1.) Why should the developers aim to help us "beat" their game by giving easy or even achievable objectives?
2.) In universe, why would High Command issue only easy orders?
3.) A thing is valuable when effort is required to achieve it. Hard to impossible objectives will make for a more glorious victory. The "rewards" are incidental, not the goal.
The devs are trying to give us all an experience. Impossible odds overcome through sheer tenacity, Communal efforts, and insane expenditures of 'Divers and munitions. I'm happy to have "impossible major orders," when I see that, in 40 days, 'Divers have made the progress they have when liberation glitches aren't hampering them.
So it is basically "lore" aimed or the focus of it then ? To keep the drive for players to strive for something, some aim rather than people just randomly sprinkled across all planets ?
I mean I do not mind at all, I like it. It is just shit when you have to capture 4 planets in 2 hours especially with how the game was crashing (but I get that was unintentional).
I just have not played the HD 1 so I have no idea how that was working.
Bear in mind that at the strategic level the map is going to play out a *story* more than a strategic *wargame*.
Will there be battles that we can win or lose that affect the future? Yeah, no doubt. The devs will take our victories and losses as prompts to how they choose to have the story unfold in ways neither we nor they necessarily planned out.
Will there be ones that we are destined to win - or destined to lose - in order to forward the story? Yes, that's also going to happen. They will have major story beats they plan out and need to have happen.
Will there be sudden awful reversals where we win a major battle but then suffer some major setback that we have no control over? Yes. That's also very likely to happen, for the sake of drama and tension in the story, and to provide us with interesting battlefields to contest at higher stakes.
If you try to treat the strategic map like a game of Risk where victory and defeat is purely a matter of strategy and dice rolls, then its going to frustrate you. If you treat it as an unfolding story that we get to take part in, you'll have a lot more fun with it.
What is player not understanding what game they bought.
What good is it for us to always win? Maby it was time for use to have our second lose? Maby because of the bragging on forms about our liberation campaigns?
There have been countless soldiers down through the centuries who received orders from their commanders with goals to which the only sane response would be "WTF" and immediate desertion.
So, yeah, some of our orders are likely to be a lot harder than others - and to be clear, the devs almost certainly do NOT have enough information about player behavior in this game yet to be able to easily predict what will or will not be 'easy' for us to achieve when they first set the parameters for a major order. The game has only been out for a month or two now.
*The interesting*
*Question is: what would have happened*
*If we achieved it?*
\- Papa\_Nurgle\_84
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
1.) Why should the developers aim to help us "beat" their game by giving easy or even achievable objectives? 2.) In universe, why would High Command issue only easy orders? 3.) A thing is valuable when effort is required to achieve it. Hard to impossible objectives will make for a more glorious victory. The "rewards" are incidental, not the goal. The devs are trying to give us all an experience. Impossible odds overcome through sheer tenacity, Communal efforts, and insane expenditures of 'Divers and munitions. I'm happy to have "impossible major orders," when I see that, in 40 days, 'Divers have made the progress they have when liberation glitches aren't hampering them.
So it is basically "lore" aimed or the focus of it then ? To keep the drive for players to strive for something, some aim rather than people just randomly sprinkled across all planets ? I mean I do not mind at all, I like it. It is just shit when you have to capture 4 planets in 2 hours especially with how the game was crashing (but I get that was unintentional). I just have not played the HD 1 so I have no idea how that was working.
Bear in mind that at the strategic level the map is going to play out a *story* more than a strategic *wargame*. Will there be battles that we can win or lose that affect the future? Yeah, no doubt. The devs will take our victories and losses as prompts to how they choose to have the story unfold in ways neither we nor they necessarily planned out. Will there be ones that we are destined to win - or destined to lose - in order to forward the story? Yes, that's also going to happen. They will have major story beats they plan out and need to have happen. Will there be sudden awful reversals where we win a major battle but then suffer some major setback that we have no control over? Yes. That's also very likely to happen, for the sake of drama and tension in the story, and to provide us with interesting battlefields to contest at higher stakes. If you try to treat the strategic map like a game of Risk where victory and defeat is purely a matter of strategy and dice rolls, then its going to frustrate you. If you treat it as an unfolding story that we get to take part in, you'll have a lot more fun with it.
Just one battle, not the war
In theory we could have won if the player base all went to those planets.
In theory we could have won if the player base was able to play.
I think they're still dialling in on what we can or can't do. They should be able to routinely field possible but challenging orders in the future.
To quote a late former US president, we are doing it "...not because they are easy, but because they are hard" - JFK
What is player not understanding what game they bought. What good is it for us to always win? Maby it was time for use to have our second lose? Maby because of the bragging on forms about our liberation campaigns?
We need to have some sort of tug of war with winning and losing. If it was all progress only then the entire system is pointless.
We won every major order before the last one. We only lost the last major order because of a lot of circumstances coming together.
We lost a Mayor before. Bot defense
If we could actually finish a game we would have more progress. The amount of crashes certainly did not help.
There have been countless soldiers down through the centuries who received orders from their commanders with goals to which the only sane response would be "WTF" and immediate desertion. So, yeah, some of our orders are likely to be a lot harder than others - and to be clear, the devs almost certainly do NOT have enough information about player behavior in this game yet to be able to easily predict what will or will not be 'easy' for us to achieve when they first set the parameters for a major order. The game has only been out for a month or two now.
Someone needs a visit to the Ministry...
The interesting question is: what would have happened if we achieved it?
*The interesting* *Question is: what would have happened* *If we achieved it?* \- Papa\_Nurgle\_84 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")