REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM News

Hello, Survivors!

In our last post, we talked about how our internal evaluation of the First Test was not great due to unintended issues, including a bug in the "Roamer" enemy type.

Today, I'm going to talk about the results of the Second and Third rounds of Testing that followed after we fixed those issues, and answer the question, as the title of this post says, "Is it fun now?"

We took a week off from posting last week to answer the Livestream, so you might not remember where we left off, but you can check out our last post about the "1st, 2nd, and 3rd round" testing environments and the differences between them!



[h3]2nd Round Testing Results: Mixed Reviews[/h3]
The results of the Second Round of Testing, which included fixing the Roamer bug and tweaking the difficulty, were pretty divided between "Fun!" and "Boring!".
To borrow a phrase from Steam, I'd say it was Mixed.

Once the Difficulty was normalized, most of the team found the Combat System, which was reorganized around "Surprise/Surrounded" with no “Caught” system, to be enjoyable. The differentiation of Character Traits was also well-received, with "Agility" specialists being better for Surprise play and "Strength" specialists being better for all-out battle using Surrounded or AoE skills.

However, the Main Issue was that the evaluation of the Farming Map gameplay, which was the core of the Continuous Map test, received mixed reviews. The purpose of this evaluation was essentially to confirm that the results verified during the Single Map test were not different when moved to Continuous Map test (and the new growth system supporting it.)

As I mentioned at the beginning of the Game Overhaul, one of the Main Goals was to break away from the Linearity of the existing gameplay and introduce Freedom by adding "Various Farming Maps."
This test was the final hurdle to answer the question, "Will the game still be enjoyable when we randomly generate these kinds of maps?" before ultimately applying the procedural generation system.

The biggest issue pointed out by team members who gave negative feedback was that while playing a Single Farming Map was certainly immersive and fun, their interest declined as they continued to play the second and third farming maps.



Of course, each Map differs in terrain and enemy placement, and a variety of rewards, including the core reward "Memories of the Dead," High-tier Weapons, and Firewood, are provided to give players sufficient reasons to farm.

Additionally, as mentioned in the previous Inventory System Overhaul, the intent was to offer players freedom by not forcing them to "search every nook and cranny of the map." Instead, players can visit the desired buildings to obtain necessary rewards and then decide on their own when to return to the hideout.

However, despite the value of the rewards and the variety of enemy placements preventing the experience from being "completely identical each time," the main critique was that it still felt like a similar experience was being repeated "on a larger scale." Some feedback even bluntly stated that it felt like "content was added half-heartedly just to fill the volume."

As I mentioned earlier, the feedback was mixed, so not all team members' responses were negative.
Team members who had participated in multiple Single-Map tests and were already familiar with the combat system and character skills often reacted with "this is boring." Conversely, those who were experiencing this "fully assembled" experience for the first time generally found it "sufficiently enjoyable."

The process of learning character skills, "Memories of the Dead," and the corresponding weapons and tactics made the overall game environment feel fresh. Therefore, instead of having the combat environment change drastically, the repetition of certain overarching patterns played a role in giving players time to become accustomed to the game.

However, we anticipated that even these players would eventually become familiar with the game, and at that point, the repetitive nature of the procedurally generated farming maps would become a significant issue.

Interestingly, though unintended, there were no complaints of "boredom" during the first test's hellish difficulty. Nevertheless, responding to feedback about repetitiveness with "excessively high" difficulty is not a good design direction.

During the first test, even experienced players gave up on progress, so switching from "boring" to "difficult" would only change the focus of the negative feedback.



[h3]Results of the 3rd Testing: Overall Positive![/h3]
Since the repetitiveness of the farming maps was an issue that couldn't be fundamentally resolved during this testing period, we decided to proceed with the 3rd test as originally planned.

The team members involved in the 3rd testing were generally less familiar with the game, so we needed to re-evaluate how the difficulty, which was deemed "appropriate to somewhat easy" in the 2nd testing, would feel to others.

We also made minor adjustments to other "easily tweakable" elements to reduce the sense of repetitiveness. For instance, we introduced a mechanic where the "Corruption" gauge increases after a certain number of turns during combat, encouraging the use of different characters for different stages.
Additionally, we varied the combinations of enemies placed in each building.

