects your actual account (renown, roster size, etc).

Fair point, although my argument was to lower the price of renaming characters in general. Had it been 5 renown then it's just under a game's worth of effort, which would seem more appropriate.

RobertTheScott
02-21-2013, 09:58 AM
The problem of facing teams of mismatched power levels is the culprit at the moment actually, and based on the observations stoic has been making, the matches are mostly close, but when they aren't close...it's Bad.

I tend to b the voice of the game-as-is here, but I think a few rare mis-matches like this can be a great thing (though I hope it doesn't overly affect ELO). I nearly beat a fully-upgraded team with basic units, and felt great after the game. There's something about that immense challenge that just adds to the interest of Banner Saga. That said...I definitely don't want too many mis-matches.

KamikazeDurrrp
02-21-2013, 10:04 AM
I tend to b the voice of the game-as-is here, but I think a few rare mis-matches like this can be a great thing (though I hope it doesn't overly affect ELO). I nearly beat a fully-upgraded team with basic units, and felt great after the game. There's something about that immense challenge that just adds to the interest of Banner Saga. That said...I definitely don't want too many mis-matches.

I had a similar experience where I was about to beat a guy with 4 upgraded units with only 2 upgraded units...and then my internet randomly disconnected. :(

RECONNECT FEATURE PLEASE!!!!!!!!

GreenDread
02-21-2013, 10:05 AM
The weird thing with renaming is, that you only 'need' it once for the starter-thrasher (except special occasions), as you can name every new upgraded unit. However, 15 renown still seems rather high for something -that- simple. I would like 10 renown cost for a renaming.

mrpresident
02-21-2013, 12:09 PM
Of course, I think the solution to this isn't to restrict players, but to make basic units more compelling.


This. A thousand times this.

A couple things in this thread stood out to me:
-Redistributing points on base units.
-Naming units for free (at least the first time)

First of all, half the fun of TBS is team building. Right now playing TBS is like playing magic the gathering, except for your first ~20 games or so you're only allowed to play with a premade deck, and all of your opponents have the exact same deck as well. A large part of what makes the game enjoyable is hidden completely behind a time/pay wall.

Now that point redistribution is free, it is a must for the early game. It's important that right after their first game a player might be able to go "I really like archers" go to the proving grounds, pick up a third base class archer, and redistribute the points on his team as he sees fit, experiment, so that even when playing against other new players with base units the teams can still vary a lot.

One of the most compelling and unique aspects of videogames is self-expression within a system (clearly stoic already realizes this), and we want the player to be able to begin developing their own playstyle right from the get go. The last thing we want is for the first 5 or so games every player plays to feel samey, and being unable to describe what's different between the two players.

A caveat: make sure that, even though they can redistribute points, don't let base units reduce their armor break values any lower than they currently are by default. One of the first things new players would do is take points out of break and put them into strength or armor, not realizing how important break is, and nothing is more frustrating in this game than simply not having enough break to get through the remaining armor on a team and slowly being whittled down.

Onto the naming units bit, naming a unit can be a powerful thing, it can immediately bring strong attachment to a character that was previously just a generic "unit." And most importantly, it can create attachment to your team/characters immediately with no time investment, and can make the player want to play more even when they've never even played a match before! Why are we putting a roadblock here again? Especially when it's free with a promotion anyway. If we want to make it cost renown to rename a character I think that makes sense, so that when you name someone it has value and people don't change the character's name every other game, but right now we're missing out on an easily implemented opportunity to create strong player investment right from the start.

EDIT: Just remembered, why the heck don't we let players name their thrasher? That would create some player investment before they've even finished the tutorial.

StandSure
02-21-2013, 01:29 PM
Onto the naming units bit, naming a unit can be a powerful thing, it can immediately bring strong attachment to a character that was previously just a generic "unit." And most importantly, it can create attachment to your team/characters immediately with no time investment, and can make the player want to play more even when they've never even played a match before! Why are we putting a roadblock here again? Especially when it's free with a promotion anyway. If we want to make it cost renown to rename a character I think that makes sense, so that when you name someone it has value and people don't change the character's name every other game, but right now we're missing out on an easily implemented opportunity to create strong player investment right from the start.

