Read your ideas and i like your thinking, you have good points, maybe we'll get some clarification in further logs from the dev?
Not really no, but sure, if you want to think so go ahead. As far as i feel from playing it, currently at least, it has a nice system set up for battles, it can get obnoxious from having to do things "exactly" as distortions requirements want you to do, but it's not really a true puzzle game, it's just planning your strategy during a battle. The timer not being able to be extended is quite a nuisance though. Secondly, i actually can judge a game by it's early development, yes. That's called feedback, especially for features that are supposed to be tested for balance, bugs, if it's clear to be player what it's supposed to be, on and on. This also includes what is good for the people playing it, like for example, players that want more difficulty, players that feel that the difficulty is just fine and players that want to have an easier time. It's all part of the feedback process, dev gets to gauge how things are currently received by all types of crowd. Then finally it's up to the dev to strike the hammer, some will be displeased and leave, some will stay. It's all part of the process.
The whole idea of a prestige system is to start at 0% extra additions to calculation or bonuses. It's meant to always increase by a small percentage, like 3% or 5%, so the player can add it themselves how strong they wish to start their next campaign. Its them that's doing the balancing, not me, you or the dev. That's the whole idea of it. I didn't say the dev would have to keep testing it for balance, it's meant as a tool to let themselves tip the scales to where they want, from increasing damage, barrier growth rate to total extermination bar value. Every time they lose, they gain a prestige currency they can use to get a little stronger, like for every 1 loop completed, get 10 points or something. "Here you go, go spend it to get extra bonuses if you want."
That's basically what you're telling the players to do though. You're telling them that they'll eventually have to stop playing a game mode filled with content, including the lore, to stop playing it and go play a single-round mode or something else. The campaign is where you'll find the most content of the game, including the story, just because you don't like the idea of discussing for a way to reach a compromise, so we can all have a middle ground to be able to enjoy the main game mode, which also has city conquering, forsaken training, all the content the game has to offer? Was there an attempt at finding a compromise? Were there discussions if could be done or are we just declaring it without even trying "Nah, we're not gonna do that, can't be done, no way." ? And we're talking about difficulty here of all things.
Correct, and your issue with giving me the option to choose myself, a player, if i want it enabled or not in my game is?
That's strange, because sometimes they "do" trigger accidently on my games, and not only rampancy. Good to know they don't happen to you though, nice. That's fine by me though, it's not that big of a deal for me, also they're part of strategy planning for the battles as well as the charm of the game, so i can do fine with them the way they are.
Good, you got it. They're "suggestions" for the dev to take into consideration, as well as your feedback, it's also your personal suggestion and take on this matter. That's why we're discussing this particular shitstorm of a debacle, isn't it? We all here have suggestions, different takes and stands on balancing something. Some people want it harder, some like it just fine the way it is, some want things easier. It's always like this when the discussion turns into "proper balancing". Either way this goes is fine by me, whatever the dev decides i know i'm not gonna start a flame storm here in the thread. Will i be disappointed that the game turned into more of a stressful experience with too many disadvantages on my side that takes the enjoyment out of the game for me? Yes, especially when you invested into it so much. That's fine, there are other projects to follow, i'll move to another one just fine. But you know what truly is always a true sack of shit that annoys the hell out of me every time? Especially in a game of this genre? It's how when you suggest "possible", Key word here, "Possible", alternatives se we can all find and reach a compromise, a middle ground so everyone can find a way to enjoy this game together, people just point fingers at one another, throw shit at one another, attack one another, all the fun stuff. In the end, it turns out it's an impossibility to share the fun, people leave and voila.
Regardless of how this shitstorm's gonna end, the dev's gonna be reading all of our takes, suggestions and analysis of how loops are working out. Skippy's being doing good work on that part. So we'll see what the dev finds impossible to do, what cannot be done, what could be done and what is planned to be done in the future.
Last edited:
