Any plans to make battles less RNG based?

[ThatGuy]

I hate seeing a 4 pop up in a battle, just seems really unrealistic. I think just how there are modifiers adding or minusing, each character's characteristics should modify their "base" rolls. Like instead of it just being 2d50, it should be 2d50 with a minimum of 20.

Edit: Actually now that I think about it, maybe there could be an option to make it less random by choosing to have rolls be 2d50, 1d50, 1d20, or modifiers only? The game would be playable with only the modifers, it would just be entirely skill based on where you put your points into. It would be either very fun or very unfun, but to a person like me where the RNG just actually hates it's very unfun to feel like i'm just getting the short end of the stick on every single roll.

[Eagle1]

I also thought this exact thing, and voiced my criticisms in another thread. Then I went back and played through the demo a few times. I actually think the RNG isn't as bad as it seems, and there are really two major factors making it feel more RNG-y than it is:

1: You can build a terrible century and centurion and not really know it until you are in battle phase.

2: The UI tells you everything you need to know, but it tells it to you all at once, and the interactions between elements are not obvious until you play 10+ battles.

It makes experimenting and feeling out the battles really tough, especially since the effects of fatigue, momentum, combativeness, etc. etc. all have cumulative effects that change, getting worse, or better, as they get more extreme. Just like in individual combat, it seems super random at first, but as you develop a strategy to fit, you can start to have really consistent overall results despite massive RNG swings within the combat.

Just my two cents. After I started the other thread, I changed my mind after playing through the demo more, and don't want the dev to change battles anymore. I think some battle UI tweaks and maybe a little more nudging in the beginning to encourage better century construction in the early game would help it be more enjoyable to new players.

[Monarchist]

Originally posted by Eagle1:

I also thought this exact thing, and voiced my criticisms in another thread. Then I went back and played through the demo a few times. I actually think the RNG isn't as bad as it seems, and there are really two major factors making it feel more RNG-y than it is:

1: You can build a terrible century and centurion and not really know it until you are in battle phase.

2: The UI tells you everything you need to know, but it tells it to you all at once, and the interactions between elements are not obvious until you play 10+ battles.

It makes experimenting and feeling out the battles really tough, especially since the effects of fatigue, momentum, combativeness, etc. etc. all have cumulative effects that change, getting worse, or better, as they get more extreme. Just like in individual combat, it seems super random at first, but as you develop a strategy to fit, you can start to have really consistent overall results despite massive RNG swings within the combat.

Just my two cents. After I started the other thread, I changed my mind after playing through the demo more, and don't want the dev to change battles anymore. I think some battle UI tweaks and maybe a little more nudging in the beginning to encourage better century construction in the early game would help it be more enjoyable to new players.

battle UI should just tell u more and be less speedy and thats it, current game mechanic is as nice as it can get, i do kinda feel that 2d50 feeling wierd but only cuz i am used to D1000, D100, D20, D12, D10, D8, D6(praise be to the emperor) and D4

[kick]

absolutely hate the UI with a burning passion