Recently, I started a game with Broken Lords on an "Islands" map. I settled my first 2 cities shown in the image below called Imz and Achq, on the bottom and right side respectively.

Everything was going well and I was doing quests. I reached the faction quest number 3 >> "Perilous Frontiers".



The quest required me to settle a new region and make sure the city produces 13 Dust or more. I already made a settler the previous turn cuz I was going to settle there anyway. I send the settler and build the city the next turn after the quest appears >> Then I build some improvements to make the city produce 13+ Dust... BUT the quest does not complete!!! Is this a bug? Or is the city supposed to produce 13+ Dust immediately after settling only without improvements? If so, then this is quite an annoying quest, to be honest... I would much rather improve it with buildings and reach the criteria than be forced to settle in a region that is sub-optimal just so I have to fulfill the quest immediately



So what do I do from here to deal with this strange quest? halp me plzzz!







Anyway, the game is lots of fun so far. Looking forward to custom factions!

You're supposed to settle a city at a location so that the sum of the dust produced on all exploitation tiles of this new city - at turn 1 of its existence - is 13 or higher.

adder wrote:
You're supposed to settle a city at a location so that the sum of the dust produced on all exploitation tiles of this new city - at turn 1 of its existence - is 13 or higher.

hmm, that's what I was afraid of... That's why this quest is rather inconvenient. In this case, I settled in the best Dust area I could find and I got 9 Dust at turn 1 of the city's existence...



Isn't it better if they make this quest more similar to the Wild Walkers, where you had to increase the new city's production to 25 as a separate quest instead of immediately after building it?

I brought up a problem with another quest line:



http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/showthread.php?35404-Sign-a-Peace-Treaty-quest-impossible&p=194317#post194317





But I'm starting to imagine such things depend on how the developers envision their game and how it's to play out. For instance if all quests are meant to 100% succeed, then why even bother providing a place to keep track of "failure" into the game?



I believe if the developers are straightforward and advertise this game as having quests that will NOT always succeed, then players will be more understanding and less ->

Rocksalt wrote:




But I'm starting to imagine such things depend on how the developers envision their game and how it's to play out. For instance if all quests are meant to 100% succeed, then why even bother providing a place to keep track of "failure" into the game?



I believe if the developers are straightforward and advertise this game as having quests that will NOT always succeed, then players will be more understanding and less ->

You bring up a good point.

Bottom line, I think the quests should be made more dynamic to the current situation. I'm not sure how dynamic they can make them, especially to avoid a situation where a certain quest becomes irreversibly unfulfilled. This is particularly important for the Faction Quests, because I understand that it is possible to achieve victory by following the Faction Quest chain to the end (in the final game release).



Thankfully, most of these "static" quests are the random ones, not faction... Oh well :l

KrimsonVagus wrote:
You bring up a good point.

Bottom line, I think the quests should be made more dynamic to the current situation. I'm not sure how dynamic they can make them, especially to avoid a situation where a certain quest becomes irreversibly unfulfilled. This is particularly important for the Faction Quests, because I understand that it is possible to achieve victory by following the Faction Quest chain to the end (in the final game release).



Thankfully, most of these "static" quests are the random ones, not faction... Oh well :l

I think a fair question is, should it be acceptable for a game to have some kind of chance to beat the player? I'm thinking about Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov



Like I'm looking at the pic above and had you settled in the northern area first, got the quest and then put a city in southern region, the quest would have been a no brainer success. Of course things didn't work out that way.

Rocksalt wrote:
I think a fair question is, should it be acceptable for a game to have some kind of chance to beat the player? I'm thinking about Deep Blue vs. Garry Kasparov



Like I'm looking at the pic above and had you settled in the northern area first, got the quest and then put a city in southern region, the quest would have been a no brainer success. Of course things didn't work out that way.

Well, if the quest fails then it should actually fail. In this case it just became static, preventing my progress. In fact, I would have rather fail this quest instead of having a dead end situation. But now that I understand how it works, I won't fall into that mistake again, I suppose. But I'm not surprised if a new player finds this odd at first.



In this case, I settled next to the river cuz it gets you better yields later after improvements. But if I wanted to do the quest, it required me to settle in an area with high initial yields but not very useful later on, which is rather counter-productive...

How far did you progress after 111 turns?



Did the game never present an opportunity to fulfill this quest or were there options but you didn't like them?



Because a "dead end situation" is just another way of saying stalemate or being deadlocked. Which is considered standard for some games in general.

I actually played on to Turn 151 only, cuz when playing BL I generally prefer not to settle too many cities. I think it's better to focus on a small number of high population cities and then conquer cities from other players. So settling another city just to fulfill that quest is counter-productive. For that particular game, I never finished that quest



But I started another game and I completed that quest accordingly... until I ran into another ACTUAL bugged quest. I posted it in the bugs section of the forums. It was quest 8.

This isn't the only faction quest that has some issues. The second Vaulter quest, for instance, ends with a bunch of "roaming armies" popping up for you to fight... but in every single instance for me, they've popped up well out of sight, not just in fog of war, but in unexplored territory, and never bothering to head towards me, leaving me meandering around trying to find them for a dozen turns or more.

PurpleXVI wrote:
This isn't the only faction quest that has some issues. The second Vaulter quest, for instance, ends with a bunch of "roaming armies" popping up for you to fight... but in every single instance for me, they've popped up well out of sight, not just in fog of war, but in unexplored territory, and never bothering to head towards me, leaving me meandering around trying to find them for a dozen turns or more.

Speaking of Vaulters, Quest number 3 or 4 (I think) involved me having a parley with a Hurnas village. The reward was 3 Orc Archers. I finished the quest... but I did not get the 3 archers. Maybe cuz my main army was full so the units did not spawn? In other games, these free units usually appear in your capital. Here, I got nothing

KrimsonVagus wrote:
Maybe cuz my main army was full so the units did not spawn? In other games, these free units usually appear in your capital. Here, I got nothing

I would agree... but...



Being beta, Maybe they could of spawned anyhow, outside of your main army and then decided to attack you! It could be worse.