RPGWatch Feature - Battle Brothers Review

[Hastar]

Fast adaptation requires to miss a hit to stack up. With two hits only per turn, it puts off its benefit to the next turn. Which can not be afforded.
Beside, characters are converging toward 95 pc. If the character can make it late game, it appears to be useless sooner than later.
It is better to use spears when a character starts on the low side of the hitting stat instead of this perk as spears give a 20 pc increase on all hits

Three perks are said to be mandatory: scholar, steel brow and battle forged.

The others corespond to four builds or are used to correct a deficiency in a character.
For example, the minimum of resolve to achieve is around 50. If a character has the proper starting stats to fit one of the four builds but is weak in resolve (like 25)
perk to boost resolve is applied.

You don't need steel brow for your tanks you need them for your archers. You don't need scholar for anyone except if you want to lvl them faster. They will have 1 less battle perk until lvl 11 if you take scholar. Battle forged is not needed for your archers. So you need to watch some more videos

 

[ChienAboyeur]

It mystifies me when someone who clearly doesn't like a game spends so much effort to convince others that they are somehow wrong or deficient for liking it. Seems like there are millions of better ways to spend your time.

Obviously, one of these millions better ways is to speculate about people's tastes without knowing anything about them.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

You don't need steel brow for your tanks you need them for your archers.

Steel brow ensures no critical hit is sustained. This removes the option of being one shot in the early level stage. Any character, no matter the build, goes through early levels. None of them down with a single blow in the head go beyond the level it had on death.

You don't need scholar for anyone except if you want to lvl them faster. They will have 1 less battle perk until lvl 11 if you take scholar.

Survivability of the party is improved by levelling up. There is of course no pressure to level the fastest possible.
Perks are unlocked as the levelling up is done. Scholar compete with no others and is paid back at the end. So it takes the place of no perk in a build. It makes the levelling up faster, ensuring faster survivability. Apart from that,

Battle forged is not needed for your archers.

Battle forged first purpose is decrease the use of tools. Which is where the money goes.

So you need to watch some more videos

No. Watching more videos does not change the way streamers (many of them nearing the 1000 hour ingame) play.

If there are better ways to do, other builds, well, one way is to exhibit them. When it is done, they will be taken into account.
Walk the walk and stuff like that.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

The biggest lack in BB is the way the party is assembled.

The battle brothers do not exist. Obviously, they do not exist through story. There is no storytelling to bind the party members. It was not the point of the product.

Now, the band does not exist through gameplay. Parties have no personal way of being played. The party is a collection of stereotyped builds (with players trying to fish for the adequate profile to match the build requirement)
The developpment of the party is not thought one member relatively to another.
It is not about being given twelve characters and finding a way to make them work as a unit. The synergy between members is very low.

There is no collective idea behind a party. You do not go for mobility, you do not go for fast action. It is not about finding ways to make characters work together.

This issue goes as far as disqualifying characters from the recruitment moment . As soon the recruitment is done, the player knows the recruit can make it to the mid/late game.

And this can happen to the companions a player gets at the very start. You might be led to dismiss starting companions because they wont make it later on.

Streamers have two ways to deal with that issue: either they pay to see and dismiss the inappropriate character as soon as it is recruited.
Or they use it as meat, trying to squeeze as much as possible out of the character until it dies.
So far, not a single player released an inadequate character after it somewhat paid off what it was worth.

It is immediate release or until death parts.

 

[Hastar]

You don't know what you are talking about, I have won all stages on iron man mode. I am not even going to go thru all the mistakes and false statements you have made.

Walking the walk is giving the game out to fellow Watch members for free. Instead of just watching the game and not playing it.

You can't get battle forged until your brother is high level. So the first purpose it not to save tools. By the time you are that lvl cash is not a problem and my band had 100k. Anyone who takes Battle Forged on an archer is wasting a talent. I do not care if they have 1000 hours played they are fools and anyone watching a fool play is also a fool.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

This iron man stuff was already answered. It means nothing.

