Party size and grind

[SQW]

There seems to be a serious lack of incentive in the mid-game for player to risk the team you've spent hours building up on 2/3 skull contracts. I know the dev stated they want to keep the merc company small but that seems to be in conflict with gameplay that is designed to kill your men.

It's too painful to lose a veteran at the moment given the kind of opposition you face so I end up spending far too long with smaller contracts in order to get my men properly geared up in the mid game - there's little room in a 12-man company for fodder. I feel that if I have a few more slots, I can afford to constantly replace the casualties and allow only the skilled/lucky characters to progress. A much more expensive wage system can also prevent you from acquiring an entire large company of lvl 10+ veterans.

The desire to keep your men safe vs the poor rewards of more dangerous contract mean the game becomes a grind after an exciting start. I miss the beginning of the game where battles are meat grinders and you have to constantly throw new meat to feed the machine and once in a while, a lucky few will rise to be valued veterans.

[Sarissofoi]

Or at last the exp was not wasted on 11lv characters.
It would make leveling low ones really fast.

[Wyrtt]

Originally posted by Sinjen Blackstar:

It would be nice if there was still some type of progression once your characters reach level 11.

your gear is your progression. Mindless korean 9999 lvl grind is not a way to go.

[holy-death]

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

that is the main problem with the game right now. Unless you savescum you will lose 1-2 guy in a hard battle.

Depends.

With good enough equipment and tactics it's possible to have people survive really hard missions and lose people on some trivial stuff. Losses are to be expected. It even says so on the in-game loading screen.

Until you reach the point at which you can ensure everybody survives. Even the hardest mission (like versus Orcs Warriors led by a Warboss). If you can do that I'd say it's time for making a new warband.

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

And that rises a question: why even bother with hard work?

Because if you reached the consensual end game already the thrill of losing someone is the only thing that's left right now? I found the battles in which I was at risk of actually losing someone one of a few things that kept me going in my normal soft-ironman run. The other reason is the challenge. Farming gold just for the sake of farming gold doesn't do it for me.

[Wyrtt]

Originally posted by holy-death:

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

that is the main problem with the game right now. Unless you savescum you will lose 1-2 guy in a hard battle.

Depends.

With good enough equipment and tactics it's possible to have people survive really hard missions and lose people on some trivial stuff. Losses are to be expected. It even says so on the in-game loading screen.

Until you reach the point at which you can ensure everybody survives. Even the hardest mission (like versus Orcs Warriors led by a Warboss). If you can do that I'd say it's time for making a new warband.

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

And that rises a question: why even bother with hard work?

Because if you reached the consensual end game already the thrill of losing someone is the only thing that's left right now? I found the battles in which I was at risk of actually losing someone one of a few things that kept me going in my normal soft-ironman run. The other reason is the challenge. Farming gold just for the sake of farming gold doesn't do it for me.

but that doesnt really make any sense.
You play as merc company. Your main goal to earn money with fastes and less risky way, Fighting for thrill goig against whole setting. Than make this game about heroes party who goes around ifgting evil for fame and adrenaline.

First part about losses just dont relevat to discussion. Hard mission reward hardly 2x compared to easy contract. Why choose a hard one and LOSE money while you can do 3 easy contracts within same time and with no loss of tools, medecine, mercs and weapons? Game gives no push towards that.
Yeah, There is supposed to be renown mechanics that rises world difficulty with each win and world can overlvl you if you grind easy contracts only. But Im yet to see that. And that is a band aid at best.

[SQW]

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

You play as merc company. Your main goal to earn money with fastes and less risky way, Fighting for thrill goig against whole setting. Than make this game about heroes party who goes around ifgting evil for fame and adrenaline.

As far as I know, Battlebrothers originally had a story and your merc company is suppose to battle some ancient evil towards the end to save the land. Then, towards early 2016, the dev decided to remove the end goal and make BB a sandbox. Unfortunately, we are left with a party base mechanic that doesn't quite fit the new free roam game design.

It's like if Gallop started with xcom then half way through decided to make Mount and Blade but still kept the squad mechanic. Can you imagine playing M&B while trying to carefully level your squadies?

That's the reason behind the mid-game grind in my opinion. The original game design required you to risk your mercs to progress through the game but without that goal, free roam means playing it safe (actually closer to how a real merc company would operate). I'm a little concerend about BB since adding more contracts in the current form and enemy variety wouldn't completley solve this issue. Without more objectives to spend money/time on other than battles, most players will inevitably choose the safest option. It's a poor game design that forces player to choose between potentially losing time invested (high level char dying) and safe, but menial grind.