EDIT: Just remembered, why the heck don't we let players name their thrasher? That would create some player investment before they've even finished the tutorial.

I posted in another thread an idea about giving a free rename when a unit earns its 5 kills. That way you get something as an immediate reward for earning that "Promote!" level, even if you don't have the 50 Renown. I likened it to a warrior earning enough fame on the battlefield to be known by name.

Jorgensager
02-21-2013, 02:14 PM
Now that point redistribution is free, it is a must for the early game. It's important that right after their first game a player might be able to go "I really like archers" go to the proving grounds, pick up a third base class archer, and redistribute the points on his team as he sees fit, experiment, so that even when playing against other new players with base units the teams can still vary a lot.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but can a new player not pick up a third archer straight away? An extra archer would cost 10 renown, and we start with 30, right?



I posted in another thread an idea about giving a free rename when a unit earns its 5 kills. That way you get something as an immediate reward for earning that "Promote!" level, even if you don't have the 50 Renown. I likened it to a warrior earning enough fame on the battlefield to be known by name.

Great idea in my opinion! The "Promote!" banner is currently a bit misleading since you typically won't have enough renown to promote units when they reach the 5 kills mark. Giving the free rename at this point would however provide something so there's a reward for reaching the 5 kills mark, even if you can't afford to upgrade.

The New Romance
02-21-2013, 02:57 PM
I posted in another thread an idea about giving a free rename when a unit earns its 5 kills. That way you get something as an immediate reward for earning that "Promote!" level, even if you don't have the 50 Renown. I likened it to a warrior earning enough fame on the battlefield to be known by name.
I support this idea. Promotion is not worth much in itself, it rather draws the attention to your very limited resources, so at least gaining *something* when a unit proves its worth would be nice. I wouldn't even mind if you made it 7 or 10 kills, that's all achievable in three or four games, and you get something in return.

Remember, gaming and especially F2P gaming works best when the Skinner box is set up the right way.

arteris
02-21-2013, 03:58 PM
Raven I just want to let you know that I will try to get back on the forums later tonight to respond to you in full, I just wanted to take a quick moment on my lunch break to reply to Conundrum's question and elaborate on my point.



I don't quite understand this argument. Look at so many other games - MMOs, online FPS like Call of Duty, F2P online FPS like Planetside 2, any RPG. The progression there is part of the fun and part of the accomplishment, and it takes *longer* to progress in those games. As long as the progressing is fun in and of itself, what's the problem?


When you're playing a FPS game, you are the character and your connection to that character is your own experience of playing the game, the sense of fun from progressing is a direct result of your own abilities and actions. You pulled off those head shots that unlocked the Sniper Rifle, you defused the bomb at the last second and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.

When you're playing an RPG or an MMO, you're controlling the character and your connection to that game is through their achievements and progress. One of the first things you get to do is choose your class, name your character and then start to choose what kind of skills/talents/weapons to use etc. Each decision customizing your avatar further until it becomes very personal very quick and you associate your characters progression with your own.

With Factions, and other games that have you controlling teams, you're a disembodied hand guiding their lives and determining their fates. That actually seems very appropriate considering The Banner Saga's settings, but how do you distinguish your pawns from other pawns? The customization options of appearance is a good start, and so is the idea of being able to give units titles. Perhaps even have the units earn titles through individual unit achievements. Who wouldn't love a Thrasher named "Bjorn the Bloodthirsty" for the time he took out three enemies or more in a single battle. Or "Erik the Indomitable" who was the last Varl standing and still took out all of the remaining enemy team. It gives you a sense of history and connection to your units and you start to root for them. I mean, how many of us who played any of the Fallout games would reload the moment something bad happened to Dogmeat? I'll admit I'm guilty of that.