Streamers play on vet/expert. While they bath in money in the mid/late game, it is nothing like 100K (20k after 200 days which is a nice cushion but that could be eaten fast as replacements do not come cheap 5000 to 8000 gold)

The issue of getting your armour eaten out is so accute streamers computed it was better to sacrifice dogs than getting their armour destroyed.

On streamers being fools, they are open to questions, helpful to explain their vision of the way to play and more than anything, demonstrate it right in front of their viewers.

Talking the talks…

 

[forgottenlor]

Its hard to discuss something with someone who always discounts the experience from others and who makes such extreme comments "There is no audience for this game" (even though people are playing it) "There are required traits" (even though people playing the game here may not use them). Seeing that you don't make these observations from your own experience, but from the experience of others doesn't make it any easier to find common ground with you. Its unfortunately why so many people ignore or look down on your comments, and sometimes miss the shrewd observations you do make.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

You can't get battle forged until you brother is high level. So the first purpose it not to save tools. By the time you are that lvl cash is not a problem and my band had 100k.

No. Battle forged is accessed from level 7. Which happens way before the late game and the first crisis. Actually, it happens at a critical time when the money is saved is welcomed.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Its hard to discuss something with someone who always discounts the experience from others and who makes such extreme comments "There is no audience for this game" (even though people are playing it) "There are required traits" (even though people playing the game here may not use them). Seeing that you don't make these observations from your own experience, but from the experience of others doesn't make it any easier to find common ground with you. Its unfortunately why so many people ignore or look down on your comments, and sometimes miss the shrewd observations you do make.

There is indeed nothing to discuss. Admittedly, there exists better efforts than this one but when you state one thing and then nearly immediately an incompatible thing, it is a sign there is no willingness to discuss.

This starts with stating that experience from others are always discounted. Two sentences later, it is stated that the observations are made from the experience of others.
It is not compatible: people who always discount the experience from others can not build observations from the experience of others.
This way of stating one thing and then a contrary is known as a way to show unwillingness to discuss.

These days, people usually display their unwillingness to discuss by stating one thing and immediately something not compatible. In the present case, one sentence separates the two.

And by the way, the same goes for the willingness of finding common ground. Stating one thing and one contrary excludes the possibility of finding a common ground.
There is no common ground when stating that one ignores other people's experiences and yet builds observations from other people's experience. No common ground in that.

 

[TomRon]

I believe he got you there Forgottenlor, he obviously doesn't discount other peoples opinions. As long as they're players streaming their experience, but still.

To then go on to claim that people commonly show unwillingness to discuss something by using contradicting facts though… that's a stretch.

 

[forgottenlor]

I believe he got you there Forgottenlor, he obviously doesn't discount other peoples opinions. As long as they're players streaming their experience, but still.

To then go on to claim that people commonly show unwillingness to discuss something by using contradicting facts though… that's a stretch.

Yeah, you're right. It was worth a try, I suppose. Sometimes I don't know why I bother.

 

[Stingray]

There is indeed nothing to discuss. Admittedly, there exists better efforts than this one but when you state one thing and then nearly immediately an incompatible thing, it is a sign there is no willingness to discuss.

This starts with stating that experience from others are always discounted. Two sentences later, it is stated that the observations are made from the experience of others.
It is not compatible: people who always discount the experience from others can not build observations from the experience of others.
This way of stating one thing and then a contrary is known as a way to show unwillingness to discuss.

These days, people usually display their unwillingness to discuss by stating one thing and immediately something not compatible. In the present case, one sentence separates the two.

And by the way, the same goes for the willingness of finding common ground. Stating one thing and one contrary excludes the possibility of finding a common ground.
There is no common ground when stating that one ignores other people's experiences and yet builds observations from other people's experience. No common ground in that.

Pure, unadulterated forum pollution. It's amazing that you wrote out all that hard-to-decipher trash just to say: "ha ha, you said I discount the experience of others but then said I only pay attention to the experience of others! Gotcha!"

