@Fiogan, I totally agree that the the whole Detective (stealth/smarts), Brawler (tough/strong), Sharpshooter (fast/ranged) breakdown would lend itself to more clearly defined MC roles. When I asked beta testers almost a year ago, they were almost evenly split (right down the middle) on that breakdown versus the 4-archetype breakdown I had already implemented. There doesn’t seem to be a huge consensus any way I go, which is reassuring and frustrating at the same time.
Butttttt…my biggest fear at this point is alienating the people who bought Part 1. I think I’m more likely to alienate them by “messing with” their MCs versus not making any mechanics changes. Part of me says the safer path is to just make the current setup work, skip spending 1 or 2 months totally changing all the Part 1 mechanics, and spend those 1-2 months making things more balanced in Part 2. The “catch everyone up” idea I tossed around a few posts ago would pretty much level the playing field for readers anyway.
And Fiogan, I’m more interested in the storyline/immersion aspect of CoGs/HGs - are you the same? I can overlook some “sub-optimal coding” as long as I love the story/characters and I have SOME ability to change what happens along the way.
I am definitely more interested in the storyline or immersion aspects of nearly every CoG/HG I’ve played, rather than the ‘gaming’ aspects. In fact, that’s rather why I liked the idea of three archetypes with no overlap. I felt like I could have made characters I was happier with if their roles had been more clearly defined.
On the other hand, more game-like titles (@Lucid’s Life of a Wizard likely being the classic example?) or game-like mechanisms, such as the Legend Score system in the Heroes Rise or even @AllenGies’s Legend Points in Tin Star, seem to be really popular as well. I suppose a hero-genre story naturally lends itself to gaming, too, with hero levels and points and battling.
But yes, a good story, characters, writing, and replayability outweigh clever coding and stats, to my mind, if only by sheer force of numbers (pun absolutely intended).
And writing-wise, I would think it’d make sense to just focus on making Part 2 better balanced now that 1 is already published. That way, instead of Part 1 fans potentially grumpy about changing their MCs, Part 2 fans can be wowed by all the balance improvements you’ve made in the second part. And new fans won’t be as likely to notice any imbalances in Part 1 if it ‘feels like’ things balance out after all in Part 2. At least, that’s my theory.
I definitely agree with @jcury’s opinion about more chances to use our equipment.
I wrote about four paragraphs regarding archetype specialization and decided that they weren’t useful, because another idea came to mind based on that comment about gear-use. What about, instead of writing as if you’re specializing for archetype, you wrote as if you were specializing for equipment? That way, since archetypes are only allowed to choose gear which is appropriate to their respective types, every gear-related choices feels like an archetype choice. And it is, to some degree. Does that make sense at all?
Yes that makes perfect sense IF there are no gear overlaps. But for me to eliminate gear overlaps, I’d have to rework the Archetypes. And if I rework the archetypes and do things like eliminate Soldier, convert Acrobat to Brawler, etc., then I’ll be “messing” with some readers’ characters from Part 1, and that’s my fear.
Replacing stat based equipment with class based equipment, if you can figure out how to do it without completely upending everything you’ve already done, would probably be better than mucking about with the stats. So maybe the detective gets information gathering equipment and concealable weapons while the acrobat gets larger polearms that can be used as weapons or for acrobatty type techniques like polevaulting, but they’d both still have elevated pows.
The problem with changing the stats is that there’s a fine line between making an archetype unique and making it hyperspecialized. The detective is my favorite archetype, but I don’t think I’d use it if the character had literally no useful combat ability. Punching/shooting things is just too big a part of the setting. On the other end of the spectrum, a brawler who can literally only punch things effectively is a little dull. Giving everyone some way to contribute in a fight and some sort of utility ability (even if it’s just the acrobat’s maneuverability) is to my mind a necessity.
I’m somewhat in favor of fairmath for relationship stats. It would help mitigate the weirdness of how widely varying some of the relationship potential can be. It’s possible to get a crazy high relationship stat with DG, for instance and then, for balance purposes presumably, you end up needing to get a crazy high relationship with her to win her vote at the end. The practical result is that I end up having to spend a lot of choices buttering her up while just saying a couple nice things to Combat Wombat nets the same effect. And then I wind up in a situation where my relatiobship stat is literally four times as high with her as it is with some other character, but the storyline doesn’t reflect the idea that I’m especially closer to her than anyone else if we’re not dating, which is a little dissonent. Fairmath could mitigate both issues.
I’m not really concerned one way or the other with the ability stats, because my general feeling is that ability stats matter a lot less than equipment or general archetype in the first place. A detective is good at what she’s good at and if that’s reflects as 6 Hmm or 75% Hmm it’s mostly a cosmetic difference. Some people are instinctively opposed to fairmath anything, and I understand the impulse, but I think the game will play more or less the same either way. Whether you log that as a reason to convert (because the bars are prettier) or not to convert (because it’s extra work) is just a question of priorities. I doubt changing it will meaninfully alienate anyone.
Final note whatever changes you make: If you do decide to alter the mechanics significantly, you may want to ask CoG to disable the save feature until you’ve finalized everything. Otherwise people are going to wind up with a lot of saved characters that are fundamentally incompatible with the sequel.
By the by, congratulations on getting this done. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to play the final chapters and I think it turned put great.
Lastly, I think I found a bug. Completing the second round of secrets study group says it raises your Shh, but it doesn’t look like the numeric stat actually went up on my stats page.