I may be the exception to the majority, but it makes the experience more rewarding for me to have that sense of connection and development especially in a game where you control a team. Much akin to Fallout: Tactics, X-Com, etc.

At any rate, I need to get back to work and I hope this clarifies my point some for you Conundrum!

Kord
02-21-2013, 04:26 PM
I don't quite understand this argument. Look at so many other games - MMOs, online FPS like Call of Duty, F2P online FPS like Planetside 2, any RPG. The progression there is part of the fun and part of the accomplishment, and it takes *longer* to progress in those games. As long as the progressing is fun in and of itself, what's the problem?

(Disclaimer: Obviously this means I find the progression in Factions fun. People are free to disagree with me on that.)


I know the argument you're responding to is about the connection players have with their characters, but my problem with the progression is a bit different. Like you said, it's personal preference, but here's my view anyway.

In single-player games, progression is fun. In cooperative online games, progression is fun. In competitive multiplayer games, progression creates imbalance (annoying, no matter how small), discourages experimentation considering the time required to build a team, and separates the player base depending on when you started and how long you play. I'm really getting tired of the carrot-on-a-stick type of incentives in MP games to make them 'last longer'. The best competitive games don't need it, take Starcraft (most RTS games really), Counter Strike, Dota 2, just about every fighting game, Risk, Warhammer (though yes money plays a big role teams are more or less even based on the point cap for armies), or going back centuries, chess. After playing in the beta where there was no progression, I still played a ton, and I know a lot of other players put way more time into it. The reason you play is to get better and challenge yourself, not to unlock the next cool thing, and this is especially frustrating when that 'thing' effects the gameplay.

That's the biggest reason I can't get into games like those you mention. If a guy kills me because he is better, fine, but if he kills me solely because he has a better 'thing', whether that be gun, team, power, whatever, and the only way I can legitimately compete is to put as many hours or as much money into it as he has, that's not good. It's a big problem I have with F2P games in general. If I buy stuff I feel like I have an unfair advantage. If I don't, I am at a disadvantage unless I put a ton of time into the game playing with that disadvantage. I understand the argument that in the Banner Saga you'll (ideally) always be matched against players with the same renown level, but how long will it last before the gaps in the player base show up and this is just not possible? Even now, when people are more or less just starting there have been issues. I just don't see the need for it at all. Why not take the Dota 2 route, leave the payment/grind stuff to aesthetics alone, and leave the gameplay based only on skill, where it should be?

erom
02-21-2013, 05:10 PM
I understand the argument that in the Banner Saga you'll (ideally) always be matched against players with the same renown level, but how long will it last before the gaps in the player base show up and this is just not possible? Even now, when people are more or less just starting there have been issues.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this effect is worse right now than it'll ever be again, as right now we probably have the highest variances in team strength all trying to play together, and a relatively small population. Once there are a larger number of players pooling in the rank 1 or above area, this effect should be greatly diminished - 99% of games will be played at exactly equal power.

Korben
02-21-2013, 05:31 PM
Did a quick read here and didn't see these suggestions:

Ive played about 25 games and would like the info on the units to be more exact. Right now for the archer, it says does more dmg if enemy has lost some shield if the archer stays still. Id like it to say adds 1 Str for each 2 shield lost. Another example would be the tempest ability of the Warhawk. It says does dmg to enemies, but when used the swing will hit allies as well. I know if you go to the proving ground it will say there, but I would like to see it in the info box during the battle. Id like to be able to click on a unit and see the info without having to click on there profile picture at the bottom left.

Also, I find it hard to quickly tell what unit is upgraded. Being able to rename them makes it even harder. I would like it to tell what the unit is under the renamed name.

The Shieldbanger bangs his shield way too much, really annoying sound I'd like to turn off or have reduced.

Thanks for Factions, I understand it is a bonus to the single player game and the micro transactions only applies to Factions.

