Game is fun but....

[xtc]

The enemy variety is seriously lacking. I completed the game, but it gets really really old fighting the same things over and over and over again.

Note I see on the roadmap that more enemies is listed all the way out at update 7, but I am sorry. Enemy types to keep from getting bored is a far more pressing concern than enhancing the crafting decision or whatever else is on that list. Just my 2 cents, but if you want more players, you really need more variety.

[Schploopus]

Thats the main reason I have yet to pick this up. +1

[Markus]

Originally posted by xtc:

The enemy variety is seriously lacking. I completed the game, but it gets really really old fighting the same things over and over and over again.

Note I see on the roadmap that more enemies is listed all the way out at update 7, but I am sorry. Enemy types to keep from getting bored is a far more pressing concern than enhancing the crafting decision or whatever else is on that list. Just my 2 cents, but if you want more players, you really need more variety.

I got this feedback before, but I am always a little confused by it. I have done all I can to increase variety within the boundaries of my resources (for example added unique boss enemies for each enemy species with Update 4).

In my book, there are a lot of different enemy types (goblins, skeletons, zombies, necromancers, crop mutants, hunger behemoths, orcs, to name a few). Probably more than in some AAA games. There are also enough games I really enjoy which don't have much more than a hand full of enemy types.

So I think you need to get in a little more detail on this topic. I guess when players demand this they want to see something like Spiders, Wolfs, Scorpions or other monster creatures, but those are technically difficult to implement and resource intensive (in regards to development cost).

Also personally I think in most games combat against humanoid enemies is more interesting compared to fighting monsters. I will try my best to increase variety, but I can only go so far and I wonder if it maybe is more beneficial to focus on other aspects of the game, so that the enemy variety becomes less of an issue.

I hope this helps you understand why it is the way it is.

[Butcher]

Originally posted by Markus:

So I think you need to get in a little more detail on this topic.

I think they mean difference in combat flow or tactic. Like orc hitting through blocks, bandits throwing knives, zombies applying plague and slowing player down, skeletons self-reviving until their skulls get completely destroyed.

[Markus]

Originally posted by Butcher:

Originally posted by Markus:

So I think you need to get in a little more detail on this topic.

I think they mean difference in combat flow or tactic. Like orc hitting through blocks, bandits throwing knives, zombies applying plague and slowing player down, skeletons self-reviving until their skulls get completely destroyed.

But that's all in the game. Hungers inflict disease damage. Zombies regenerate health, and their boss, the necromancer, can revive fallen allies. Goblins steal items, and their boss, the goblin king, hoards and can consume those items. Orcs deal more damage the less health they have, and the orc berserker can go into rage mode. Also, different enemy classes behave differently. Skilled warriors use power attacks and attack more often, or use blocks better to their advantage. That's exactly why I am a little confused by the statement of the op.

Although I must admit that on lower difficulties you can often kill enemies before they actually use their abilities, or you as a player don't recognize them. For example, if you just do the stealth archer build and one-shot enemies, you will never see 90% of those effects and abilities.

[SkaldedDawg]

This game looks cool. I haven't taken the plunge yet.

[xtc]

Don't let me bring your game down, as it was interesting enough for me to complete it and I don't complete many games these days (I have the GoG version), but a few more enemy types would be great.

Some suggestions would be wolves, cyclops, maybe giant insects of some sort, gargoyle, golem, or even a troll that regenerates.

From someone that finished the game, by the time you have entered your 10th dungeon of skels, they had worn out their welcome I feel. I just wanted to see more.

[Schploopus]

Castles & Crusades has a great monsters & treasures book to take inspiration from. Plenty of monster variety that is showcased.

[Markus]

Originally posted by xtc:

Don't let me bring your game down, as it was interesting enough for me to complete it and I don't complete many games these days (I have the GoG version), but a few more enemy types would be great.

Some suggestions would be wolves, cyclops, maybe giant insects of some sort, gargoyle, golem, or even a troll that regenerates.

From someone that finished the game, by the time you have entered your 10th dungeon of skels, they had worn out their welcome I feel. I just wanted to see more.

Thanks for giving more context. Well, I plan to add two more dungeon types with Update 7, which will come with their own set of enemies and will help a lot with variety, I guess (see roadmap).

Generally, I try to focus on gameplay aspects when bringing variety to enemies, because assets and art are the bottlenecks of every small indie studio.

I mean, I already have the Hunger Behemoth, which is close to a troll or something, so I could imagine that, but for technical decisions I made early on, anything non-biped is tricky to implement. I might start an attempt to try to implement quadrupeds (like wolves), but anything beyond that, like spiders, is out of the question.