We created rooms with 4-5 Blisters, rooms with groups of three new high-HP creatures called "Blubber," and rooms featuring a high-defense Brute, which requires armor-piercing weapons, accompanied by a swarm of Knawers. These adjustments aimed to diversify the actions required in each encounter.

Thanks to these changes, almost all team members who participated in the 3rd testing provided Positive Feedback!



Rather than focusing on "overcoming extremely difficult challenges," we adjusted the overall content balance to "maintain tension while creating as many varied situations as possible." As intended, these elements received positive feedback. Many felt the difficulty was "neither too easy to be boring nor too hard to be tiring."

For players seeking a truly challenging experience, difficulty options can provide the appropriate level of challenge. Thus, our current balancing efforts focused on finding the "most average, developer-intended difficulty."

However, we found that there are still many fundamental aspects that need improvement before concluding that "the basic framework of combat is complete."

• The most negative feedback we've gotten over the course of two or three rounds of testing (besides the repetitiveness of the farming maps) has been that the damage calculation structure is hard to understand.
  • While we've made sure that the three stats (Character Stats - Weapon Damage - Skill Power Coefficient) work in conjunction with each other to align with the new Strength/Dexterity stats, we've gotten a lot of feedback that it's hard to understand "why and how" your character is getting stronger based on the information displayed in the UI.
    
  • Of course, we designed the game to be "gameplay friendly even if you don't know the exact mechanics," so the actual experience wasn't ruined by this, but...
    
  • Given that the gameplay of "using the Memories of the Dead to set the build you want" is a key part of the new fun, we needed to make "which memories to set" a little more intuitive.
• Similarly, the new defense stat "Fortitude/Agility" and its matching structure, while understandable in a "vague sense," was rarely understood and used tactically at the "intended level" by testers.
  
  • The intent was for enemies with "Increased Fortitude" (= stronger damage reduction) to be represented by rock icons, and enemies with "Increased Agility" (= stronger evasion) to be represented by wind icons, and for each to be "countered with a compatible weapon",
    
  • However, we received a lot of feedback that the icons were either hard to recognize at a glance, or if you did recognize them, it wasn't immediately intuitive to know exactly which weapon to use.

[h3]In Conclusion.[/h3]
As for the question, "Did it make it more fun?", I'd say it was a "half success".

• There's a clear sense of personality and uniqueness between the 3-6 characters, and there's enough tactical play with skills to make it fun,
  
• Almost all testers were overwhelmingly positive about the core "Memory Bonding" system, which allows you to customize the characters the way you want,
  
• The effectiveness of the Strength, Dexterity, Fortitudes, and Agility stats, and the feel of each stat's characteristics, were also felt to be meaningful, even if there were some UI issues.

However, given the “repeatability of farming maps” issue I mentioned, I would say that our initial goal of moving straight into procedurally generated system development after this test was ultimately defeated.

Above all, considering that the 3rd Test Group was closer to the group that was “experiencing the assembled game for the first time” (which had a positive response in the 2nd testing phase), it becomes crucial to address the repetitiveness of the farming map.

Development of the farming map was a key objective of the new redesign, so we are exploring various ideas and prototypes to find solutions to this issue. The results indicate that we may have found a direction that feels promising.

Currently, the development team is focusing on improving the UI/UX of the damage mitigation and balancing systems, which can be resolved more quickly. We are currently in the process of validating these improvements, and plan to summarize and introduce them soon

I mentioned the results of our first "integrated testing" after the overhaul, rather than individual system unit tests. Some may feel disappointed that despite the significant time investment, we're not completely satisfied yet, but there are also those who support the positive direction we're heading in.

Considering we're in Early Access, where we disclose versions under development, our goal is to unveil the game after receiving at least a "worthwhile" evaluation from within the dev team following major changes to fundamental aspects of the game.

We believe it's not respectful to those who purchased and are patiently waiting for a finished game if we were to release it in any other state.

However, what we can confidently say is that although we aren’t quite there yet, compared to the current Early Access version, we've made significant strides in the broader scheme of the game. We believe continual iteration through this process is the right way to achieve our goals.