Seth Roivas
02-21-2013, 05:35 PM
For me, using base units (and being too cheap to upgrade in the marketplace) was a good chance to practice my basic strategies without getting bogged down with the intricacies of active abilities.

I think it would be beneficial for new players who only have access to base units to put some sort of filter for random battles- nothing very in depth, but you could choose to search for others with base units only, or 'no more than __' upgraded units. It gets a little frustrating trying to get kills and reknown when you continually get paired up with people with a full lineup of upgraded characters versus your base units.

I do think the price for upgrading is pretty high right now- to me 50 reknown to upgrade seems excessive, but I'm not sure how you could fix that without upsetting the balance of the game. The only option I can come up with is that the base units you start out with should have a discount, but any units you get from the Mead Hall cost fifty, no matter what. That would let new players get the next level units quickly enough that earning reknown doesn't drag, but still keeping the difficulty of getting new units later on the same.

InfiniteNutshell
02-21-2013, 06:23 PM
Did a quick read here and didn't see these suggestions:

Ive played about 25 games and would like the info on the units to be more exact. Right now for the archer, it says does more dmg if enemy has lost some shield if the archer stays still. Id like it to say adds 1 Str for each 2 shield lost. Another example would be the tempest ability of the Warhawk. It says does dmg to enemies, but when used the swing will hit allies as well. I know if you go to the proving ground it will say there, but I would like to see it in the info box during the battle. Id like to be able to click on a unit and see the info without having to click on there profile picture at the bottom left.

Also, I find it hard to quickly tell what unit is upgraded. Being able to rename them makes it even harder. I would like it to tell what the unit is under the renamed name.

The Shieldbanger bangs his shield way too much, really annoying sound I'd like to turn off or have reduced.

Thanks for Factions, I understand it is a bonus to the single player game and the micro transactions only applies to Factions.

These are all great suggestions!

mariusmora
02-21-2013, 07:21 PM
I'm going to throw my beta-buyer opinion here! I loved the beta, played about 35 hours and now...

I'll start listing what i found fun and compelling about the gameplay aspects:

- Unit tweaking

- Team building (considering units strenghts and weaknesses, units combinations and strategies)

- Playing even games! The gameplay is so rich!

- Naming my units and feeling attached to them.

- Getting better by practice! Honing my tactics and being creative and bold while playing!

Things the current renown sistem kills for me: Everything!

- I have to invest a lot of time (or money) to get a team i want.
- I want to have a lot of different builds, not one! So, more time/money.
- I am at all times worried about renown for everyhting: renaming, tweaking stats (i never understood why the hell that costs renown...), hiring, expanding barracks, EVERYTHING! So, i'm not inclined to experiment and be bold and creative.
- I have to play with strangers because I don't earn renown playing with friends.
- I have to play with base units, wich becomes a grind and repetitive after a few matches (that may not be true for newcomers, though).


Consequence: I don't want to play as much as I did.

Solutions! (kinda)

- Make it so renown serves only to buy aesthetic changes. Obviuosly, that kills the progress and all that, but the fun in this game comes from you getting better, not your units getting better. You can enhance the progress experience using things like titles (brilliant idea! i'm too lazy to check who said it first ^^) for different kill counts or renown gained. You can eliminate the renown as a currency and simply turn it into the elo ranking system, and introduce another currency that you can accumulate and buy aesthetic changes, re-renaming and expanding barracks (if you provided a more decent default barracks slots) with it.

Another option is to use renown just to hire base units or ready to promote units and making the promotion free at the 5 kills. That would at least make you feel like you achieved something with the kills and let you mess with the stats and naming stuff more happily ^^

I agree it's really hard to monetize skill based competitive multiplayer games with a f2p model without hurting the gameplay :)

Don't get me wrong, i love the game and the work from the developers is amazing :) maybe it's just that we were too comfy with the old 1000 renown per week sistem, but i just feel that the current renown system is putting way too many walls between what a new player will experience and the fun you could have in the beta.

raven2134
02-21-2013, 10:18 PM
Nice to know you enjoyed the beta mariusmora, and good of you to say what you liked and what you don't - balanced feedback and discussion is awesome. And thanks for replying asteris :), will look forward to your full post.