[holy-death]

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

but that doesnt really make any sense.
You play as merc company. Your main goal to earn money with fastes and less risky way, Fighting for thrill goig against whole setting. Than make this game about heroes party who goes around ifgting evil for fame and adrenaline.

Oh, I know what you mean. My rule is that I don't engage in combat unless I am getting paid for it. That's how I operate during early and mid game. But very late in game? When you're overflowing with money already?

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

First part about losses just dont relevat to discussion. Hard mission reward hardly 2x compared to easy contract. Why choose a hard one and LOSE money while you can do 3 easy contracts within same time and with no loss of tools, medecine, mercs and weapons? Game gives no push towards that.

I do agree that hard quests should reward you more to offset the risk (big risk = big reward). Or offer a chance for something extra. Like getting that cool sword from a surprise fight against Vampires.

Earlier in the Early Access there was a point where I lost almost everybody on my team but managed to fulfill a very hard quest and the reward was enough to get me back on my feet. Granted, it was on normal difficulty level but that's kind of balance I'd like to see in terms of risk vs reward.

[SQW]

It's not really about the money but the time investment to level new guys to replace your veterans. Before the last few patches, you couldn't even hire high level chars.

Say if you lose 2 guys out of your company of lvl 11 veterans, are you gonna enjoy baby sitting those 2 greehorns back to level 11? I don't mind losing guys and frankly, clawing back from a disaster can be the best part. However, if your overal goal is to level merc and buy equipment, then the dev needs to think of contracts as less reward vs risk and more time investment vs game progression.

[Wyrtt]

Originally posted by holy-death:

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

but that doesnt really make any sense.
You play as merc company. Your main goal to earn money with fastes and less risky way, Fighting for thrill goig against whole setting. Than make this game about heroes party who goes around ifgting evil for fame and adrenaline.

Oh, I know what you mean. My rule is that I don't engage in combat unless I am getting paid for it. That's how I operate during early and mid game. But very late in game? When you're overflowing with money already?

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

First part about losses just dont relevat to discussion. Hard mission reward hardly 2x compared to easy contract. Why choose a hard one and LOSE money while you can do 3 easy contracts within same time and with no loss of tools, medecine, mercs and weapons? Game gives no push towards that.

I do agree that hard quests should reward you more to offset the risk (big risk = big reward). Or offer a chance for something extra. Like getting that cool sword from a surprise fight against Vampires.

Earlier in the Early Access there was a point where I lost almost everybody on my team but managed to fulfill a very hard quest and the reward was enough to get me back on my feet. Granted, it was on normal difficulty level but that's kind of balance I'd like to see in terms of risk vs reward.

I agree with you as a player. I just wanted to show how gamey it is . To seek harder battle purely for fun goig against game logic.

Originally posted by SQW:

Originally posted by Wyrtt:

You play as merc company. Your main goal to earn money with fastes and less risky way, Fighting for thrill goig against whole setting. Than make this game about heroes party who goes around ifgting evil for fame and adrenaline.

As far as I know, Battlebrothers originally had a story and your merc company is suppose to battle some ancient evil towards the end to save the land. Then, towards early 2016, the dev decided to remove the end goal and make BB a sandbox. Unfortunately, we are left with a party base mechanic that doesn't quite fit the new free roam game design.

It's like if Gallop started with xcom then half way through decided to make Mount and Blade but still kept the squad mechanic. Can you imagine playing M&B while trying to carefully level your squadies?

That's the reason behind the mid-game grind in my opinion. The original game design required you to risk your mercs to progress through the game but without that goal, free roam means playing it safe (actually closer to how a real merc company would operate). I'm a little concerend about BB since adding more contracts in the current form and enemy variety wouldn't completley solve this issue. Without more objectives to spend money/time on other than battles, most players will inevitably choose the safest option. It's a poor game design that forces player to choose between potentially losing time invested (high level char dying) and safe, but menial grind.

I know. Although I actually prefer current direction over forced #save the world as a merc for some random reason#.
But even now they promise faction warfare, invasions of evil forces as events and etc. Something that woulf force you ether fight for keeping world comfortable and sfe or to run away and hide with your weak band.
Also we need late game money drain. Right now after you got all you need you have nothing to spend money on as top rate merc company.
No retirement with funny flavor text depending on your fame or fortune. No additional expenses. I understand thei unwillingles to add base of operation or faction mechanic. But right now it would be simples solution to spend money in late game.