Our best effort now is to transparently share the progress of development and our internal evaluations without reservation, aiming to continually improve and demonstrate evolving results in the future.
We sincerely appreciate your support, and starting next week, we'll delve into more detailed aspects not covered in this dev note and outline our future plans!

Till next time Survivors!
REMORE

Greetings Survivors of REMORE,

These are the questions and answers that were presented during our Live Stream.
Thank you everyone for participating and for all your amazing inquiries.

[h3]Q. When will the new content drop?[/h3]

A. We're currently working hard on the new content based on user's feedback and it will take some time to finish. We don't want to give a timeframe and then not live up to that, so we'll be sure to let you know as soon as we have a more concrete idea of the schedule! We're also looking at other ways to keep you up to date with the process besides the Dev Notes.

[h3]Q. What changes will come with the update?[/h3]

A. There will be huge changes as we noted on the Dev Note. Overall map changes, new characters, battle system adjustments and more.

[h3]Q. You mentioned about 4 new characters on Dev Note, that makes total 7 characters. Is there any chance that you will make it 10?[/h3]

A. Our plan is to add plenty of characters, so you'll be able to choose the characters and combinations you like! The exact number for full release isn't set yet, but we're hoping for around 12 at least!

[h3]Q. The Early Access play time was too short; how long will it be on Official Launch? [/h3]

A. We're planning on the full run to take about double the amount of time it currently takes for an EA playthrough. And much longer if you want to dive into the replayable features and modes!

[h3]Q. Will there be any new weapons added to the update?[/h3]

A. The type of weapons will be similar, but the system behind them will be changed a lot following the overhaul of the battle system and character addition. You can find more about it in our future Dev Note!

[h3]Q. Can we see some more behind the scenes artwork soon? [/h3]

A. We’re trying our best to reveal more! As we finish polishing the new artwork, you can see them either in the Dev Note, social media, etc.

[h3]Q. Will there be a demo/beta/play test of the new content before release? [/h3]

A. We are considering various ways to show our development progress, and when we find a way to do so we will let you know!

[h3]Q. Any details about the battle system you mentioned in Dev Note? “caught” and “Surrounded system” you mentioned.[/h3]

A. “Caught” was the system in the previous version that prevents the character from moving if they’re adjacent to the enemy. We’ve found that it makes the game feel far more difficult and restrictive than we intended, so now it’s removed.

“Surrounded” is the new addition we’re testing, giving you a strong damage bonus if your characters occupy all the adjacent grid of the enemies.

In addition, the player character has a “Surprise” bonus, which also gives them a bonus when they attack the enemies that weren't aware of player characters.

With this change, we tried to make the game more accessible by removing the penalty, “caught”, but still keep our tactical depth by adding the bonus, “Surprise” and “Surrounded”. Fortunately, the change worked as intended based on the feedback of the latest test.

[h3]Q. What is this “Ember” you speak of from your previous Dev Note? [/h3]

A. Narratively, it is a fragment of the holy symbol “Fallen Flame” that’s worshiped by people of Remore. After the breakout, the people who found the fragment (player characters) noticed that they can “access” the memory of those who died, and “borrow” their abilities.

Gameplaywise, it is a fantasy element that grants the player the ability to “customize” characters in the direction they want. You can bind the memory of a thief to “Shadow Sister” to give her more utility skills like Sidestep, or simply make her Sword Skill damage stronger by binding a Swordsman's memory.

Both in gameplay and narrative, the ember is the core concept of our new direction. The story will be changed with this concept in mind.

[h3]Q. You said random map on the Dev Note does it mean it will be changed from puzzle to rogue-like? [/h3]

A. Yes and No.

“Yes”, meaning that we’re reducing the “puzzle-feeling” that was major feedback in the previous version. We’re currently adding a lot more options to player choice both to strategic and tactical layers.

“No”, meaning that the change doesn’t lean toward making the game as a form of roguelike or roguelite, as we feel that players don’t see XCOM or Darkest Dungeon as a roguelike game.

Random map system will be used to give an option for the player to loot more material or weapons on the journey, but the progression of the game will still be based on story maps. We’ll reveal more in the dev note soon!

