安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
I guess a lot of the people who are enjoying the game are simply playing it. Although it is a contentious update, and it is a game that fosters a lot of strong feeling, I'd say the community is divided sixty-forty on the issue. Rough guess.
You make some good points but, I'm going to have to disagree with you that not being able to heal outside of combat is the problem. I see no reason why direct damage, dots, buffs, and debuffs can't all have an equal place without the game changing on a fundamental level. Dealing as much damage as possible is the best option at the moment because most of the alternatives are crap in comparison or unreliable.
Limiting the amount of damage you take is key to playing the game and adding out of combat healing won't change that, nor do I think it should. I'd rather see them give us more reliable and effective methods of limiting damage.
Now i've bought it and there's new stuff like corpses and other changes that i didn't like it at first. But hey, it's a strategy game. It's not supposed to be fun, it's supposed to be dark, hard, and smart.
And still is. They're adding much more complex mechanics that makes you really think about and trying to reduce those RNG crazyness that they had in common with XCOM Enemy Unknown.
This is the basic flaw in their design, and while interesting at first glance, has proven over time it is not viable. No healing outside of combat has caused poor balance to stay true to this mechanic. There are also cooldown timers, your characters have to eat and the game has a ticker for this.
Trading stress for healing seems like a fair trade since your party would have to stop (in theory) to patch up wounds. The game can still be a brutal war of attrition with limited healing outside of combat. As I pointed out, the entire game has been (un)optimized around this ONE mechanic, when instead, this decision could (should) have been revisited.
As has been pointed out in other threads, this has turned into a race to the bottom in terms of balancing changes. As enemy HP pools grow and their prot jumps all over the place, this does NOT change the fact my heroes are squishy and MUST avoid damage instead of healing due to the way the game is designed.
EDIT :
Reliable mitigation skills would be great, but it would not change the core mechanic of "kill them fast." Why use a turn mitigating damage the enemy does to me when I can kill them instead? Have the battles been turned into such a war of attrition that they need to be dragged out? I still can't heal outside of combat, so even if I can reliably mitigate damage, at what point does that become balanced to justify the sacrifice in DPS?
Since the devs have already introduced balance changes to prevent "turtling" or whatever name you want to give a slower, methodical play style that favors stun locks etc, they need a make a decision. The "ignoring DR" sword cuts both ways as well, even if I drag battles out and reduce direct damage, that gives plenty of enemies time to stack bleed/blight.
RH give virtually no concrete response to specific feedback, and I think that's the correct approach on their part - there is ZERO upside to telegraphing to the community what they are going to do. It will only inflame in advance those who are opposed, and it will also reduce the range of feedback they get - if the community knows they aren't considering certain kinds of fixes, they'll stop getting certain types of feedback, biasing it in one direction or another. By holding their cards close to their chest, they are getting a wider range of feedback, which is vital.
At this point it seems pretty obvious that RH are not going to balance the game by making all the classes equally competent in all scenarios. I think they are going for a more subtle approach, one where every class has strengths and weaknesses, and where there are certain scenarios where, despite a classes weaknesses, not bringing one is out of the question. Yes, this means that DD parties are less viable. Yes, it means that you need to bring a variety of skills in your party comp. Yes, it means that if you, as a player, really only enjoy DD strategies, then this game is going to be frustrating to you. RH Chris said, in this thread, 'Ideally you should never have to beat on corpses.' That is as close as RH has ever come to making explicit their intended play style for the game, and I think it's a huge clue as to their intent.
The problem is the first release wasn't balanced this way. No knock on RH there, it's pretty unrealistic to think they were going to get it 'just right' the first time out. Where this causes problems with the community is that the first look sets expectations. I won't say the game was easier than it is now (I'm actually having more success on my new C&H save, due to experience on my part, despite feeling the game is overall harder), but I think it was simpler to parse out the successful strategies. Direct Damage parties, where front line warriors could quickly slaughter front line enemies and pull the back ranks forward for free, were just too effective. They rendered shuffle skills moot. So we have seen RH progressively try to tune down the effectiveness of DD strategies. But that first impression set expectations in terms of how the game 'ought' to play, and I think it also set expectations, for some members of the community, on how it ought to be balanced to move away from that play style. Neither impression actually lines up with RH's eventual goal, I suspect.
I don't think there's any way around this with Early Access. You get the benefit of a large user base beta testing your product, but it also means that you are going to get some people coming on board for your game who are going to be negatively surprised about where it ends up.
There's a lot of complaints about 'nerfing' good skills. The critique seems to be that strong classes shouldn't be dragged down into the muck, but the weak classes should be lifted up. Doing that obviously means that the enemies need to be lifted up, across the board, or the game really does get trivial. That's a viable option for some games, but I don't think it works in Darkest Dungeon's case for the following reasons:
I'd like to call out that the 'user quality-of-life' changes are huge. I've gone back to early Let's Plays, and it's just excruciating to watch people try to navigate the town and get set up for missions. Huge improvements there. Speaking personally, I feel like I have much more agency now, in part because the choices I make feel more significant. Negative quirks are much more pressing now that they can lock, you have control over positive quirks, managing your economy is harder (there's just not enough money to take care of all your heroes as you would wish), diseases are more significant, and party comp/skill selection feels meaningful. I find that if I don't go with a variety of skills, tailored to the dungeon type, then I'm going to get into more trouble than if I took some care. And the fact that you can't maintain every hero means that choices you make for the few that you can, are much more meaningful.