Game map is not that big so you could esily let player to create your own settlement. Would it just be housing for wifes and traders or proper merc guild is a metter of desigh choice. But that would allow you to wast large summ of money on upgrades.
Also fear of losing it after a raid would push you forward to lvl and money grind. You would want to have merc stationed there to protect it aginst hardest enemies.

Because otherwise I dont know what else can be done. Space rangers force you to spend lotts of money on others. You sponsor station building, fleet building, army operations fee and etc. When you are rich new options open up for you.

Yes, you can buy swordmasters for 5k or coll weapon but thats only matters untill you reach 30-40k. At that point you are too rich to be a merc without a goal.
Maybe party could retire and new one would start a game in the same world but something would change depending on precious party.

[holy-death]

Originally posted by SQW:

Say if you lose 2 guys out of your company of lvl 11 veterans, are you gonna enjoy baby sitting those 2 greehorns back to level 11? I don't mind losing guys and frankly, clawing back from a disaster can be the best part.

I think the Veteran Hall might be a way of spending money in exchange for XP/level ups.

Originally posted by SQW:

However, if your overal goal is to level merc and buy equipment, then the dev needs to think of contracts as less reward vs risk and more time investment vs game progression.

I am pretty sure there will be some sort of game ending goal (victory condition, if you will) but until game has all necessary gameplay mechanics implemented people are to play the game like Paradox titles: finding their own mini-goals while playing the game.

[Wyrtt]

Originally posted by SQW:

It's not really about the money but the time investment to level new guys to replace your veterans. Before the last few patches, you couldn't even hire high level chars.

Say if you lose 2 guys out of your company of lvl 11 veterans, are you gonna enjoy baby sitting those 2 greehorns back to level 11? I don't mind losing guys and frankly, clawing back from a disaster can be the best part. However, if your overal goal is to level merc and buy equipment, then the dev needs to think of contracts as less reward vs risk and more time investment vs game progression.

you can buy 3-5 lvl merc if you have money. Problem is that 5 lvl merc cost 4-6k.

[SQW]

Fighting for fighting's sake works to a point but once progression flattens, you stop wanting to continue. I'm not sure how much resource is available to the devs but I'm starting to think a semi-controlled storied game like Banner Saga might work better - you need to have so many more interactive mechanics in place for a sandbox to work now that Mount & Blade has set the bar so high.

I'm curious about the faction mechanics but if the end result is just having you doing more battles for political points rather than money, then it's not really exciting. Since you can't manage your own enclave as stated by the dev, what can the lords offer what your merc company can't already do on its own?

With an end-of-year soft release date, I don't expect too much beyond combat for BB but if the game does sell well, maybe a DLC might give us the 2D Mount & Blade I'm sure all of us are hoping for.

[Sarissofoi]

The new patches look better and give a graphical upgrade but in terms of fun its kind of downgrade.
The best moment were goblin patch with old map. Sure it has less features but there were actual connection between settlements and you on global map. Or at last it feel this way.
If player didn't burn orc camps then orcs overrun map and practicaly starve human settlements and player. Its really feel like last days of civilization.
Rewards were much higher I remember rewards for camps were from few to 20k coins. Contracts were also more connected with a global map and enemy settlement spread were less random.
I had best fun in this time.
But its still 0.6 version.
If there will be added faction politics, enemy real factions, more contracts and quests and end game threats plus fixed AI then great. If not its still not bad but it will be feel like wasted potential.

[Drathnar1]

First off, good thread and discussion. :)

Originally posted by SQW:

There seems to be a serious lack of incentive in the mid-game for player to risk the team you've spent hours building up on 2/3 skull contracts. I know the dev stated they want to keep the merc company small but that seems to be in conflict with gameplay that is designed to kill your men.

Indeed. As Sarissofoi, Tobias and quite a few have pointed out, the risk-benefit ratio for taking on 3-skull Orc and Goblin contracts is really not quite equal to that of similar contracts for Bandit Raiders or Undead.

Originally posted by SQW:

The desire to keep your men safe vs the poor rewards of more dangerous contract mean the game becomes a grind after an exciting start.