[h3]Q. It seems like there will be story changes, but will it be a lot?[/h3]

A. Yes. As we said, the previous story is written on the assumption that the gameplay is linear, so it’s inevitable to make a new narrative plan now that the characters can PERMANENTLY die and pass their memory to next characters.

Also, now that the core element of the game is the Ember, the world of Remore is a bit more “fictional/fantasy” world than before. We’re still trying to keep the authentic medieval feeling than high-fantasy world like D&D, but anyway it’s a different world.

We’re also trying our best to keep the “similar atmosphere in the basic emotion” to help reserve the previous identity. For example: Willam, Diurmuid, and Edwin will have their fixed name unlike the other characters, and their skillset would still reflect the previous design.

We’ll introduce more on the Dev Note about this direction soon.

[h3]Q. Will there be other language translation?[/h3]

A. We have plans for the multi-language translation, though we are not sure for the period since contents goes first.

[h3]Q. "Memory binding" seems to be a very important system. Will the memories of allies who died in the last episode also appear? If memories that do not have much synergy with the current state appear, are REROLL or other measures prepared to compensate for the loss?[/h3]

A. Yes. "Rebonding the memories of dead allies" was the original idea for this system, and it's one of the most important things we're looking at.

However, if we design this system incorrectly, it could lead to "killing allies becomes a superior strategy" or the sense of loss in death and defeat could become meaningless in an unintended way, so we're thinking of introducing it last, after we've gotten the basic gameplay feel down with the NPC memory binding system.

It's going to be very difficult to design, but the goal is still to "structurally allow for the possibility that the player can clear the game without dying once, and feel a great sense of accomplishment when they do," so the system for creating memories of dead allies is something we're going to add in after we've sketched out the big picture of the experience, to account for the "not-so-common" cases.

Whether or not we will introduce systems such as rerolling, as you mentioned, depends on how things are at a later date, so it's difficult to answer "yes or no" directly at this point. However, we can promise you that our internal testers are more sensitive to "unfun game experiences in Remore" than anyone else, so we will choose the direction that makes the gameplay more fun!

[h3]Q. Would you ever be interested in creating some kind of challenge mode? I thought it would be fun to have some kind of roguelike mode.[/h3]

A. Actually, the introduction of the "Recurring Nightmare" mode in the Early Access version was a bit of a nod to that. We're big fans of fast-paced roguelike experiences, and we think our current game mechanics lend themselves to that to some extent.

However, with our current game overhaul, we feel that focusing on "maximizing the main experience" rather than creating "two modes" is the right direction to take.
As we've been sharing in the dev notes, we're already designing the reorganization to be much less linear than the previous story experience, giving players more freedom of choice and increasing the challenge.

In other words, what we're really trying to achieve with this revamp is more of that sense of challenge and fast-paced tempo that you've been talking about in the main campaign.

While games like XCOM and Darkest Dungeon aren't the fast-paced, one-round-after-another type of game that Slay the Spire is, one of the big goals of the redesign is to create a similar feeling of having a challenging experience every round trying to prevent your character from dying.

We hope you enjoy our special REMORE Developer Q&A Live Stream!
We will be back with more updates on our new content on our next live stream event!

Follow our social media for more updates and important dates on REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM.

Thank you,
REMORE

Our REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM Special Developer Q&A Stream is Live Now!
Come join us on our Special Developer Q&A Live Stream that is happening right now!
Let’s play REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM together!



Direct link to the broadcast:
https://steamcommunity.com/broadcast/watch/76561199236239552


Thank you,
REMORE

Hello again Survivors!

In our posts over the past few weeks, we've covered most of the major things we wanted to test in the internal version 0.13.0.

There were a lot of other detailed changes, but since this is not a live release, this is all I can share for now...

The New Version's Test Points can be summarized as follows,

• Does the New Combat System, with the removal of "Grabbing/Caught" and redesign around “Ambush/Surrounded,” remain fun in "continuous play" as opposed to "single session?"
  
  
• Does the Character Customization through the "Memory Bond" Systemwork well with the revamped Combat System and does it add variety to the gameplay?
  