First of all, I love this game, tested it, loved it then. Played it today, love it still. I am hooked , this may be my favourite COG tied with Life of a wizard.
Regarding the sequel, I agree the stats should be looked at, but I am torn in how to deal with them, I wanna play as some batman-type of guy, but that means I have to be good in everything, so I try to balance out my stats but I end up just flunking all the tests😂 So I just keep boosting the same three stats. For the next game I had an idea:
Maybe we could find some of our dads old tech, and in some way it could up our stats depending on our class(and our choice), so if you are a detective, you could get a thud buff. And throughout the game you could choose to possibly look for more of your dads tech or make your own (with hmm helping?). But the more you do it , it would decrease your relationships with the other students.
Just an idea I had (feel free to say its terrible)
Minor thing, at the start of the test…
“(Remember, you may review the information you have learned in this class by accessing the Stats Page and clicking on “What You’ve Learned.”)”
That is false. To review it you access the Stats Page and click on Academics.
Make it a gift by whichever professor liked us most at the end. I can totally see Hedonist ‘spoiling’ his pet student, while DownFall would logically want you to use the best equipment possible. McComick is harder to pin down, while Nil can just be brushed off because we never do know what the hell he is doing.
@HornHeadFan If you’re worried about upsetting people by changing the archetypes, maybe you can word it as more of a specializing? Assuming there’s a time skip or something, you can say that the four classes from before received some more basic training and were able to expand on some of their weaker points, so now you had three “specialized” classes, when really those classes are just combos of the prior four. Does that make any sense? I don’t know how well I explained it…
@jcury I was talking about early versiion of the game, long time ago on the forum… Not the newest version (like i did said in my comments ) I haven’t played the final version of the game fully yet, but from what i’m hearing from many people here, his behaviour now is a lot less predatory, which i was trying to confirm.
For now i just started and haven’t gotten very far into the game. But why we don’t have option to refuse going volountering with Origami? I would probably want to go with her to the hospital anyway, but after having options how to respond to so many things in many diffrent ways to this point, suddenly having no control over MC felt bit anticlimatic.
I like the artwork very much. Is there a gallery of sorts where we can see all the illustrations?
I am ambivalent about Fairmath, like many others its more the story and fun of interactive fiction that draws me in. That said, I do not think its a pleasant experience to find your choices constrained by class stats overmuch. I did find that some stats or builds felt a little underwhelming in part one and part of it stems from having to balance so many different stats and archetypes.
I do support the idea that three is a good number of archetypes fitting the three different fighting styles. Brawlers use their strength and toughness, as well as a good dose of actual fighting skill, to even the playing field. One of the core themes of the game series is the MC growing from a student to an actual hero. Well if they’ve been wanting this all this time, perhaps they’ve invested time into self-defense classes. Sure they’re no Wildcat or Shang Chi (yet) but they do have some training above and beyond their peers.
The quick shooter archetype relies on reflexes, coordination and a good aim. When fighting people a lot tougher than yourself, one would want to keep a distance. All sorts of clubs can provide you with a human level of competency; archery, rifle ranges, even a slingshot at milk bottles at home.
The detective class might be competent at using their fists or ranged weapons but they shine in improvised combat. The Golden Age detectives always did manage to find an edge either by using something from their environment or having some handy piece of gear that helped tip the odds like a canister of mace or a stun gun. They’re the “brainy” class and this can always be reflected in the manner they approach combat.
I agree with RedRoses. If you do want to condense the four current classes into three, one suggestion I can put forward is that the MC is taken under the wing of a mentor for “advanced training” that pushes their abilities way past their current capabilities. Until now they’ve been training on their own on weekends or holidays through what’s commonly available and, perhaps more importantly, affordable. An actual expert’s instruction will make them far more capable but the problem is that there are only three mentors and they fit into the new archetypes. Think of it not as invalidating part 1’s classes due to retcon but rather due to the MC outgrowing their self-taught skills. Perhaps a scene can be written in as the MC regards their initial gear with fondness and a hint of nostalgia.
I can understand wanted to try and keep everything in check with the number of archetypes, but I do think it would be a shame for my detective to lose his “mean right hook” as I think of it. While I really enjoy the archetype now, I’m not sure how long it would be viable if I’m not able to help in the fighting at all down the line. Being a detective already severely gimps you in an defensive aspects, this coming from someone who is usually in the defense study group to try and get any increase, so I’m not sure the class could survive losing it’s offensive capability too.
Personaly I dont think you should remove soldier. I really enjoyed the story with mine and I balanced my character well with high hmmm, thud and zap so its well balanced but I still miss stuff sometimes and its normal. A flawless walktrough with no error is boring. I like to feel like I’m struggling, I am the only non powered around after all. I think you should go with the automatic equipment upgrade at a later point. After all I doubt a level 1 character would ever be usefull the farther we go in the story. As for fairmath I hate the system but whatever happen wont keep me away from the game.
I had to make an account here just to thank you for making CCH. I absolutely LOVED it.
The world-building was so well done that it was so easy to immerse myself in the story. On top of that, even though you went for the standard archetypal characters they never felt like the cardboard cutouts most other games default to. props there.
The only minor criticism i can think off was how the gear the MC had managed to earn during the first exams weren’t used during the finals vs Downfall especially after she threatened to break Tress’s arm
) I haven’t played the final version of the game fully yet, but from what i’m hearing from many people here, his behaviour now is a lot less predatory, which i was trying to confirm.