I mean, in reality it's obvious what he meant, which is that you discount the experiences of the people that are trying to discuss with you, while pretending that the only valid experiences are those of people who aren't even involved in the current conversation.

Remembered why I don't bother reading your posts.

 

[TomRon]

Remembered why I don't bother reading your posts.

Yeah it's funny, I even put Chien on the ignore list, but curiosity got the better of me so I ended up clicking "show" on every post anyway.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Remembered why I don't bother reading your posts.

Probably for other reasons.

Yeah, you're right. It was worth a try, I suppose. Sometimes I don't know why I bother.

There was no try to discuss. Only a try to distract.
Other people's experience remain other people's experience.
In the current case, the common ground is the experience provided by streamers. It is the one that can be accessed by all parts.
Streamers provide an experience that can be watched. It is reliably delivered.
On the other hand, supposedly, in order to initiate a discussion, people demand that experience to be ignored in favour of their own personal experience, which they provide nothing of but words.
Trying to substitute the report of some personal experiences can not be a match.
These reports of personal experience must be believed on word, contrary to the experience provided by streamers.

There is no matter of trust when it comes to the experience provided by streamers.

People who recognize that point (as it was done) do not discount other people's experience, they simply acknowledge that some players deliver an experience in a reliable way while others do not.

People who dismiss the experience of others are those who demand to disregard the experience provided by streamers (despite its reliability) in favour of the report of their own experience.
They are the ones dismissing other people's experience.

Streamers builds are shown to work.
Other people's builds are claimed to work.
People who do not play the product can even provide builds claiming they work.

 

[Myrthos]

What you are saying is that the experience someone gets from watching a bunch of streamers is the same, or perhaps even better, than the experience you get from actually playing the game.

That is a strange position to take. Watching something is never the same as actually experiencing it. Not in games and not in real life, regardless of how many words you spent on saying the opposite.

Do you actually play games? Or do you only watch streams?

 

[Wisdom]

It mystifies me when someone who clearly doesn't like a game spends so much effort to convince others that they are somehow wrong or deficient for liking it. Seems like there are millions of better ways to spend your time.

Doesn't apply to just gaming. Its one of the principle foundations of social media.

 

[Wisdom]

Be nice to Chienbot. Hes not wrong in all his assumptions here.
Personally I'd rather risk the handful of cash on a product if the written reviews look decent over watching someone else play a game.
To me there is immense joy in the learning. Even the frustrating systems sometimes.

Other people would rather see it done and copy an expert. For them the joy might be in the completion or the min/max gameplay.

 

[Myrthos]

I don't know if he is wrong or not. What I am saying is that the feedback of someone who actually played it is more valuable to me than feedback from someone who hasn't. So I value the opinion of some of the others here higher than his.
That said, he is obviously still allowed to share his opinion, even if it is based on watching only streams. There are places on this forum (like P&R) where a large number of people share their opinion based on reading and watching stuff without actually experiencing it much themselves

 

[Hastar]

I watched every Superbowl that Tom Brady has won. I know as much as he does about football and I have a super model wife now.

There are some that do and some that watch

 

[forgottenlor]

I certainly have no problem with Chi'en sharing his opinion either. I think though, that perhaps he thinks he shares the same hobby with most of the people on this site, and if so, I (personally) think he is wrong. There are people who spend time on a game, as if it is an e-sport. We are talking about people clocking in 1000s of hours. But Steam shows that most players who buy a game don't even finish 50% of one playthrough. I actually am "over-average" in that I actually finish 1 playthrough of most games I play. That means I play between 10-80 hours on most games. Most people who want to buy games then, don't care about people who play the game like an e-sport. They want to know how the game experience is for 1-2 playthroughs. That's why he often talks past other people. He's talking about a completely different experience than most people here are discussing. I also think since he doesn't play himself, he doesn't see what might make a game engaging or not, since he's not invested or immersed in it.