  
• Are the Newly Added 3 Characters compelling and do they work well with the "Memory Bonding" System?
  
  
• As the number of Characters grows, do the changes to the Character System and Weapon Systemsmake intuitive sense and help convey each Character's personality and increase the fun of the game?
  
  
• Does the Basic Meta-game LOOPof setting out with these Characters and collecting “Firewood” with a limited inventory in order to fuel “Embers” to counter “Corruption” work as intended?

Today I'm going to give you an overview of our test setting, our internal assessment of each test point, and our next steps.


[h3]The Setting and Context of the Test[/h3]
The Maps used in the Test consisted of three Story Maps and four Farming Maps. After completing the two Story Maps based on the concept of "Entering Remore's Red-Light District", four Farming Maps and completing the "Dock" Story Map (which, for comparison, corresponds to the Stag Manor Map in the Current Version) you will have completed the Test Version.

Since the Narrative elements will be added after gameplay validation, the current version only includes a few simple elements to test the atmosphere, such as background settings for spatial design and "Journals written by NPCs”.



Since we were only testing internally, we didn't have a "Tutorial", but instead, we assumed that the "understanding of the changes" of Dev Team members who weren't directly involved in the content/system planning would be pretty similar to those who had only played the Early Access Version, and performed a kind of UX validation to see if the intended fun was intuitive and engaging...

After a basic screening of the members most directly responsible for the game design, we divided the team into three groups: those with high to low levels of understanding and involvement in the development of the changed game environment.

The First round of testing was done with members of the Team who were "aware of most of the logic for implementation," primarily programmers; the Second round of testing was done with members of the Dev Team who were "indirectly aware of some of the logic for presentation," such as narrative and UI designers; and the third round of testing was done with members of the Art Team who were only aware of the "big picture and goals" of the changes made after Early Access.

And... the results of the first round of testing were hopelessly(?) poor, because even from Team Members who understood the game logic, the feedback was mostly "This is so Hard and unreasonable that I Want to Give Up."



[h3]Test #1: An Unintentional Inferno of Difficulty, with UX Issues and Bugs Stacked on Top[/h3]
I'll admit that when we first got feedback about the difficulty of the levels, we were a bit taken aback. That's because we thought the construction of the many Single-Maps, with the logic "make more enemies come out a lot, and let players kill a lot!" and with the removal of "Grabbing/Caught" and the introduction of "Ambush/Surrounded" the ground rules were much more player-favorable than in the Early Access version.

Based on feedback from those who played and analysis of recorded footage, we concluded that the biggest contributing factor to this issue was the unreasonableness of "Roamers" (Skulkers) on outdoor Farming Maps when they suddenly jumped out of the darkness from outside of players field of view and alerted a large group of enemies.

During our Single-Map testing, we ultimately introduced the "outdoor" concept, and two of the main ingredients to flesh out that theme were the presence of roaming creatures and windows. We wanted to create a play experience that communicates, "It's dangerous to end your turn outside where the Roamers were lurking, so look through the window to see what's going on inside and try to get in as best you can”.

However, there were three main factors that led to a different experience than intended for the Dev Members who tested,

• Depending on the TP's situation, there are times when ending a turn outside is unavoidable, and it's harsh to have a Roamer pop up unexpectedly and bring in a bunch of enemies that are virtually impossible to deal with.
  
  
• Skulkers have a newly introduced “Agility” Stat - i.e. they have increased Dodge Rate - and depending on the situation, they may not be able to perform the intended response (i.e. the character with the higher “Dexterity” Stat gets the kill) ...
  
  
• Also, the fact that "Skulkers have a high Agility stat" is communicated through the icon for the Defense type, which is not very prominent and hard to recognize.

We analyzed the causes, but the solutions weren't always immediately obvious, especially for the first issue, where there was a pretty strong split between "there's no tension if you can see all the threats ahead of time" and "we're making a game to make you feel tense and threatened, not to kill you".

The second and third issues are a result of the Character System overhaul in this release, but the first issue was a bit of a mystery, as the introduction of the Roamers was pretty much the same structure in the last Single Map test, so I was wondering why the negative feedback was only appearing now.