Mariusmora, I respectfully disagree on the "renown wall." For me, yes it's a lot different from the beta cos I'm only on basic units. But I think I'll enjoy promoting, hiring one unit at a team, adding a shiny brand new recruit and then advancing him on my roster. It really gives me this sense of building my warband as I spend time and effort. I realize this may be a preference thing. I feel the sense of attachment to your team and to your characters is much stronger when you need to grow with them through time, rather than having everything available at once. The main worry usually is only that this may take too long - but given that you can hire and promote a unit in a day or 2 if you set your mind to it, doesn't make me feel it's a grind at all.

netnazgul
02-22-2013, 01:50 AM
I don't think there is any issue with "renown wall" or something. For example, I throwed 15 renown on renaming (due to not knowing it costs 15 renown) but still it wasn't the reason I couldn't promote my warrior to warhawk - I just didn't have enough kills for him.

For now there is only one use for renown apart from aesthetic use - promotion. Stat tweaking is free now. So basically you need only portions of 50 renown for each unit to promote and none above to raise his efficiency. As for renown gain - with daily streak bonus (+1) and expert bonus (+2; it's not so hard playing with 30 seconds cap really, just some anxious moments time to time) you get at least 5 renown in each battle (killing 2-3 enemies is easy even if you are heavily outskilled - just try to concentrate on killing instead of thinking to win when it's impossible to win) and win gives you even more - 1.5 hours worth of battles promotes a unit.

For a suggestion I'll have some additional tweaking - now you don't have too much emphasis on what are your units like, especially basic ones: they have maxed stats and nothing to think about. Rank 1 character has more options. Maybe it should be thought about giving him 12 stats instead of 11.

franknarf
02-22-2013, 02:06 AM
Kord said (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?892-Factions-Live!-Feedback-(Your-experience-and-thoughts-on-Basic-Units)&p=14727&viewfull=1#post14727) everything I want to say about the "Factions is, and should be more like, an RPG" perspective, and much more eloquently than I could have!

Unlike Kord, I'm fine with unlocks, though, and if we're throwing around acronyms: I think Factions is ideally closest to a CCG. I never liked Magic and its ilk, but Kongai and TF2 (which is more frequently called a WTHS than a CCG, BTW) are pretty fun; and CCGs are much better than RPGs for MP games, I think. I'm good with unlocks as long as the game is fun at all stages (because the unlocks don't seriously unbalance the game -- TF2 and Kongai manage this, and, with proper team-power calculations, I think TBSF will, too). I can see how the perception that "I got beat because he/she's got x" can be harmful, even when not true, but...well, let's hope Stoic make it true and obvious that such a perception is erroneous in TBSF.

@raven & mariusmora: I think mariusmora's proposal also entails "hiring one unit at a [time], adding a shiny brand new recruit and then advancing him [or her :)]". If you still pay Renown to hire a unit and still need kills to advance...right? I'm used to the system that's in place, but if they switched to this system (and adjusted kill requirements and hiring costs to balance it), it would eliminate the weird disconnect between "Ready to Promote!" and the several games' worth of Renown required to actually make that promotion. There may be other ways Stoic can address the disconnect (which I think may prove to be a fairly serious issue among newcomers), but this is a straightforward and balance-able one, I think. And I imagine it's consistent with whatever motivated the switch to free respeccing.



EDIT: Just remembered, why the heck don't we let players name their thrasher? That would create some player investment before they've even finished the tutorial.
This. A thousand (give or take) times this. Okay, I don't feel that strongly about it, but it would be nice, :) though I can see how it might entail additional programming.



Also, I find it hard to quickly tell what unit is upgraded. Being able to rename them makes it even harder. I would like it to tell what the unit is under the renamed name.

I, too, want this once they have some battle-UI options.