Yep. And after grinding Bandit Leaders and Fallen Heroes for some time, you'll have the weapons/shields you need for your men and will be left wondering what else to do. The game isn't 'finished' at this point and is still in Early Access, but the devs have been rather vague as to what bigger events are scheduled for the late game/end game.

Originally posted by Sarissofoi:

-increase reward to risk ratio for orcs,

Strongly agree with this. I frequently ask myself, are there any benefits to picking 3-skull Orc contracts over say a regular bandit contract or an undead contract and the answer is almost invariably no.

With raiders you get better loot. Usually a decent amount of gold, some tools, food, sometimes trade goods and a good selection of mid-tier weaponry which if properly repaired gets you a decent amount of gold in a trading settlement.

With orcs there is always the potential for heavy damage, even casualties if unlucky and loot is a lot scantier. Typically no gold, meagre tools, only strange meat if any, few weapons which do not tend to sell well anyway.

Sure some people might say, do it for the challenge and so some players may do it a couple of times just for the heck of it, to prove to themselves that it's possible. But in the long scheme of things, grinding orcs instead of bandit raiders is just plain unprofitable and asking for pain for no returns.


The fix need not be purely monetary to balance things. As goblin and orc contracts are frequently given out by Noble Houses, make gaining favor with them mean something. Perhaps a good number of special events triggered only by high Relations with these Houses.

Originally posted by Tobias Is Queen:

Originally posted by SQW:

On challenging, you can make more money selling luxury goods than fighting when you factor in potential lose of character. I've got $15k in the bank right now just by lugging around spice, salt, wood, fur and minerals. Fighting happens in between trips while I wait for goods to respawn. Right now, I'm more of a fighting caravan than a merc group. =P

Anyway, from what I've seen, 1 skull = low level undead, young orcs, human raiders, gobs. 2 skulls start pitting you against orc warriors and equivalent. The number of opponent you face and cash reward seems to be related to the size of your warband.

I don't think the skull system relates to specific contracts, and I generally don't trust it as a solid measure of difficulty. I have to actually look at the contract and take a pass if it's something that sounds too risky. For example, I generally do not take 2 or 3 skull goblin contracts and am wary of even 1 skull goblins -- however, I'll take a 3 skull cemetery contract no problem, because I know that worst case scenario it'll be bandit raiders (which I can take at this point in my game), and there's still a good chance it will be wiederganger or ghouls.

I do agree with you about selling trade goods being generally much safer and sometimes more profitable than many contracts, especially if you stick to one area and boost your local reputation with buyer/seller cities. However, this method is kinda tedious and does not provide experience. I like having it as an option (how good of an option it is kinda depends on what your world looks like) but I generally use it to supplement my contract income, not as my primary source of crowns.

Yea have to say in terms of contract selection, mine is fairly similar to Tobias. I usually don't take 2-3 skull goblin contracts either and in the event that I do, I am definitely fighting them at night. Doesn't matter if I need to waste a little time waiting around or doing something else (exploring the surroundings, hitting a wandering band, etc), I'm not fighting Goblin Ambushers in the day, especially not when they're backed up by other troop types. That's just asking for pain.

I also like selling trade goods. Once I had an idea of where to buy and have gotten relations with a large trade settlement to 100, I spent some time going to and fro while doing contracts for settlements on the way. There's no race to get a certain number of crowns within a set amount of days, but if there was, I'd surely be trying to optimize this source of income.

Originally posted by SQW:

Fighting for fighting's sake works to a point but once progression flattens, you stop wanting to continue.

Agreed.

Originally posted by SQW:

I'm curious about the faction mechanics but if the end result is just having you doing more battles for political points rather than money, then it's not really exciting. Since you can't manage your own enclave as stated by the dev, what can the lords offer what your merc company can't already do on its own?

I think the reward would be more story. A sense of getting somewhere or status, maybe epithets or titles for the band. Always had the idea where you could help the faction you favor wipe out another faction that you don't and get something out of it.

[Sheytanaslan]

Originally posted by Drathnar1:

First off, good thread and discussion. :)

Originally posted by SQW:

There seems to be a serious lack of incentive in the mid-game for player to risk the team you've spent hours building up on 2/3 skull contracts. I know the dev stated they want to keep the merc company small but that seems to be in conflict with gameplay that is designed to kill your men.

Indeed. As Sarissofoi, Tobias and quite a few have pointed out, the risk-benefit ratio for taking on 3-skull Orc and Goblin contracts is really not quite equal to that of similar contracts for Bandit Raiders or Undead.