And scouring the feedback and implementation status of past versions to find the reason for the discrepancy was somewhat fruitless, as in the end... it was just a bug in the Roamer's patrol range.

The original intent was that the Roamer would move 3-5 spaces per turn in the direction they are facing, so in principle, there shouldn't be a situation where a player would be immediately recognized by a roamer outside of their line of sight.

However, in order to create a sense of "patrol" unlike regular mobs with random movement, a sort of "waypoint system" was introduced for the Roamers, where the command "move from waypoint A to B" would override the "limit travel" rule, resulting in a situation where a Roamer that was 8-10 spaces away would jump out and cause a mass alert situation.



The conversation between a programmer and a level designer after discovering this issue was so hilarious that everyone on the team cracked up, so I'm quoting it here.

• Programmer: "Oh, I thought getting to the waypoint was a priority?"
  
• Level Designer: "Yes, well it is, but I just wanted to set it as a destination!"
  
• Programmer: "Well, enemies jumping out of the dark is kind of cool, so I thought that’s what you were going for?!..."
  
• Level Designer: "...I... I'm not that crazy..."

Eventually, the Skulker was changed back to its original design intent of "slowly approaching and applying pressure, while reminding you that it's dangerous to end your turn outdoors".

We also thought about the lack of recognition of Evasion Rate and Armor Type, but we didn't fix it per se, as we felt that a Tutorial Guide popup would be helpful when you encounter a Skulker for the first time and later (similar to when you encounter a new type of creature in Early Access). We wanted to keep the concept of "fast movement" in the Skulker.

Instead, since “Hit Rate” is such an important piece of information, we revised the way it's presented in Tooltips so that Players can better recognize the fact that the Hit Rate is low even before issuing an Attack Command.



Additionally, considering that continuous play leads to a higher sense of fatigue compared to testing a Single Map, we have reduced the number of enemy spawns and increased the variance between "rooms with many enemies" and "rooms with fewer enemies" within the same map for better balance.

With these adjustments, we nervously requested a second test from the testers who gave the game a score of 2 out of 10 in the first test, as well as the original second test group (the narrative and UI design teams). So, were we able to receive feedback that the game has become "fun?”

The results of that test will be revealed next week!
REMORE

Hello, Survivors!

So far, we've talked about the “Memory Bonding” System to fulfill the Narrative Goal of “Connecting the Memories of the Dead,” the Diversification of Characters from 3 to 6, the changes to the Character System to accommodate this diversification, and the changes to the Weapon System related to this.

We've created a working internal test build with the abovementioned changes to see how far we've come in realizing the goals we've been working on for the last six months, and we're pleased with the results! (Although we still have a long way to go!)

Today, we're going to introduce some of the changes to the Camp System,

We should stress that unlike the other Systems we've introduced so far, the changes to the Camp System are all in a state of Ongoing Implementation.




Of course, even the things I've introduced so far have used a lot of dummy resources for quick testing, and the UI still has a lot of room for improvement, including the overall quality, but the difference is that the Camp System is a dummy system, not just a production/resource, but the system itself.

Unlike traditional Single-Level designs, “Continuous Multiple Map Play” is required to validate things like the “Memory Bonding” and “Stat System,” but in order to design the Meta-game System in a way that won't “change,” we needed to finalize the battle stage experience.

To solve this, we decided to use the resources of the Early Access version of the Camp but removed all existing systems and implement the minimal "bare bone" elements of the new environment as quickly as possible, using temporary systems and a temporary UI.

In other words, the systems that are currently implemented are not so significant in and of themselves, as they are designed to help drive the battle stage experience to the intended shape.

In fact, for that reason, I was considering skipping the "Current" implementation of this metagame altogether.

I decided that it would be more consistent to show the current state of the game as it is, since we're pretty much sharing the state of the game we're developing in real time, and the next formal design will be based on the "results of feedback related to the current implementation."

Due to those special circumstances, today's introduction is a bit long, but I'll start with Changes to the Inventory System.



[h3]Consolidating and Simplifying Inventory[/h3]
In the Early Access Version, the Inventory was separated by "Type" of Item, and was designed with the goal of being able to take everything you can get on a given stage.

