by Granger » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:00 am
Ysh wrote:Agame wrote:Bears were never easy. Mammoths were never easy. Whales were like 50-50 for centuries. About one boat sank with its crew for every whale caught. Trolls come from scary tales. These are dignified enemies.
But ant queen? Come on, try not to step on it by mistake, because it should give no loot then

I don't say player must be the top of the food chain. But I do say that as long as you have a shovel in your hands a badger can only become flat if it attacks you. I say if a rowboat paddle is not enough to get you rid of a swan, then letting it pinch once and grabbing its neck while it pinches and bend that neck really slow around your fist till it's dead is the way to go for a human.
But these are moves that you do not learn in this game. Because what feels natural for everyone (a cousin of mine used to kill like this gees his height when he was under 7 y.o. because one pinched him hard once, till his father had to pay for the dead geese and my cousin got punished) is not so natural for an autistic retarded character learning fighting moves from ants. We are born into this game more idiotic and less strong than a child, though we can carry rowboats. It's bad game design.
I am not totally unsympathetic to your argument. If a man can kill this goose so easily in the real live, then new player to game will expect to be able to conquer this goose in game. This will be intuitive to him. Situation which is unintuitive can be indicative of bad game design.
On other hand, it is nice property for there to be some gradient in enemy challenge. I do not think that some effort to provide this is bad idea. Issue is of course that the way animal is hunted in this game do not map very well to how animal is hunted in the real live. In general, I think there is no real beast that a well prepared group of men can not trap and kill relatively safely, but of course we have no trap in this game.
If you will look at this as typical RPG where you have some enemies with levels and thing like this, then obviously animal is just standin for some fantasy monster of this kind of system. From this perspective then I think way game is set up is making some sense. Problem is that developer will like to see the game be not so fantastical, so they try to limit number of monster and just use animal instead. I think that this is the core issue which causes the disconnect in how animal works in game.
I could see an argument that most animal should be hunted by trapping instead of fighting as you will fight a man. This will be more intuitive for hunting I think because it will be closer to how these things will work in the real live. The problem here then becomes that relevance of combat is very low unless you are fighting other men or powerful beast (e.g. troll). Ideally these combat mechanisms will have some place they can be practiced, so new player can toy with system and understand how it works before he must fight strongest foes.
I think the developers are misleading us about the setting of the game, the longer I look at it the more I think it's set after a full apocalypse, likely some runaway AI (think
paperclip maximizer) sitting in orbit that, out of some misspecified objective which lead to the initial destruction of everything in the first place, is beamimg down (animal spawning) and around (hearthing) heavily mutated creatures - simply because there is no one left being able of telling it to stop.
⁎ Mon Mar 22, 2010 ✝ Thu Jan 23, 2020