The Reasons for Decline in Difficulty

Combat system
#1

As the game progresses, it makes sense that your character would get a LOT better, but one shotting most enemies? Two shotting knights? This seems OP, and as the challenge is removed from combat, some of the fun of the game is removed as well.

But is the problem here with levelling? Is the system imbalanced? No, I dont think so.

As far as I can see there are 2 root causes for the imbalance in late game difficulty, and, ironically, these causes are the 2 most unrealistic things in the game.

  1. Although weapon craftsmanship, quality and variety should factor in, it makes no sense that one undamaged longsword is, in ANY way, 3× more powerful than another undamaged longsword. If all of the weapons were nerfed, one and two shotting would be impossible. This change would also affect the PC far more than the NPCs because, as far as Im aware, they never use Herod’s sword, the Madgeburg sword, or St. Georges sword.

  2. Cash flow. If I have only a little cash, I cant repair equipment as readily, so Im more careful in combat. This means sometimes you may be fighting with quite damaged equipment, much like a lot of enemies. It also means players are more likely to use a variety of weapon types to take advantage of certain armours. This means that the PC will have invested less time into, say, sword training, and more into mace, or axe, or bow. This would obviously reflect upon difficulty, especially late game, where instead of a sword skill of 16 and a mace skill of 3, I might have a sword skill of 10 and a mace skill of 8. Less cash also means not affording all of the best stuff, and because of the difficulty affording repairs, the best armours may even be ignored due to their more expensive repair. Finally, with the increased difficulty, as well as the increased threat of combat, players would be more inclined to avoid conflict altogether, whether it be through talking your way through issues more, or being more stealthy, more of the time. This would also decrease your characters weapon skills.

This is an issue that exists in all RPGs, but its oh so easy to fix.

This has nothing to do with carry weight, though I think this can be improved a little too high, and more to do with bulk. If every item has a bulk value, and your character has a bulk capacity (which obviously wouldnt count armor worn and weapons equipped), then I could no longer carry 15 swords and 8 pieces of armour to sell and earn triple that of the cost of my upkeep. If a bulk system were implemented so that if I were already carrying half a dozen potions, maybe a book, an extra mace and shield, and some food, I might then only have space to carry 2 or 3 extra swords, and maybe one piece of armor. Your income would drop drastically. This would encourage you to make more use of the alchemy system, dice games etc, for the purpose of additional income, while simultaneously pushing all of the points raised above.

What do you guys think?

10 Likes
#2

I am with you as far as the weapons are concerned but not with the cash flow or the idea of avoiding conflict, let me elaborate what I mean:

  • In my mind the best long sword should not be exceedingly better than the worst one, providing that they are both in good condition, and i wouldn’t complain if that would be reflected in the game.

  • As far as cash is concerned, i do not believe that slowing your profits and therefore the ability to improve your equipment would make significant difference other than prolong the time that it would take to reach the same point in the game.

  • Combat. Personally it is my main interest in the game. I saw the gameplay footage of it and that is what got me to buy the game. If there would be a greater choice of combat oriented mission i would not complain, it is an area that I always thought was lacking in other RPGs that I liked (ex.Elder Scroll) and I like the relatively novel approach to it that KCD takes.

I suppose the main problem is that with games with such freedom to do what we like, it is unavoidable that by making good use of the skills/experience mechanics we end up with characters that become overpowered. In the case of KCD, with its combat system which is based on actual player skill, the situation can become even more so. In my humble opinion the best way to tackle the decline in difficulty would be the obvious, and probably fair with regards to NPCs hostiles, increase of enemies skills to scale proportionally with the player.

Bearing in mind that I am not a great player, I still come across fights that are hard to survive but at the same time, too many fights are ridiculously easy, where the enemies die far too easily, if they do not run off, or they just seem to be suffering of sudden bowel problems when they just squat down as if they are taking a crap.
It is feasible that not all enemies will be offering the same challenge but I think that as the player gets better, the weakest enemy should still be far more dangerous to the player than they are now, while still not being as dangerous as the elite ones.
The problem is that finding the right balance is probably impossible, as there is no such thing since players skill varies too much from one person to another one and in this game player skill certainly comes into play when there is fighting to be done.
Just a few thoughts on the topic.

