• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Minion rivalries

Feb 5, 2014
13
8
190
26
#1
Hey, i am not realy sure if this has been discussed before, if it was please don't throw me in the torture chamber.
But will there be minion rivalries like there where rivalries between for example warlocks and vampires in DK1. or minions getting unhappy if they are forced to live in close proximity with minions they hate.

In DK1 i had a love/hate relationship with this mechanic. hate because it was sometimes really annoying to have to deal with minions that fight amongst themselves and love because it does give a big sense of personality and identity to the varrious minions.

apologies for spelling and grammar errors.
 
Feb 1, 2014
290
96
250
23
#2
The developers have said that this probably won't be added since they want the player to fight the enemy instead of her minions. I would really like it but I see their point, WFTO is trying to be a different game.
 
Likes: Marados
Feb 5, 2014
13
8
190
26
#3
ah, i see and i understand there stance towards the idea.
But i still think it would be cool to see some kind of interaction between the minions because that really gives that extra sense of personality and makes your dungeon feel more alive. You can brainstorm ages as to what kind of interactions that would be, doenst have to be negative interactions per say. Or maybe interactions that are room specific, something like specific minions having a tendency to get drunk in the tavern if they stay there for to long.
just throwing around some random ideas haha :D
But i also see how those things could impare multiplayer matches, hard topic
 
Feb 1, 2014
290
96
250
23
#4
For the moment its a low priority, they said that minion personality would be expanded in the future so lets see what they can do. But yes, they won't do anything that harms multiplayer o competitivity.
 

Nutter

Frost Weaver
WFTO Founder
Jan 19, 2013
2,453
1,092
615
28
Huddersfield, UK
nutter666.tumblr.com
#6
Minion rivalries will not exist in the sense that Minion A will start fighting with minion B on sight, that's not going to be included at all. Simburgur decided that it was too annoying and didn't add enough to gameplay to be worth it.
 
Feb 5, 2014
13
8
190
26
#7
yea, right after my last comment here i found the discussion about this topic haha so i feel pretty bad for making this thread. if i had looked just a little further i would have found al the awsers right there :)
I have been following the dev bloggs since the beginning but i have always been a little forum shy, but now the game is getting closer to release so i get too extited to wait 1 week for another blog post haha
 

Nutter

Frost Weaver
WFTO Founder
Jan 19, 2013
2,453
1,092
615
28
Huddersfield, UK
nutter666.tumblr.com
#8
yea, right after my last comment here i found the discussion about this topic haha so i feel pretty bad for making this thread. if i had looked just a little further i would have found al the awsers right there :)
I have been following the dev bloggs since the beginning but i have always been a little forum shy, but now the game is getting closer to release so i get too extited to wait 1 week for another blog post haha
No need to be shy, we don't bite... much :)

Also, the WFTO Facebook page is another good place to look for little updates to keep you going between the weekly ones, especially when Noontide starts updating it more frequently as he should be doing soon.
 

mishko

Witch Doctor
WFTO Founder
Feb 27, 2012
866
238
440
25
Michigan
#11
I at least want Empire units to become unhappy around certain underlord units and wants a different lair than each other. Not fight on sight but more like DK2 where minions would get more and more unhappy.
 
Feb 1, 2014
290
96
250
23
#12
I at least want Empire units to become unhappy around certain underlord units and wants a different lair than each other. Not fight on sight but more like DK2 where minions would get more and more unhappy.
Why only empire units? That was the thing that I disliked about DK2, it doesn't make sense that a corrupted unit would care about being with evil minions. If anything I think that rivalries between different kind of units (researchers, fighters, blacksmiths...) would work better.
 

mishko

Witch Doctor
WFTO Founder
Feb 27, 2012
866
238
440
25
Michigan
#13
Why only empire units? That was the thing that I disliked about DK2, it doesn't make sense that a corrupted unit would care about being with evil minions. If anything I think that rivalries between different kind of units (researchers, fighters, blacksmiths...) would work better.
Because they aren't going to do that.
 
#16
Why only empire units? That was the thing that I disliked about DK2, it doesn't make sense that a corrupted unit would care about being with evil minions. If anything I think that rivalries between different kind of units (researchers, fighters, blacksmiths...) would work better.
I agree. Even in DK1 we had the converted Samurai hating the mistresses because they used torture, which is dishonourable. Yet...isn't it also dishonourable to work for an evil boss? But see, this is why we need creature personalities. I just talk about the samurai as if they were actual characters rather than tools to win the game. It's so much more immersive and organic.
 