Originally posted by SQW:

The desire to keep your men safe vs the poor rewards of more dangerous contract mean the game becomes a grind after an exciting start.

Yep. And after grinding Bandit Leaders and Fallen Heroes for some time, you'll have the weapons/shields you need for your men and will be left wondering what else to do. The game isn't 'finished' at this point and is still in Early Access, but the devs have been rather vague as to what bigger events are scheduled for the late game/end game.

Originally posted by Sarissofoi:

-increase reward to risk ratio for orcs,

Strongly agree with this. I frequently ask myself, are there any benefits to picking 3-skull Orc contracts over say a regular bandit contract or an undead contract and the answer is almost invariably no.

With raiders you get better loot. Usually a decent amount of gold, some tools, food, sometimes trade goods and a good selection of mid-tier weaponry which if properly repaired gets you a decent amount of gold in a trading settlement.

With orcs there is always the potential for heavy damage, even casualties if unlucky and loot is a lot scantier. Typically no gold, meagre tools, only strange meat if any, few weapons which do not tend to sell well anyway.

Sure some people might say, do it for the challenge and so some players may do it a couple of times just for the heck of it, to prove to themselves that it's possible. But in the long scheme of things, grinding orcs instead of bandit raiders is just plain unprofitable and asking for pain for no returns.


The fix need not be purely monetary to balance things. As goblin and orc contracts are frequently given out by Noble Houses, make gaining favor with them mean something. Perhaps a good number of special events triggered only by high Relations with these Houses.

Originally posted by Tobias Is Queen:

I don't think the skull system relates to specific contracts, and I generally don't trust it as a solid measure of difficulty. I have to actually look at the contract and take a pass if it's something that sounds too risky. For example, I generally do not take 2 or 3 skull goblin contracts and am wary of even 1 skull goblins -- however, I'll take a 3 skull cemetery contract no problem, because I know that worst case scenario it'll be bandit raiders (which I can take at this point in my game), and there's still a good chance it will be wiederganger or ghouls.

I do agree with you about selling trade goods being generally much safer and sometimes more profitable than many contracts, especially if you stick to one area and boost your local reputation with buyer/seller cities. However, this method is kinda tedious and does not provide experience. I like having it as an option (how good of an option it is kinda depends on what your world looks like) but I generally use it to supplement my contract income, not as my primary source of crowns.

Yea have to say in terms of contract selection, mine is fairly similar to Tobias. I usually don't take 2-3 skull goblin contracts either and in the event that I do, I am definitely fighting them at night. Doesn't matter if I need to waste a little time waiting around or doing something else (exploring the surroundings, hitting a wandering band, etc), I'm not fighting Goblin Ambushers in the day, especially not when they're backed up by other troop types. That's just asking for pain.

I also like selling trade goods. Once I had an idea of where to buy and have gotten relations with a large trade settlement to 100, I spent some time going to and fro while doing contracts for settlements on the way. There's no race to get a certain number of crowns within a set amount of days, but if there was, I'd surely be trying to optimize this source of income.

Answer is simple...CONTENT.

[daniel.123]

The way I see it things could be balanced with few adjustments.

1) Greater incentive to fight orcs. ie, better loot, better contract rewards.
I personally like the idea them also worth more exp points for your men. The risk of fighting them is then balanced against the potential exp gain for your brothers which would also eliminate the need to grind on them overly much as a few orc fights can jump your men to lvl 11 faster then grinding on bandits.
In the mid game this makes fighting orcs more rewarding per fight and takes out some of the grind whilst making them more exciting as you strive to keep alive the brothers you want to have left over at the end of the conflict.

Doesn't solve the problem with making them worth fighting in the late game however. Perhaps an increase in money per contract would be better then?

2) The skull rating system.
It makes no sense. I can't properly gauge how dangerous an assignment is going to be based on the skulls. A three skull undead assignment is a breeze whilst a 2 skull orc one is a nightmare.
Not to mention huge rewards for fighting 3 skull direwolves. In addition to being amusingly easy to breeze through, I can make a sick coat out of their skins haha

3) Give a few more levels?
More a tentative suggestion. Maybe taking say, 1-2 more levels would make your brothers a little bit more versatile and up their stats to the point were the hordes of goblins and orc in the mid-late game are not as murderously difficult to fight as they are atm. Still keeping the risk factor of losing a potentially valuable brother, but giving you a bit more tactical wiggle room.