Bloodaddict
02-22-2013, 04:39 AM
... RPG ... CCG ... WTHS ... BTW ... MP ... TF2 ... TBSF ...

WHAT??? Sometimes I thin I am to old for this ... stuff! ;)
Honestly, I know RGP, BTW, MP and of course TBSF, but what does CCG and WTHS stand for?

franknarf
02-22-2013, 07:05 AM
Hehe, CCG = Collectible Card Game, and WTHS is a category of games of which TF2 the only known member (http://www.teamfortress.com/macupdate/earbuds/). ;)

Conundrum
02-22-2013, 07:15 AM
Raven I just want to let you know that I will try to get back on the forums later tonight to respond to you in full, I just wanted to take a quick moment on my lunch break to reply to Conundrum's question and elaborate on my point.
[snip]
I may be the exception to the majority, but it makes the experience more rewarding for me to have that sense of connection and development especially in a game where you control a team. Much akin to Fallout: Tactics, X-Com, etc.

I can see your point here, though I would point out that XCOM has progression as well (faster progression, maybe, but progression still). The main difference with XCOM, if I'm understanding you correctly, would be that you can customize your units right from the get-go?

Kord
02-22-2013, 07:05 PM
I can see your point here, though I would point out that XCOM has progression as well (faster progression, maybe, but progression still). The main difference with XCOM, if I'm understanding you correctly, would be that you can customize your units right from the get-go?

I don't think arteris was arguing about the progression, just that the ability to personalize your characters and team takes a while, where as in XCOM it was immediate, so you don't get that connection to the guys you're playing initially.

I was the one arguing that progression in a competitive setting can be bad, and I don't believe XCOM implements any sort of progression system in it's MP (could be wrong though, I only played a few games).

Though I will say I was a bit harsh before. After playing a few matches in TBS post-launch, it's been fine. Still hope that tournaments force teams to use the same points, but so far I haven't had trouble with the matchmaking. Still a bit worried about later in the game's life, and how much experimentation we'll see, but I just need to play more to see that. So far though I'm definitely having fun, and I think the comparison to Magic is more fitting than the one I made to chess. I'm sure Magic players know that that can be pretty one-sided though depending on how much cash you're willing to drop, so as much as I love Magic, don't take too much from that, haha.

raven2134
02-22-2013, 09:57 PM
Tourney will be all rank 1, 6 units only :). We will see what the rules will be when rank 2 and rank 3 come in. But initially, the tourney will be an even playing field unless you handicap yourself with stats.

Kord
02-22-2013, 10:49 PM
Tourney will be all rank 1, 6 units only :).
http://i.imgur.com/gxmkLD9.gif

Arnie
02-23-2013, 01:39 AM
Wow! Lots to digest here.
I would like you to know in the next build renown will be gained a bit faster as we are including achievements which all give renown. We've lowered the renown cost on renaming. We've killed the cost on upgrading stats. We've done an overhaul on calculating team power to make it far more simple, understandable and impossible to game the system by dropping stat points to pwn newbs at lower tiers. We've also slowed up the matchmaking search by another 30 seconds to give that possible player at your same power level time to queue up rather than have to face a higher power opponent. Trust me, we will do everything we can to matchmake people of equal powers.
It's always a balance when you're trying to design a game based on advancement, because some may see it as grinding. We're hoping to find a happy level of feeling like you've accomplished something when you upgrade a unit and at the same time not feeling like you're just grinding for it.
Thank you for bearing with us as we continually tweak the game. We will be modifying it hopefully for years to come and have some very big ideas for where this can go...more info in the future of course.
Skal, and thanks very much for all the great feedback!

GreenDread
02-23-2013, 02:59 AM
Ah, that sounds so great, Arnie! :)
Impressive how well this whole developer/community feedback works.

Any official word on Stoic's thoughts about the ability to change base unit stats?

The New Romance
02-23-2013, 11:25 AM
Big kudos to you and the whole Stoic team, Arnie!