Likes: Evi and Skorp
Feb 1, 2014
290
96
250
23
#17
I agree. Even in DK1 we had the converted Samurai hating the mistresses because they used torture, which is dishonourable. Yet...isn't it also dishonourable to work for an evil boss? But see, this is why we need creature personalities. I just talk about the samurai as if they were actual characters rather than tools to win the game. It's so much more immersive and organic.
We know that the developers want to focus on competitiveness but I least I hope that we can say "And the army of chunders became hungry in the middle of the invasion and retreated quickly" or "Succubi are very powerful but you shouldn't have one unless your dungeon is at least decent"
 
Feb 24, 2015
26
8
80
37
#18
Unfortunately, the developers are giving preference to id driven gamers who are mostly interested in reaching the level end screen. This means that certain depth-giving features such as giving minions their own independent personality are being left out for the benefit of gamers who just want to test each other's piss in multiplayer. :D:D:D
As much as I'm looking forward to the game, this.
 
Jan 3, 2013
3,241
739
495
31
#19
We know that the developers want to focus on competitiveness but I least I hope that we can say "And the army of chunders became hungry in the middle of the invasion and retreated quickly" or "Succubi are very powerful but you shouldn't have one unless your dungeon is at least decent"
Game requires basic balancing first, then advanced balancing and only then competitive balancing. The first two are impossible to do without solid Campaign/Skirmish while last requires stable Multiplayer with at least 4 players support.

Ideally, we were supposed to have first two done long time ago, with MP mode being the last made, instead we get things in reversed order.

I believe there's no point in requesting such things as this one because base game is still not complete, and even after that there will be Flex Goals ( backers only ) and lots of balancing/bug fixing. At the very best, there will be a ''spot'' for additional things ( like animations, creature personalities and so on ) somewhere in Q4 2015, assuming Backers don't pick something extremely hard to make, game proves to be stable enough and DLC's do pay off. Sad truth to be told, but many dreams should be abandoned, as they won't contribute to replayability much, this one is in that list.
 

Mozared

Juggernaut
WFTO Founder
Feb 17, 2013
1,132
836
520
29
#20
Game requires basic balancing first, then advanced balancing and only then competitive balancing. The first two are impossible to do without solid Campaign/Skirmish while last requires stable Multiplayer with at least 4 players support.

Ideally, we were supposed to have first two done long time ago, with MP mode being the last made, instead we get things in reversed order.
I almost can't believe you're still spouting this nonsense. I've lost count of how many times it has now been explained to you that multiplayer is the best ground for any sort of balancing, as a game balanced for PvP will also automatically have a good baseline to balance a PvE AI from. The other way around creates simply a total mess. If you pit a human against an AI, then the outcome of the match does not only depend upon the balance of the game, but also on the fact that the AI may be a far superior or inferior player than the human - and you'll be unable to tell if this is what caused a player to win or lose, or if it was the balance of the game. If you pit two humans against each other you take the 'vastly unequal opponents' variable out of the balancing equation, and thus a game balanced for multiplayer is automatically also balanced for singleplayer. And this aside from the fact that you can start working on balance the second multiplayer functions, rather than first having to write an AI that can work with all content in the game, even if most of it hasn't even been implemented yet.

Let me try to give an example: say I'm trying to balance a game (any game whatsoever, not necessarily WFTO), and to do so I play 10 matches. As it turns out, I win all 10 by simply rushing my lowest tier units at the enemy at the start of the game. If these 10 matches were played against an actual human, I can be almost certain that a low tier unit rush is an overpowered strategy, as even someone who could see it coming after 9 games couldn't stop it with anything other in his arsenal. If these 10 matches were played against an AI, then all you've proven is that the AI doesn't adept. It could well be that the balance of low tier unit rushes are fine but that the AI is simply incapable of dealing with it cause he wasn't coded for it - or it could be that low tier unit rushes are in fact overpowered. You simply can't say for sure. This is why you balance against players, not AI's.

But oh well, at this point I'm just assuming you are going to outright ignore my point, again, and repeat how "games should be balanced in skirmish before multiplayer" without any arguments, again. I don't even know why I bothered. I suppose countering the spread of ignorance is a good enough reason.
 
Top Bottom