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
Its point is to put a "floor" on a recruit. If you try out a hedge knight before purchase and he has a couple of good traits, you are guaranteed to get a good recruit.
Before tryout, it was scary to buy premium bros because you could get bad traits. This meant that you felt much safer buying cheap bros and hoping for high rolls. Now, with tryout, that is pretty clearly not the best strategy IMO.
Now you can guarantee you will get a guy with good traits. A hedge knight with good traits is going to be good, almost 100% of the time.
Note that both new and experienced players often have a poor understanding of what a "good" recruit is. If you're in the core of the campaign (maybe pre-day 150), then it doesn't really matter too much where your hedge knight's stars are or how he rolls, he will be "pretty good" (with tryout confirming 1 or 2 good traits). The reason for this is that hedge knights get such massive bonuses to their base stats already. The difference between a hedge knight with good stars and one without good stars is that the former is a god, whereas the latter is just reliably good.
But once you're in the ultra late game, people get a little weird about this -- you'll see people say that only 3-star gods with good rolls are "good". This is a pretty perverted perspective that is specifically for ultra-late game. Don't worry about those guys.
I like to keep recruits until they die or are crippled out, so I find the preview function quite valuable.
I guess it doesn't matter much to folks who save scum or use the editor or mods.
I use it most of the time now even though I initially thought it would be useless. The only time not to use it is if I would hire the guy anyway even with somewhat bad traits (tends to be early game).
I don't really use expensive recruits anymore other than hunters, so for guys like farmers whether they have good traits or not makes a big difference in how likely they are to be useable. Now, talents are more important, but the cost of trying out is low enough that I save money by not hiring guys with unfavorable tryouts.
It causes me not to hire them about 33-50% of the time and in some cases I would only hire if they have good traits (daytalers). I think it's a net benefit if it makes a difference in your decision at least 20% of the time but the cost ratio of tryout to hire isn't constant particularly for low cost guys
Agreed. 25% to save 75% on a bad recruit(give or take) is a good deal. Alternatively, you spend 25% more. Given this - and the fact that I constantly hire and fire i’ll take the average savings of trying out.
Trying out recruits also has a good midgame purpose for finding gems where talents and traits matchup on lesser backgrounds. You may not want to spend money on recruiting all the farmers in a village, but you may want to checkout the farmers that have brave or iron lung traits and see if they get good starting rolls and talent stars.
I don't think the math is much different for 250 vs 2500 though. It's only a question of if it would cause you to not hire the guy often enough for lowered highering costs to outweigh tryout costs. And that depends on what traits you would avoid hiring. The talents don't really come into play, because it's not like you're choosing less talent by being selective with traits. The chance is the same per hire for talents.
The difference is in how much the check cost changes relative to the hire cost. For a 200 bro, the check is 50, for a 2500 bro its something like 10%. For me I wind up finding usable guys with a negative trait sometimes this way too, when i would always just pay the check cost then not buy them if i was doing it the other way.
I also usually only buy them without checking early on. As I play e/e/l ironman, i have to try and save every last crown for the first few weeks.
I think the only important thing is that its not a good idea to buy an expensive guy without checking. No one wants to wind up with an asthmatic hedge knight.
Last I saw it was about 8:1 for an expensive guy and 6:1 for a guy around 300, but it does vary. That's not really the point though unless trying out is causing you not to hire somebody 1/7th of the time, in which case you'd slowly gain money by trying out on expensive guys and taking a loss on cheap guys.
In my experience it's a lot more often, though, so that even the cheapest ones it's a benefit. Yes, it's more to risk at once with expensive guys, but I spend more on cheap guys usually since I hire them a lot more often. Losing money slowly or all at once, it adds up either way and unless it's bankrupting you now it makes little difference.
Unless you're just hiring everybody everywhere, or again if it won't make a difference in hiring decisions often enough, it's financially beneficial. It's not like guys with negative traits are more likely to have good talents.
That's the problem: hedge knight can not be Ailing, Asthmatic, Bleeder, Clubfooted, Clumsy, Craven, Dastard, Fainthearted, Fear beasts, Fear greenskins, Fear undead, Fragile, Hesitant, Insecure, Irrational, Loyal, Swift, Teamplayer, Tiny, Weasel. Basically all really bad
traits are excluded. Check this: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ha3Jj--NRVuA7XE2GPMFz_6HFk832MJviMDQI3Ww1mc/edit#gid=1266845488
That's why "cheap" hedge knights (~5000) I buy without trying out. Expensive ones I don't buy at all.
Thats good to know.
Tephros, it gets down to 4:1 or even 3:1 for super cheap guys. I think I explained my point already so ill just say that in this game, there is usually a valid pro and con to almost anything, check costs included.
If your point is that the ratio is better for more expensive guys, that doesn't in itself prove that it shouldn't be used for cheap guys. The main X factor here is whether it can affect whether you hire or not and how often it will. This will depend on your situation and the background in question. If you only do it for expensive recruits though, you're missing out on a financial benefit (unless, that is, it would not affect your hiring). It affects my hiring about 33-50% of the time, and so it's very worthwhile even at 3:1 for me. 2:1 I wouldn't bother. At the beginning, when I just need a few warm bodies, I don't use it.
So it's really not a matter of pro and con so much as the situation. For example, once I already have a good team with 2 stars in melee, >20 melee defense, etc., I'm only going to hire a daytaler if he has good traits and will then only keep him if he also has the right talents because even if he's talented, with bad traits he won't be an improvement. Why keep hiring cheap backgrounds? Hedge knights are a rip-off most of the time, rarely better than even my average of regular backgrounds because my average guys have dexterous or iron lungs and good talents.
Maybe it would affect your hiring less often than me though.