Hades Gambit
Last Online
About me

Lord of the Kronos Consortium and definitely not a heretical infiltrator.

Recent Posts
posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

@guileus said in Gameplay modes:

What I really, really hope is that they incorporate two things regarding game modes:

  1. A way to play multiplayer in a "private campaign" server mode: that is, campaigns where you and your friends can join and play games whenever you want, while the server keeps track of your wounds, experience, territories, equipment... kind of like if you were playing a campaign on tabletop with your friends. You can invite people, and people can play matches between them whenever they want, but you are not forced to play with strangers or anything. This would be really awesome because it would recreate the tabletop feeling of creating a story with your friends. I can't emphasize how cool it is when you've played 20 matches on a campaign and your gangers each have their personal stories, their grudges, wounds etc... And you also know your buddies' gangers by name!

  2. If they change the ruleset (incorporating HPs or stuff like that) I would pray for a way to play "classic" Necromunda, with rules from the tabletop game. That is, just an implementation of the tabletop game, with all its pros and cons. I don't care if you can "see" all hidden miniatures (which was an obvious drawback of playing with miniatures, obviously), the original system worked well.

We don't really know anything yet, but there's two things I can be fairly certain of. They're not going to do a direct conversion of TT. A D6 probability system just isn't going to work here, namely because even if the probability is perfectly implemented players will perceive it as unfair. They're almost definitely going to adapt their old system.

And they definitely won't do both. That would essentially mean designing the mechanics for two different games for one game. It simply would not be a cost effective plan.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

A good point. Persistence is a double edged sword. It made the campaign more interesting, but the multiplayer more daunting. As you say in a perfect scenario players should be experiencing a win ratio of 1:1, which translates to everyone suffering regular losses. Which due to persistence means that you're often losing your favorites, or at least your leveled characters. Something that translates to a lot of people avoiding multiplayer.

Which creates a difficult question. How much do they want multiplayer to be utilized? I would think quite a bit, so they may want to consider lessening the blow, at least for Multiplayer matches.

Off the top of my head I think Docs. For an extra cost you can ignore your wound result or something like that. Also, up the reward for a Multiplayer game, make it possible to recover at least a couple fighters without losing your reward. In single player Docs can be adjusted, maybe have them more rare, have them as a contact you have to make, something to where they can be used but don't take out the risk factor. Another difference can be it's more expensive in Single than Multi.

Coop modes sounds fun too. There's the simple 2 v 2, 2 v 2AI, or what would be really great to me would be multiplayer campaigns with "diplomacy" type options IE: Gang Alliances fighting other Gang Alliances.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

I would assume that the campaign will be a turn based system again, which is fine by me. If they add multiplayer campaigns then they can have turns timed to prevent AFK players(or deliberate trolling) ruining it for everyone else. A multiplayer campaign is doable, I think particularly if they do territories in a way similar to how we discuss.

Territory gain is not something I believe should be done in a way true to the tabletop. The way it's done in TT is more a representation of the limitations of TT. In a video game it should just be represented as actual places on the map that you directly fight over. If I was hosting a Necromunda TT campaign, and had the resources, I would have specific map setups for when you fight over territory and the winner gains in, but that would be difficult due to required terrain, logging the setup, having multiple games, etc. It's just not something easily done IRL. But that limitation is not shared by video games, so we don't need a random dice roll to determine territory, and we don't need to only represent it as an item on a list. It can go deeper, and in doing so add a strategy to the campaign to the tactics of individual skirmishes. Maybe the Settlement you really want is too well defended, so instead you take over the chem pit to finance the takeover, things like that.

How I would like to see it is Territory is represented on the campaign map and a big part of the game is fighting for control of it, or raiding/razing enemy territory. How they can handle income is that in the between battle sequence you simply have the ability to assign Gangers to your territory for them to work it, which would be similar to the TT campaign.

Overall, the TT should be used as inspiration, but not directly copied because with video games you can turn necessary abstractions into concrete representations.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

I liked how the Campaigns worked for Mordheim, the whole go at your pace and play as long as you like thing was fine by me. But you definitely have a point with it not being noob friendly, as it's really not as straightforward as it seems. Stuff like it being important to hire an extra leader was just something you had to figure out. Adjustments should be made, but the basis of Mordhiem's campaign system was fine as far as I'm concerned. There's room for improvement for sure, and having adjustable campaign options would add a lot of replayability would be a great addition, although it does depend on what they actually are going to do and how it is going to work.

Your number one seems more like a fun way to implement a tutorial/intro than something that should be a cornerstone of the game.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

It does beg the question of what sort of voice acting will be included. As we all must remember there was basically 1 speaker for Warbands and the Narrator. Besides that your characters really only grunted and cheered. Are there going to be voice lines for your individual gang members, or will it remain only through the unique characters?

And what do people want?
I can see an advantage and disadvantage to both. On the more voices side it makes the game feel more alive, with characters having more, well, character. On the other hand there's a few drawbacks, I'd say largely stemming from logistics. As the OP represents for Ganger voices to be immersive we're going to need a decently large selection of tones and lines.

Which leads to the advantage of not having Ganger Voices. If there's not enough of them then Ganger Personality decreases instead of increases. Kind of like Fallout 4 when all your characters end up sounding the same, the backstory you try to invent isn't very convincing, seeing as your ruthless villian sounds the sane as your kindearted crusader. In this the silent protagonist is rather an advantage for immersion. There's also a developmental advantage as it diminishes time required for things like lip synchs and voice related animations.

For me I would prefer it if they added voice lines for gangers(and maybe a workshop option to add more) as long as they go big and have enough to maintain the illusion of individuality among your crew.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

They definitely know an agency or something. The chances of them accepting a fan submitted audio file are slim to none, personally I've never heard of a studio doing so. There's valid reasons for that; not being able to control sound quality, needing lip synchs, contracts, potential legal issues, etc.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

Removing Single Player didn't work for EA so I wouldn't think that a much smaller company would attempt to try it. The main focus was Single for Mordhiem, I wouldn't think for a moment they'd consider cutting what most of their fans did most of the time. It's not a strategy for success.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

I knew I was forgetting something.

Don't forget that Orks breed through spores and spread those when they die as well. If a grot gets somewhere an Orc ecosystem starts to grow, which means Orks are perfectly valid. That's what makes them so hard to actually remove for good. So if they want to add Ork gangs they very much can. Just I personally think they should be lower priority than all the human factions.

Also I had forgotten about the Xeno embassy. Doesn't lend itself terribly well to gangs but this does justify an Eldar presence, Dark Eldar would make the most sense though for similar reasons to Spyrers. But these would be even lower than Orks as far factions that actually should be added. Plenty of humans and humanoid mutants available first.

posted in Necromunda - General Discussion read more

So Necromunda 8th edition is out and while so far only Escher and Goliath have been given lists, there are some interesting confirmations in the background that shows continued support some of the expansion gangs from both Outlanders and Gang War supplements.

From what I remember the lore mentions Ash Waste Nomads, Shanty Town Gangs, Brat Gangs(Spyrers without fancy suits basically), Genestealer Cults, Scaavies, Ratskins, and I think Chaos Cults.

So in essence there's a lot of room for expansion while remaining in line with the official lore.