On the other hand, since one of our new meta-game design goals was "unlimited access to farming maps," we felt that "you can get everything on the map" was likely to be more of a stressor than a benefit if we kept the existing inventory system.

The new farming maps don't have an "Entrance" and a single "Exit" like the original Early Access version, but rather, it's up to the player to decide where to go and how many items to get on a large map. With multiple "Exits," players can always escape if they feel like things aren't going well.



In this structure, if you can play an unlimited number of farming maps, and if you can get all the items on a map, the natural optimal strategy is to scour every map you enter and collect all the rewards. At least for the balance designer who wants to keep difficulty at the "right level," they have to assume that players will behave this way and spec enemies accordingly.

This goes against the current farming map design philosophy of "let the player decide for themselves how much they want to farm, and then return to the farming map", which is why we added a maximum inventory constraint of 16 spaces.

Once your Inventory is full, you'll have the option to either "Accept some inefficiency and continue exploring to get better items" or "Call it a day and return to the escape route". You'll have to make strategic decisions based on your Party's Current HP and Weapon Durability, as well as the Difficulty of the Stage.

The Items you can pick up are the ones you're already familiar with from the Early Access version, such as higher-tiered "Weapons", "Iron Ingots" to repair those Weapons, and consumables like Bandages, Equipment, Repair tools, and Throwing Daggers.

Now we've thrown a new important Item to the mix: Firewood.



[h3]Feed the Fire with Kindling![/h3]
When we introduced the setting of Ember’s Fire, we mentioned that it's the most important key to the direction of the narrative we're currently revamping. The new core system, Memory Bonds, is based on this setting, and the Ember will be heavily involved in the overarching story of the entire game and the origin of the creatures.

In other words, the new narrative can be described as a contrast between “Fire” and “Darkness.” The crisis that has engulfed the world of Remore is darkness, symbolized by the "Dark Shroud" and players overcoming this darkness by harnessing the power of the "Flame," represented by the Ember, is one of the main keywords in the visual imagery that reflects the overall narrative.

We wanted this feeling to be incorporated into the game's setting as well as the actual gameplay, and we aimed to replace the Character's Corruption System due to the “Dark Shroud” with the Radiance System of the Ember utilizing “Firewood,” respectively.



Here's a rough setup,

• The world of Remore is shrouded in a "Dark Shroud" and players can only be protected from it by the flames of the Ember.
  
• However, the Ember’s "Radiance" decreases with each passing day, and Players must keep it alive by collecting "Firewood" when they venture out to farming maps.
  
• If they don't have enough “Radiance”, the “Corruption” rate will increase dramatically, which can lead to the death of their characters.
  

So, in a way, the Firewood that players gather on their expeditions becomes a resource that they must collect in order to survive, much like the "Food" in a survival game. Red Dust, Wood, and Charcoal can be gathered, and each has a different value, so collecting as much of the highest value Charcoal as possible will help you "last longer".

As a result, players must farm "Firewood" and "Weapons" to defeat powerful enemies, while managing their resources and minimizing their losses to defeat the boss guarding the "Embers" to complete an Act. This completion of an Act moves the entire narrative forward and sets the stage for the Final Boss to be defeated and the game to end.

(Please forgive us for only revealing the big-picture design goals, as revealing more detailed narratives would spoil the fun for later!!)

However, when we actually tested it, we got a lot of feedback that "Firewood" and "Weapons" weren't enough of an incentive to keep coming back to farming maps.

This is because we were focused on testing Memory Bonds and other changes to the Combat Experience, and as we mentioned at the beginning, we were focusing on Items that were "instant gratification," so there wasn't much in the way that Camps could be used to set up or grow something other than the Ember.

If we had a wider variety of items that could be dropped, and a wider variety of Camp facilities and crafting that could utilize them, it would definitely increase the "fun of farming," but we're not sure if "pushing that direction" is really the best way to contribute to the overall fun of the game given our limited development resources.

However, regardless of how we end up solving the above issues, our goal is to maintain the intent of inventory constraints, the way farming maps are organized, and the overall flow of the game as we move forward.

Next week, we'll share a more general update on the current build testing and our plans for the rest of the meta game systems.

Thanks as always! See you soon.
REMORE