Lord of the Kronos Consortium and definitely not a heretical infiltrator.
As an option it would be okay, but I don't want it entirely separate. I get attached to my NPCs but I still can think of situations where I'd want to bring my official gang in a PvP, such as the "lore" outcome of a battle with a friend, but I wouldn't want to do play a lot of online matches with my narrative gang because PvP is more unpredictable than Ai. With persistent wounds it's a somewhat intimidating prospect to risk units you've grown attached to in PvP, which can be easy mode or ultra-hard mode depending on the luck of the matchmaker.
So yeah, I'd like to see options. This standard budget setup is one way, that's more competitive. Or dedicated PvP Warbands separate from single player. And one other thing is that considering the increased challenge of facing a human player, I believe that they should figure out a way to lessen the risk of skirmishing in PvP. Casualties are bound to be higher in PvP, so I don't actually believe it's fair for the permanent consequences of losing units to be as likely and severe as in singleplayer. But if they get rid of consequences entirely that's also a detriment, because permeance is an important part of this game.
I understand the feeling, especially when leveling a new character took so long as well. At a certain point the risk reward becomes questionable, and when you max level a Warband it's sort of an end game, you get to the peak and then all you can really do is lose it.
But then on the other hand, where does unlimited leveling lead? Is it going to be fun, or lead to unbeatable characters that a fresh recruit simply dies like a Red Shirted character on a Star Trek hostile alien life episode, except your main character really do die.
I'm not sure what the balance is. I feel like a cap is less noticeable when it's a high number, like 100, and make lower tier characters worse, yet no so bad that they have no hope to come out on top. In Mordheim the only hope a low tier had was to only pile in to ongoing fights and hope they don't get targeted, tactics besides getting more of your guys in the fight were limited.
At the same time, if you're more likely to lose your high level characters, yeah you're less inclined to want to field them. I think the medical system could use some help there. A little less roll of the die, at least in permanence. Necromunda has more in lore options to keep persistent wounds/death and still have options to counteract them. Like if you lose a leg then you should be able to buy replacement cybernetics. Naturally if it's just some Juve they'll have to earn it, at least in my gang.
Even death can be temporary if they really want, depending on the Dev's thoughts on Chaos and Corruption. There's more than a few ways to lore respawn, though all are Heresy of various shades. Though that would entail a different set of risks that I don't think is currently in the scope of the game.
I never got much into multiplayer myself. I presume it was persistent? For the most part I was just interested in the campaign anyways, but a hangup I had was that you wouldn't want to stick in a level 1 warband against even an equal sized veteran warband, seeing as a leveled character is just plain better than a fresh one. I ran into a similar thing in the campaign where bringing in a new warrior to a late campaign match was a pretty good way to get them killed. I get a tad overinvested in my characters too, so by the time I'd reasonably level a Warband I wouldn't really want to risk them against a human player. You never know what to expect against another player, you can wipe out someone who barely understands the game mechanics yet, or get wiped out by someone who has built the ultimate stat monster. I'm sure there was some sort of ranking system to ensure a total noob players don't go against a top ten ranked player, but since it's a game of skill, strategy, and (according to some I've talked too much) stats (if a Rank 10 fighter faces a Rank 1 there's only one way that tends to end) so inevitably you're going to take a beating. Even more so than against an Ai, no matter how well designed, a player v player matchup is going to hurt more than a Single Player match, so the persistent wounds dissuaded me from checking out Multiplayer with my Warband. The double edged sword is of course the persistent character system is what gives the characters character in the first place.
I would like to see Multiplayer be a more involved part of the game, I hope a Co-op version of that Conquest mode is a possibility as well as competitive. I see what this guy is saying about separating them, it's a cool option for someone to be able to use their Single Player Warband, but if it's the only option, on my end at least it limited my desire to actually risk my Warband in online competition. And it's not just a matter of me not liking competitive multiplayer, it's just that Mordheim's option never really drew me in.
I understand that. I've followed developing games before. Some people have misinterpreted planned features as absolute promises and react poorly if they don't pan out. I don't expect you guys to build entirely new features based off a forum post, but I was wondering if our discussions have any influence when you guys are weighing your options?
And of course like any game addict getting a taste of information leaves me wanting to know more.
Does that mean you're still weighing ideas? I understand that the vast minority of forum posters have anything in the way of programming experience, but I would like to ask if the team has thought about anything we'd discussed?
Personally I'd like to hear more about Conquest mode, I'd been hoping that there would end up being a more strategic element to the campaign itself and that sounds promising. You know stuff like how it will work, are enemy gangs randomly generated per mission, what kind of mission options there will be, etc.