#3

I found that the combat ends up being somewhat reflective of how you are doing in the world.

I was having a great deal of difficulty with the combat, but after I got enough coin to repair my chestplate (With a bit of speech haggaling that got me there), I found I could take a few more hits and It gave the little push I needed to actually survive (barely) combat.

Then I got as much gear as I could from bandits and incrementally replaced my own. I sold off the bits I got from bandits and used that to buy an actually decent sword. This was helped by talking to a lot of people, eventually getting some nicer looking gear, becoming more noble looking, and got the free baths perk! (excellent with haggling).

With a focus on cash, and acquiring it I managed to bolster my fairly crap character with some in-world advantages. Suddenly, I had an excellent set of gear and eventually the power to use it like a boss!

I’m still waiting for the radzig lookout bug to be fixed, but I can’t wait to see the rest of the game and how it ramps up!

#4

The things is, in a game, the player inevitable rises from zero to hero, and unless the world unrealistically changes likewise around him, he’ll work his way to the top of the food chain.

What is likely making the game most easy, is the weight and bulk the character can carry, i.e. the amount of loot he can bring home for cashing in, and the amount of meat he can source from poaching.

I have a gamer friend, who’s adamant that swords are best worn at the back and that wearing several swords is easy peasy.

I also own several repruduction swords.

After a quick test that friend changed his views somewhat, on just how easy it is to be armed with several swords and having any on the back.

Inventory is a most game breaking thing if you otherwise aim for realism.

1 Like
#5

I think if they would just stuck with the realism of the armour in itself and evened out most of the damage of the weapons, unless they’re heavier (blunt damage) then this problem would be most likely be solved. If someone is in armour plate, then a sword would NOT BE USEFUL whatsoever unless you hit him in his exposed areas. Or did combos. Or sure do the famous murder stroke or beat them to death with the pommel, but the axe or mace or even polearm would be much easier than the sword.If they’re in a gambeson then a sword should be most usefull with stabbing.

Really though, the madgeburg sword being 57 while the others are 30 is kinda ridiculous. One hitting people in plate armour
 no
 I want my realism.
Also a big problem I believe is the strength stat. The higher the strength, the higher the damage. Yea, its true IRL, but no one is hercules. I can understand that maybe, a big mace to the head with helmet could knock them out, or a well placed halberd strike would most likely kill them.

If you just focus on one part of combat like swords, then by the end of the skill leveling maces and axes are useless because it has the armour damage a mace should have and a force damage the axe should have.

I know towards the end of development devs said they were balancing things. I think that used too the game was hard as FAK and they were probably thinking “lets make it more forgiving” and now this is what we get. I feel like the beta had a different feeling difficulty wise than what we have not.

Still a good game though. I just wish they would’ve stuck with more realism. I don’t mind an unforgiving environment.

1 Like
#6

Thing is, you can still oneshot a fully armoured man with a Sword, if you’re good
or lucky.

Just imagine somehow a realistically implemented 1604 Matchlock Musket was to appear in some chest of the game.

You could likely one-shot every boss of the game even as a lowlife level 0 numbskull with a bit of luck :wink:

#7

I also find it odd that I can still move when I am carrying several times my maximum capacity.
The threshold for encumbrance should be much lower, I shouldn’t be able to move if I am overencumbered.

It is also a little odd that the traders just buy every piece of junk I throw to them and that their wealth increases as much as it does with every item I sell them when I come back the other day.
For example should an armor smith in Rattay not buy anything Cuman. Who should he sell this to, nobody would buy it because nobody would want to look like the enemy. The only thing that would make sense to me is if I can sell “foreign” gear to a blacksmith for smelting at a much reduced price.

Regarding the combat:
I also think that it needs to be balanced out. Most encounters I have if I am attacked on the road are way too easy. I still struggle a lot with multiple opponents despite very high skill-levels but that is ok because it should be that way. Of course that is because I mostly have still no idea what I am doing and there are a lot of people who are wiping entire camps out what also should not be possible.

#8

The devs have acknowledged this.

Fortunately for PC there is a mod that corrects this and keeps the game challenging throughout, it’s called Immersive Balance. Unfortunately though
 If you’re not on PC, you are stuck with Henry eventually becoming god.

#9

ITT: people who know nothing about swords. No, all swords are NOT equal, even in good condition. One sword’s balance will be off if you sharpen it’s edges too much where another sword is in perfect balance with finely sharper edges as opposed to a sharpened tip.

#10

My equipment is getting better, but me - not so much. I know I’m supposed to practise for hours on end with Captain Angry Louis CK at Rattay, but I can’t manage more than a couple of sessions at a time before I get frustrated or bored, or my armour (or me) gets too damaged.

I am using longsword-only and just cannot swing it quick enough to land a hit, every single enemy I’ve killed I’ve done so by stabbing. I saw a video that advised starting with the mace & shield so I’ve tried this and find it even harder.

Practising with Angry Louis does work as I can feel myself improving slightly, just very, very slowly. I cannot progress much further in the story as I’m guessing I won’t just be able to jab at Runt 5 times and be done with him. I can’t do the first bandit camp near Rattay because there are 6 of them, and two are always awake so I can’t poison their goulash either.

So it is getting easier for me but only through perks and equipment, I’m only getting more skilled very, very slowly.

#11

Yes there should be swords who are better at piercing due to a more tapered edge and others at slashing BUT (and I already pointed this out) the differences between swords of the same type should not be massive as they are now. Some minor differences especially in durability and a big difference in charisma. After all, Herod’s sword would be more about the status of having such a finely crafted sword than the practical difference between it and the meechant sword.

Since we are discussing this, piercing swords should be marginally better against opponents in heavy armour whereas slashing swords should make minced mint out of poorly armoured opponents. Both would ideally need combos to defeat enemies in heavy armour.

#12

I have no issue with weapons scaling in quality, just not to the proportions seen in the game.

Coming from a background of tabletop roleplaying, and creating and bastardizing gameplay systems to equal those more complex than yet seen in video games, the best way to slow progress is to limit bulk. This affects, primarily, cash flow. Sure it will only slow down character improvement, but this adds considerably to the longevity of the game.

As far as balancing goes, i would make master strokes accessible only if your weapon is positioned correctly in relation to your opponents, add in more combos that target the typically weaker parts of enemy armour (shoulder, inner arm, throat etc), and add in a chance based critical hit system, allowing less powerful characters the small chance to get very lucky and take down a much more skilled opponent. This would demand combat require more skill, but also give the NPCs more of a chance, particularly late game.

In my gaming group, everyone feels very satisfied with how quickly their characters seem to be developing, yet they are in no way super powered, and enemies with an ounce of skill still pose a very real threat to them, albeit a smaller one. The game log states that they have played 2,344 hours playing their campaign so far, over a course of 6 years. Being as the premise is the same, theres no reason that a video game couldnt have the same longevity in relation to its play time as my tabletop campaign.

2 Likes
#13

Even in the beta, the default player longsword was far too powerful vs armour.

My current experimentation seems to be making some positive effect, but I can’t tell until I try out some of the later bandit camps/groups and maybe Ulrich or so
 and then restart with the early game to check relative balance.

I have tried to eliminate “stamina as armour” and ‘swords can defeat full armour’ as mechanisms, but there are things I don’t yet understand about how damage, DamR and health interact under all circumstances, and I think that maces are somewhat too effective in general still. My first change was to reduce the ‘spread’ of weapon damage, so weak weapons are less bad, and ‘high quality’ ones less over-powered. Need to do something similar for some of the unrealistically poor armour types (such as common bascinet).

A future experiment would be to change armour protection less some % from damage, to flat armour protection applied at some % of coverage, reduced by damage. I’d need a lot more data and info on how the system all ties together, and how to add in novel systems without poor performance from them.

#14

Honestly, I’m surprised me and my horse have separate inventory. Like if my horse can carry 200 and I can carry 100(just to reach capacity, not to become immobile) then if I’m full and I get on my horse who is storing more than 100 then the horse shouldn’t move. Add to that that you can fill your horse, fill your capacity and then continue to overload yourself, because you are not yet immobile, it’s just crazy. I like how you are all of a sudden immobile(I hate games where if I put one more lock pic on me all of a sudden my guy can’t move, so unrealistic). But I think tweaks could be made, definitely you and your horses inventory should add together once you get on and that should determine speed and fast travel and such
Idk about making these changes standard, enough people already complain it’s too hard, but I would definitely like a mod for that change

1 Like
#15

The horse can carry more, only the saddle-bags can’t.
Horses could pull a cart with ten times the amount of stuff, but you don’t have a cart, so you need to fit it elsewhere.

But then I’d love to see games use the volume of objects too. You could easily carry five armour sets in weight, but you can’t fit those in your pockets.

2 Likes
#16

Diablo used volume
 :slight_smile:

@Diego0911 I agree with pretty much everything you are saying (see my previous post on the bigger differences) but we need to be careful when comparing to the analogue experience. It is easy (well not easy) to add more to a D&D campaign as you just have to think on the adventure, pick a couple of locations and seed some enemies and some loot and then play it through. Video games are closed environments where the amount of work required to add more content and freshen up a game (and I did some adventures on Neverwinter Nights 2 to play with my D&D buddies) is a lot harder and more time consuming. I spent over 1k hours on Skyrim and I hope I get that experience here (150 hours so far) but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. I agree character progression is too fast especially if you know what you are doing (I was wearing full plate armour before my hunt with Capon) and that needs to be toned down through the in game economy and the carrying system. I proposed in a post somewhere that armour fitting should be added where not all armour you pick up will fit you and you Either have to pay for it to be fitted to you or it would be actually impossible together with a system where you could only sell the majority of your loot to blacksmiths for the metal at a much lower price.

But, that alone is not enough. Tweaking the way stats influence combat is also necessary (naked Henry can still kill top tier enemies in one or two blows in the late game).

To further exacerbate these imbalances, the game willingly throws high level gear your way like candy. From the faint knight giving you one of the best long swords in the game for free (he doesn’t pose a threat at all) to the other wayfarer knight giving you one of the best pieces of armour in the game (Milanese brigandine) over and over again which makes you OP if you catch him early enough and also is giving you free money.

I think your bulk system idea coupled with armour fitting and economy changes would give this game a much expanded shelf life. I want to be 50 hours in a game and just managing to acquire and maintain a chain hauberk instead of collecting plate armour sets and weapons
 Even though we can’t exhibit them so we can look at them
 It is such a waste. I want to be able to have a bloody weapon rack and armour stand in certain places (like the house we get in Talmberg) so I can sit down and look at the beautiful arms and armour that are available in game and choose what to wear.

1 Like
#17

I like your proposed changes here, especially to combat. I think that making the best defensive moves only related to one button and timing results in a gross oversimplification of the combat system late-game. I would both make it so that you have to match the vector of an enemy attack in order to perfect block or parry, and put an increased emphasis on feints/changing attack direction to get through enemy blocks and reduce the chance of the enemy getting perfect blocks/parries. Attacking should be just as viable as defending or else combat will bog down to a waiting-game.

I also think that the economy/carrying systems should be changed so that the player can’t make so much money so quickly. I can literally shoot a single deer and make enough money to buy amazing weapons and armor. Within an hour or two of poaching I can afford every high-end item in the game without any difficuty. I think it should be far more difficult to sell the stuf that you get for anywhere near its fair value(especially if you are just selling 15 of the same item over and over again), and it should be far more difficult to carry things around.

I’ve heard an idea pitched before that selling multiple copies of the same/similar item will reduce the price of subsequent items for a short time. That way, if you’re selling 15 cuman cuirasses, the price will eventually decrease to nearly zero because the armorer doesn’t really have the ability to quickly sell that many of the same thing. This would allow you to still sell a single piece of milanese plate for a decent sum, but not allow you to roll into town with dozens of pieces of bloodied and damaged gear and make a fortune.

1 Like
#18

I’m talking pebbles, who has no bags. Bag space is different than horse capacity, since they added horse capacity without bags we’ll just have to go with. Without bags, say horse can carry 100lbs; once I get on my weight should be added to its capacity, seeing as how it’s now carrying me

#19

I may have been on the wrong thread here and though you answered another one lol

#20

Nope, it’s the right thread.
And even without saddlebags you can still hang things on the saddle or the reins, there’s always a spot to put stuff, but like I said, it’s more a question of volume than of mass.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz