I recently played Port Royale 3 again (yeah old-ish, but still good) and I really liked how the campaigns were put together there: Simple, tutorial-like goals that led you through all the major functions relevant to your chosen playstyle (trader or "adventurer") while leaving it up to you how to achieve the overall goals, then at the end, converted your game into a "Free Play" game so could continue on your own.
If the game had forcibly ended at the climax of the campaign, I would've been majorly miffed, so converting to free-play is a must, IMO (assuming those terms make sense within the context of Necromunda).
Yeah, same concept.There's also Shadow of Mordor/War with tracking multiple individual foes basically in real time. It's possible, but the question is how difficult and how many numbers. I didn't end up getting Blood Bowl, how many teams did it track at a time?
Not quite sure how many teams it tracks, but I think for the maximum size league it's easily around the 100 mark (I wanna say 128, but I'm guessing here). I do have it (it's even installed) but haven't played much lately - just too many bugs and limitations, and the developer is not interested in fixing them (they'd rather sell DLC).
I would point to the recent releases of Blood Bowl (specifically BB2) as a fairly successful example of persistent "enemies", since Blood Bowl teams and Necromunda gangs from a technical point of view aren't that different: a limited number of personnel, permanent injuries, and simulation of a complex game interaction for all the AI teams between rounds.
Yeah I think persistent enemies is one of the most asked-for features (or, to frame it as per the topic): Mordheim's auto-generated enemies, while convenient, killed a lot of the immersion in single-player campaigns. The relatively small pool of enemy looks and name options didn't help, either, as you kept running into carbon copies of previous enemies. I am not sure if the intention was that this would feel a bit like persistent enemies, but in practice it didn't.
Sadly they didn't add a block function to their forums so neither he or I would have to deal with each other.
Yeah, sadly indeed, as I think it's pretty clear any interaction with you is going to be more trouble that it's worth. Sad thing us, I'm probably leaning towards agreeing with you on the matter at hand, but I don't have the time nor inclination to deal with that kind of overly hostile debating. Not that I expect you'll care, you seem to have worked yourself into some kind of righteous fury, so - good luck with that.
Now seeing as I can see you failed to grasp my point, here it is. I say that we can safely assume that a Table Top conversion video game would be a small market, therefore mechanics that appeal to the wider video game market is preferable. My opinion is that too much reliance on randomness is frustrating in a video game, making one think it's rigged because programmed randomness doesn't feel as legitimate as a dice roll. I believe this is shared by a wide base. Secondly, it's a fact that the devs already created a system that matches the video game format, therefore it is an easier task to remake and improve those mechanics, rather than design an entirely new system, one I don't think has a high appeal.
This is a fair point, but not necessarily a self-evident truth. They tried doing the "appeal to the mainstream market" with various real-time modes for previous iterations of Blood Bowl - it was a failure. There's a reason they scrapped it entirely for Blood Bowl 2. So yes, other games may have more users than, say, Mordheim - but it's not clear why. For XCom, for example, it already has a fanbase and is an established title as a video game - Mordheim had neither.
Potentially alienating your existing (if admittedly niche) fanbase while trying to break into the mainstream market* can be very risky.
*which is definitely bigger, no debate necessary there
your own dishonest logic.
So put up or shut up
So if you continue to want to be that dishonest, go right ahead, but most people are going to see your dishonesty pretty clearly.
I thought the other guy was dishonest in his refusal admit he was wrong on the rules. You are no better in your dishonesty.
Come on man, your points are not without merit (certainly worthy of a discussion), but no-one is going to want to interact with you if you act like this. We're all here because we love Necromunda and are stoked it's being turned into a video game - let's keep it friendly like the gaming clubs of old!
I would think this is a safe bet. Necromunda gangs have unique styles, but I've not seen anything that indicates an unique color scheme. They'll be customizable, the question is how extensively. I'm hoping for even moreso than Mordheim.
It has to be better than Mordheim's, because while I liked Mordheim a lot and it's near the top of my "most played" on Steam, its customization was lackluster, at best. I mean it was there, but barely. Color selection was adequate - just - but that was it. For a game with roots in a miniatures game, where customizing your guys was half the fun, that was disappointing.
Eh, too many games these days are trying to become an e-sport, and it limits too many of their mechanics because they wouldn't work well for the e-sport arena. Ah, this is just me grumbling because I don't care much for multiplayer (unless it's co-op), yet I see games I'm interested in bend over backwards (or even break their back) trying to cater to multiplayers.
If they add in the Outlaw system then they'd be cool as an NPC enemy, basically a tough gang come to take you in dead or alive. As a player gang, I don't really see how well it works. They're not supposed to operate like a gang, working and holding territory, worrying about prestige, etc. I'm not really against them being player controlled, but I don't think that's really preferable.
Yes, thanks for putting it into words - this is exactly my "problem" as it were with enforcer gangs. Then again I never liked the Spyrers much, for much the same reason.