A lot of this, particularly that last paragraph, is subjective, of course. But I think if you start from the assumption that RH is going to move in the direction of trying to strongly incentivize diverse party comps, rather than focused party comps, that's probably going to be a safe bet for judging if this game is for you.
Sorry for the wall of text. I have to say, this is the tamest discussion about the games' difficulty/balance I've seen in a while! Hoping it stays that way.
Best wishes to all.
There's a difference between a reflection of quality itself (which is what I'm referring to) and that of a good ending (which is something entirely different and completely irrelevent since no one has criticized this game based on its ending).
That's not an issue of "casual" vs "hardcore" though. That's simply a matter of playing within the parameters of the game and deciding to mitigate time and resources. In other words, this game, like almost every other game in existence, has more efficient ways to proceed than others. That's nothing new.
I think the original problems with DoTs and other characters was their base damage was too low to be viable (GH and PD) while others had ♥♥♥♥ accuracy and many players just weren't interested in using them (Leper). So, a significant buff to bleeds/blights and base damage to weapons could have been one solution, but this did not fix the "positioning" mechanic. Even with corpses, the core problem with why shuffling is still largely a waste of time is that all monsters still have some kind of attack no matter what position they're standing in. Shuffling the enemies' orders doesn't have the same drastic effects it does on the player, therefore it is still not as effective as DD or now DoTs. If I could shuffle a back row enemy into the front and they can't attack, that would be great... trouble is they still knife me etc. Every. Single. One.
And as I stated farther up, no healing outside of combat, while admittedly an interesting mechanic, has complicated matters because DD has been nerfed into the ground and fights have turned into slug fests. Yes, this makes the game harder, but it has not resonated well with many players. Enemies have turned into bullet sponges/meat shields (double meat shields if you count corpses) and the game is currently not optimized for a "turtling" or defensive party set up. You simply can't out heal/resist damage at a rate that will outweigh dealing damage as fast as possible (which DoTs barely manage to do at higher levels).
So instead of an intense fight, you have slug fests with players crossing their fingers hoping the RNG doesn't bite them in the ass and lead to a crit fest that downs their party before they can react.
My main issue is that some skills seem like they would be balanced for really long fights, but players keep them short doing max dps at all times because then they take less damage and stress. It would be a more tactical game if this wasn't always the est option, if tactical skills that reduce stress and buff/debuff/poison/bleed contributed more in a shorter time period would be the best option i believe. With a more deeply tactical system with more viale options and some more interesting bosses like they already have, this game has the potential to be one of my favorite games of all time.
So far I have been impressed by the direction the team has taken, but saddened by some of the obvious issues being around so long. Examples: jester stress heal 10, because most enemy actions will add more than this so better to just attack. man at arms bolster and command, stats are so low he should just hit them etc. etc. Buffs that take a turn should be amazing, since you could instead half or kill an enemy, and DOTs shouldn't take 3 turns to catch up with other forms of dps.
TLDR Game is good, has potential to be amazing or grindy depending on dev decisions in the future.
(Thanks for the kind words, btw.)
I feel like this is as intended. This was my impression of the game from the first release - sweet Jesus, just don't let them crit train! Then you realize that the 'Murderous Highwayman' (TM) could clear entire mobs in a good hit, and that problem went away. They've basically just restored the prior dynamic.
I guess I'm just not having the same experience as you? I find my fights last about 2-3 rounds (Murderous Highwayman approaches usually had this one round less), with a few mobs being tougher (prior to latest patch): Rabid Dogs with their massive dodge are problematic for underleveled parties, and Armor Maggots also tended to be longer fights (probably not after this patch). But now, using level 1's with a bit of training and some modest trinkets, I get through most dungeons with a bit of breathing room (sometimes not much!). Level 2's are even better off. Due to economic reasons, I don't have ANY hero that is 'fully trained', let alone a fully trained party.
I also almost never have to beat on a corpse, and I take different party comps to different dungeons. I rarely recycle a party comp, mostly because I'm too scatterbrained to keep track of what I did a month ago (I don't get to play on a frequent basis).
In the end, in case it's not obvious, I like corpses. I've seen few comments on it, but for every skill that it affects negatively, there's a skill that benefits from the mobs not automatically sliding forward. And I like that I can't heal out of combat! It gives a sense of urgency to the missions. I know that it's a game of attrition that I am slowly losing. The question is, am I losing it faster than the enemies are?
Why do the corpses make you wanna bring a PD over an Occultist? He still is more useful since he can deal more damage, he can heal and he can remove corpses as well compared to PD that has just DOTs, a really mediocre melee skill and negligible support skills.
Not having to play the shuffle game... you mean classes like Leper and Crusader are viable once the front row is down if you don't remove the corpses, right? And if you do remove them, then your back row becomes problematic. Corpses didn't fix the issue that some heroes had with not being able to target front rows, it's still here. Now your front row can't attack back rows unless you use specific ones. But... wouldn't that be a limitation to a "you can do whatever you want" game? Nah, I must be crazy.
So you compare negative reviews from months ago to recent positive reviews? You should pay a visit to the review section I think, there are recent negative reviews of the game. Negative reviews that were written in the last month, not when Hellion was nerfed. For every negative review that does nothing but complain with no justification, exists one positive review that praises without giving a reason why. Every sensible person knows not to take those seriously regardless of the direction the thumb is pointing at.