Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Relevant quote from the devs:
Source: https://steamcommunity.com/app/262060/discussions/2/611696927930978210/
Yes, the thread is a year old. No, I haven't seen anything that suggests this will change.
EDIT: not to mention, out of all the features in this game, I would hardly consider level limitations to make it particularly inaccessible. Hell, it's pretty straightforward: higher level heroes do not go into lower level dungeons. Whether it is good or not, that's clearly a point of contention. But it doesn't make the game inaccessible, it's just one aspect of roster management which needs to be considered.
I don't think it's the element that makes the game inaccessible, but it certainly is one of them.
I also don't want it changed, please don't misunderstand me. I'm only asking if someone can explain to me why this was implemented in this manner, because as far as I can see, there isn't a single good reason for it besides artificially inflating the game's runtime.
If I've gone through the trouble of leveling four heroes to Resolve 3 or 4, then that was my investment. It was my time. Having the game refuse to allow me to use the tools I build up just because the designer doesn't want me to 'roflstomp' a Level 1 Skirmish in the Weald or whatever seems silly to me. If it has to get to a point where the characters have to reject being paid to go on adventures that they imply are below them, then it implies these characters actively want to be sent to the worst possible situation that I can muster. Which runs in opposition to the narrative context of the game.
As it stands, however, we all have the same story: We threw adventurers at it until it broke and what we learned may or may not aid us in that venture depending on some unlucky dice roll streaks, which is to be expected after all.
I fully accept that I may be missing something, but for what it's worth, I've been playing fairly complex turn-based games and fairly challenging JRPGs like SMT for a good two decades now and I don't think I am.
Steam > SteamApps > common > Darkest Dungeon > capaign > quests > open the file in there in Notepad.
CTRL + F and search for threshold. You should find something along the lines of "resolve level threshold" with a list of numbers from 2 to 99. Change all the numbers in that list to 99 and save.
To be fair, that still isn't a very good explanation.
Maybe I have a different understanding of what's meant by 'making the best of a bad situation' but if you've fought long and hard enough through enough quests to have a team of lv 6 heroes you are past the point of making the best of a bad situation, to a certain degree, you have already made the best of a bad situation.
Furthermore, roster management is an integral part of the game. Having characters locked out of lower level dungeons serves to force the player to pay attention to hero rotations. Which in turn helps make the game content last longer: half of the game content is (IMO) about adapting your party to the situations you encounter. If you always play with the same one or two setups, the game would become stale considerably faster than if you're constantly varying team compositions.
why heroes can't pick better weapons and armor without leveling first?
this game is one big slot machine simulator with lots of arbitrary limits.
Actually, it's a fair question, cheeky would be me asking how does me chucking 20 stone busts and four portraits at a brothel make the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ both cheaper and higher in quality?
I apologise about cutting your reply up, but yes, this is exactly what I meant. I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking this.
You see, on paper, I don't mind that. But just like you said, it inflates the game time and I don't think it needed to. In fact, the game's aesthetics and ideas are far and away interesting enough to be worth the experience on their own but had the game's runtime been cut down substantially, I don't believe anybody would come out feeling half full.
Sometimes less is more, I think. Cutting down on the average player's playtime isn't a sin, it can do beautiful things for your game's design.
In short: Whereas it could have been a grueling and punishing experience that people had a chance to finish and look back on, it's a painfully long mission that I believe most players will not see the end of because they quit. And when players quit a game, that's either because they got bored, got frustrated or stopped caring. Neither of which is a good thing.
No, but buying better weapons is locked behind finding the necessary heirlooms which are not something you can actually control, and must grind for. And grinding requires active party members which may or may not succumb to really expensive diseases and traits to get rid of and halt progress.
Not entirely sure if you were being cheeky, but I don't think it worked out.
Sorry about that; I erased my previous reply because I was going to reply to everyone in the same comment.
It is a fair question if you're thinking about the compromises made between internal and external logic. Obviously, if we're going down that route, then we can just as easily ask why characters' health is automatically healed upon going back to town but diseases and stress isn't. Or why there's only one free bed at an inn in a city comprised of about 5 people.
If the question is legitimate, then the answer is: For balancing. I can accept that kind of limitation.
Considering all the careful balancing around gold costs and heirloom costs. The roster management is an important and key part of the design. They put in the arbitrary limit to preserve that intended game play through the entire experience from beginning to end.
I realize this is why, at a base level. But to clarify what I mean, read Marker's post. The problem is that the entire experience is gruelingly sending low level recruits into low level areas you've already seen hundreds of times to grind anyway.
If the player's clearly reached the point where they can casually suit up four Resolve 6 characters, in my mind, they deserve the break. Instead, they refuse to go, so they'll be sitting around while you grind with low leveled characters in order to make high leveled characters better prepared for high leveled missions.
So the alternatives are:
a) Grinding.
b) Grinding slightly less.
The designer went with the first.
That's the problem.
I think the word 'arbitrary' sums up exactly what the problem with this is.
There isn't a particularly compelling reason, in-universe, why your experienced heroes refuse to go into lesser dungeons, just as there isn't a particularly compelling reason why your blacksmith needs a combination of manor deeds and self-portraits before he can get a decent forge.
Why is this a problem? Well, I would argue that the greatest strength of this game is the atmosphere it creates and how well it draws you into the world, things like having to watch the mental health of your heroes, give them time off and cater to their mental wellbeing as well as ensuring they aren't torn apart by ungodly abominations, it's the sort of thing that not even titles like Xcom (where squad rotation and soldier attrition are prevalent factors) does as well.
Then you hit the proverbial brick wall of having thrice your weight in solid gold with which to buy the finest wenches in all the land but apparantly none will come near because you only have twelve stone busts.
This dissonance can really shatter suspension of disbelief. One thing is to make some stuff be magical. I don't know how magic works so I can suspend my disbelief and just assume I probably wouldn't understand.
Another thing is to present mundane things in esoteric ways. I don't regularly face eldritch horrors in my day to day life so I can't possibly imagine what it does to your mental health. I do, however, interact with stores and store clerks on a daily basis, so I think I have a pretty good grasp of how they work -- if they function in ways that don't make sense to me, then I'll obviously question it.
I do think this kind of issue is a worse offense to the game's design than its narrative context, but it's a perfectly valid point nonetheless.
If atmosphere is king, then all factors in the game should cater to this notion.
As for heirlooms for upgrades, they're just a representation of your rebuilding the village to it's glory days of old. It's just time passing by and your workers being inspired by the fact that your parties return successfully bearing reminders of what the estate once was.
You can read deeds as pieces of paper for land entitlement, or you can read them as epic deeds of your heroes! But seriously, the heirlooms for upgrades are a symbolic representation of inspiration for the people of the village.
Also, I haven't tried it yet (because I'm not a heartless bastard) but the lambs to the slaughter achievement would suggest that you could get experience bonuses for your heroes by sacrificing new heroes to the darkest dungeon everyone once in a while. Unless they changed the double exp gain after a defeat in the DD.
Okay, but these people are seeing horrible abominations that are scarring them for life. Wouldn't they want to avoid that every single mission they do is life or death?
But of course you must understand my criticism of this aspect of the game extends to other areas beyond just the story.
That's a pretty fair analysis.
I can certainly give it a try, but that would make it worse, as it further pushes my more valuable warriors up the ladder and prevents them from partaking in whatever push I'm making at the moment. In essence, all that results in, is me having to hire newer people and retrain them all over and it's harder and harder to feel like I'm making any real progress that way.