Same as other divisive changes in the past, really.Ĭlick to expand.Actually I will point out that much of the people who voice feedback about 3.8 are the ones most upset. Many of the gripes about the leadership cap will have been anticipated by the development team, and they know full well that a lot of the current complaints about the cap are more based on "I can't do what I used to do/want to do" than "this is bad design", and others, such as the, "who will ever hire a general again? (not that we did so before, but we definitely won't now!)" have immediate answers (individual class pools) that are not palatable.Įither way, it is a safe bet that the development team is well aware that most of the people who find it utterly impossible to live with the leader cap will either mod it away and revel in the power and micromanagement of lots of powerful leaders to individually level up. The devil may be in the details, but it is a sensible design change given the focus on individually more powerful leaders that require more level up micromanagement. The latter is unsurprising, since the Eagerness trait added in 3.8.3 is a quick-and-dirty bandaid, that promotes counter-intuitive gameplay.īut don't expect the fundamental design for leaders with a fairly low soft cap increased over time by techs and the occasional one-off from other sources, that the player can exceed for a penalty, to change. They have acknowledged the need for further balancing and tweaking of the leadership cap or dealing with exceeding it. Click to expand.Based on the forum, Steam, and Reddit posts they know that a few vocal people are very, very, unhappy about it, that more are at least somewhat unhappy, and that many posters that are overall happy with the DLC think the DLC needs more polishing and balancing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |