I saw a beastman, my dudes!
I ran Festering Groundss and saw nothing, but then we ran Hunger in the Dark and I finally saw a bestigor! First thing we faced!
It was almost painful when that was the only beastman in that zone, surrounded by chaos, lol. But afterwards we did run into 2 proper beastman zones with hordes and such.
Not a single Wargor, now that I think about it, though… But we didn’t finish the run, so I’m not too worried about that.
Chaos patrol got us cornered and rip.
Either way, it seems that out of 8 maps, 1 of them had beastmen.
That’s exactly the issue, couldn’t have said it better.
I think that’s nothing wrong with the predetermined population of factiones. We have a couple of maps like this (Skittergate, Into the Nest and Dark Omens) besides new one. No one complained about this so far. Spawn of specials is still random.
I believe that locking beastmen at wilderness is the way to go.
I think hardlocking them to wilderness wouldn’t be ideal. A heavy RNG weight for them to spawn in wilderness/wide open areas, plus a heavy RNG weight for them to not spawn in closed-in, tight spaces would be better.
Even so, I still firmly believe the solution to the issues is to go with a hard minimum of “at least 1 zone in each map must be populated by each of the factions allowed in said map”.
Maybe couple that with something along the lines of “At most, only 2 continuous zones can be populated by the same faction.”, to prevent maps being almost entirely 1 faction through pure RNG, save for the maps where it’s scripted to be only 1 faction (Into the nest, Dark omens, alternating parts of Skittergate)
That’s just weird for me to see them at city maps. And I agree that they should be locked at certain locations. The ideal example is Old haunts.
I just played a couple of maps. One of them was Festering ground w/o beastmen at all - that’s just wrong.
Maps like Athel Yenlui, Festering ground, Engines of war and even Against the grain should be infested with them. I mean there is plenty of maps witch can contain all three factions. Still waiting for those Reik maps that’s just perfect for them.
I agree with your sentiments. If there is a more natural environment in a map, having a higher possibility of densely populated beastmen would make sense. Beastmen spawns could then extend a bit further before and after that environment and after that coming across Beastmen would be a small chance and you’d probably just had a small group of them density wise.
Like with Empire in Flames I could only see them showing up before going into the ruined city and leaving the city with their spawns extending just a bit into the city. Perhaps you’d have a small chance of coming across a small band of Beastmen deeper in the city itself but beyond that Skaven/Norscan would be more dominant. I would actually advocate more for Beastmen if they had a complete faction but since they are just a meh “horde based” faction their lack of dominance in a map is completely fine.
Perhaps if the developers added a bit more fauna to maps or signs of beastmen (a subtle way to advertise Winds of Magic) then having them show up a bit more in certain maps would make more sense.
It’s a shame Dark Omens is the only Beastmen related map we’ve got. Kinda wish they added 2 other maps with one being a precursor to Dark Omens with Beastmen showing up halfway through the map and the third map would be a weaves map with Olyshea trying to get back the 5 after the Herdstone explosion. So that would be like a mishmash of previous maps jointed together with perhaps different winds present and chaos would be a lot more prevalent.
i think calling this extreme RNG when we don’t know the actual intended numbers is a bit of a leap. if beastmen are meant to show up say, 15% of the time, not getting any in 7 maps is absolutely fine. As far as I know the only info we have is that they’re meant to be less common, which means that for all we know 1/8 is actually a higher than expected amount.
Saying we need no more data to say whether this is bad RNG or a poorly implemented system without RNG protections or if it’s actually working completely as intended is just silly.
For what it’s worth I’m a fan of rarer beastmen spawns, they’re not as fun to fight as other factions. Just generally less fleshed out and a weird in between of ripping through skaven hordes and larger amounts of elites and needing to deal with stronger single targets like CW.
Something like this would seem like the best solution. A specific ratio of different enemies is after all pretty much what the latest tweaks are trying to achieve. I’d make it a tiny bit less rigorous than what Kaelus is suggesting though. I don’t mind seeing only one enemy faction in a map once in a while, for example, because that can also be a nice change of pace, but it is lame if that happens all the time.
Maybe a system where the chance of a certain faction appearing is influenced heavily by what has already been encountered, but not guaranteed? Like, if you just encountered Skaven, the chance of Skaven being in the next bit are heavily reduced but not zero, for example 10% instead of 33.3%. That way, in most runs you’ll encounter a balanced mix, while there would still be rare runs where you encounter just one faction. Best of both worlds, really.
I want a system like that, like whenever I mentioned hard-caps on factions in a row, my first instinct is to write about increasingly low chances instead. But I feel hesitant to truly suggest it because, well, we’re precisely on the thread about how RNG can get pretty ridiculous.
I too think that having a bunch of the same faction in a row every once in a while can also be cool, though.
…With that said, I still 100% stand by the hard minimum per map. Not seeing a specific faction ever in a map is the job for maps like Blood in the Darkness, Skittergate, Dark Omens and Into the Nest. That is, specific, scripted maps. I don’t want to go even a single normal map without seeing at least 1 zone controlled by each of the factions, tbh.
I still think having a normal map with one faction once in a while can be cool though. Just to have the possibility be there to prevent predictability. To keep you on your toes. To have more possible experiences.