REMORE: INFESTED KINGDOM News

Greetings Survivors!

We hope you are all having a swell infested day!
On today’s Patch Note 0.12.2 build we have the following changes,

[h3][Updates][/h3]

1. All Survivor’s “Perks” till 5 tiers will be revealed.
   
   
2. Following “Perks” will be changed.
   
   • Edwin
     
     1. Control Breathing > Ready Preemptive Attack
        
     2. Ready Preemptive Attack > Control Breathing
     
     
   • Details regarding Perks can be found in the Dev Note.
3. Perk points will be reset when loading existing Save data.
   
   • When loading Save data saved in a version older than version 0.12.0, in version 0.12.0 or higher, the Perks acquired by all Survivors will be reset and reverted to Perk points.
     
   • The reset process does not apply to data that has been saved even once in a version 0.12.0 or later.
4. [User Feedback] The volume of the “bell” sound effect that is repeated in the Hideout before the “Monastery” stage and the “‘bell” sound effect that occurs during the “Monastery” stage have been reduced and the frequency has been adjusted.
   
   
5. [User Feedback] The limit on the Weapons/Tools/Food/Material items that can be held in Inventory during battle is removed.
   
   • Instead, the limit on Weapons that can be taken with you when going on a mission has been changed to 4.
     
   • The Tool item limit remains at 8.
     
6. When the number of Weapons or Tools in possession exceeds 8, a page is displayed in the Quick Slot.
   
   • Pages can be switched by clicking the arrow buttons on the UI or using the [Tab] key.
     
   • If there are 8 or fewer items, page will not be created.
     
   • If the Inventory status changes due to a Weapon change, etc., the Quick Slots will always move back to the first page after being sorted.
     
7. Some changes have been made to the “Transfer Modifier” function.
   
   • Transfer the “Unique Modifiers” of a Weapon to another Weapon.
     
   • Weapons without “Unique Modifiers” cannot be used as Materials.
     
   • Weapons used as Materials will be destroyed.
     
   • “General Modifiers” added using the “Modify Weapon” function will not be transferred, only “Unique Modifiers” will be transferred.
     
   • If you transfer the “Unique Modifiers” of Weapon A to Weapon B, even if Weapon B already has “Unique Modifiers”, the “Unique Modifiers” of Weapon A will be transferred and the existing “Unique Modifiers” of Weapon B will be deleted.
     
   • The constraint of “Transfer Modifier” and “same type of Weapon” has been deleted. Accordingly, the “Characteristic Transfer” function can be used even if it is not the same type of Weapon.
8. A new sorting “by grade” has been implemented in the Inventory, and this has been set as the default sorting method.
   
   • In Quick Slots, items are now displayed and sorted according to the sorting rules.
     
9. Now you can check the enemy’s Armor in the enemy information window.
   
   
10. The UI for determining Scavenging locations has been changed to display how much key gathering Materials you currently have for each gathering location.
    
    • Other than the main Material, the number of other randomly collected Materials is not displayed.
      
11. Visibility has been improved by hiding Inventory classifications that are not required for each task.
    
    • The Alldris (Artificer) action, [Research] and [Tool Crafting] only activate the [Tools] and [Materials] tabs, and you cannot change the tabs.
      
    • The Jorgn (Blacksmith) action, [Crafting] only activates the [Weapon] and [Material] tabs, and you cannot change the tabs.
      
    • In the [Departure] window, only the [Weapon] and [Tools] tabs are activated, and you cannot change the tabs.
12. Game save data has been changed to display the [Recently Played] data slot separately.
    
    • The most recently played data slots are displayed at the top.
      
    • This slot operates independently of the 10 default Save slots.
      
    • If you reset the slot corresponding to the save source for this slot, the recently played slot will be removed.
      
    • The slot cannot be arbitrarily removed using any other method.
      
    • Play data prior to version 0.12.0 will not be displayed in [Recently Played].

[h3][Bug Fix][/h3]

1. Fixed an issue that when a unit is not equipped with a Weapon and only one weapon is present in the inventory, selecting a unit without a Weapon and equipping a Weapon through a quick slot, the basic weapon skill becomes activated.
   
   
2. Fixed an issue where hostile AI would attempt to reach the Survivor using an excessively long path.
   
   • Routes that take more than 8 to 9 squares will no longer be selected.
     
3. Fixed an issue where the hostile AI would ignore hostile targets while moving and only approach the initial target.
   
   • During the route, if hostile AI encounters a closer hostile target, it has been changed to grab that target.
4. Fixed an issue where the execution prediction UI was not displayed when using the “Execution” skill of “Tribal Axe”.
   
   
5. The player character has been changed to no longer acquire the “ungraspable” status (buff) due to “bleeding”.
   
   
6. Fixed a situation where some lines were displayed incorrectly in the “Manor Mansion” stage.
   
   
7. When the condition of the [Finishing Strike] skill is satisfied and execution is confirmed, the X mark on the enemy unit character sprite is normally output in the situation of skill notice.
   
   
8. In the UI for trading with a Trader (Jaymes), we have corrected a situation where a problem occurred when registering by quickly clicking on another item before the drag ended.
   
   
9. In the Guard House (Tutorial) map door opening quest, an issue where the guide could be canceled by attempting to use a skill has been fixed.
   
   
10. Fixed an issue where a lock sign was displayed on the bottom UI after Scavenger (Wyvern) returning from Scavenging.
    
    
11. Fixed an issue where it was difficult to interact with the mouse when an item was dropped on a destroyed door.
    
    
12. Fixed an issue where the TP gauge was not visible immediately after loading the map.
    
    
13. Fixed an issue where an unintended scene occurred in the event cutscene of the “Monastery” map.
    
    • “Entrance to the chapel” event cut scene
      
    • An issue in which the character that made the first move does not move inside the building when the enemy variant is in a position to “catch” the player unit after the character makes the first move.
14. Fixed an issue where the client would freeze when a character in a dying state dies from bleeding and the restart menu is selected when the battle is lost.
    
    
15. Fixed an issue where the tab for filtering inventory types was not interactive when opening and closing the cooking menu in the hideout and then opening the inventory.
    
    
16. Fixed an issue where the resolution option was not added to the preferences when running at a resolution lower than 1280x720.
    
    
17. Fixed an issue where the UI was displayed abnormally when attempting to change the resolution selection in the graphics settings of the preferences and then canceling and selecting “Continue Game”.
    
    
18. If the Quick Slot is open when the Help pop-up appears, it has been modified to automatically close, and the Quick Slot cannot be opened in the same situation.
    

Thank you,
REMORE

Greetings, Survivors!

Today, as mentioned previously, we would like to share the importance and reasoning for the upcoming update that we’re preparing!


[h3]Edwin Skill Adjustment[/h3]

The most noticeable change will be to Edwin’s [Chain Support] skill.

The [Chain Support] skill allows Edwin's basic ability, [Support Attack], to be used multiple times by using TP instead of having a cooldown time.

However, since the cost is 5 TP, there was a lot of feedback that by choosing this, Edwin actually feels weaker. It's like suddenly being asked to pay for something that was originally free.



This has been a concern for us for some time. When players chose the [Control Breathing] skill or obtained weapon traits that additionally recover TP upon attack, the synergy became extremely powerful. Therefore, making adjustments had to be handled carefully.

However, based on observations during early access play, a significant number of players felt that this skill unlock was not valuable. Some even considered starting the game anew after trying it out!

In response, we decided to control the strength of consecutive usage while reducing the sense of disadvantage. We eased the TP consumption for the first skill use from 5 to 2 and increased the TP consumption by 3 on each subsequent use. Consequently, up to the second consecutive use, players will gain more benefits than before, easing the initial sense of frustration.



Tier 2 skill unlocks have also been modified.

The [Control Breathing] skill, which recovers TP by 2 for each attack once you don't move after the turn starts, considering its synergy with [Chain Support], has been moved to Tier 3. Instead, the Tier 2 skill unlock becomes [Ready Preemptive Attack], allowing you to pass unused WP to the next turn.

Given the strength that the “Chain Support” tree's traits can provide in situations with mobility constraints, a clear distinction is now made. In less challenging situations, players can conserve strength, while in situations requiring maximum firepower, the potential is further enhanced. This is the intention behind the skill unlock changes.

After the update, all skill unlock points will be reset upon loading saved data. Therefore, players can try out new skills or, if they’re not happy with their choice, they can switch them back.



Additionally, along with the modification of the Skill Tree, all originally locked skills that were inaccessible have been opened for viewing, regardless of their use in the early access version. This allows players to preview the “intended long-term development direction” of each character and facilitates receiving feedback on the design direction of each skill in the future.


[h3]Transfer Modifier Between Weapons[/h3]

The “Transfer Modifier” feature performed by the blacksmith Jorgn was originally restricted to two of the same type of weapon.

The original intention was to allow players to “modify” weapons without hesitation, even if they had random “unique modifiers” or disliked the current modifiers. For example, if you found a two-handed axe with a more appealing modifier while your current two-handed axe already had a +4 mod, the idea was to allow the transfer instead of starting the modification process over.



However, many players found the linear structure limited opportunities to acquire new weapons. There were instances where players wanted to use a specific weapon but had an unpleasant experience because they didn't like the modifier. For example, if modifiers suitable for one-handed weapons were applied to two-handed weapons or vice versa, it felt like a disadvantage in itself.

We came to the conclusion that it would be better to remove restrictions based on weapon types. This means that a one-handed weapon with desirable random traits can now be used for modifier transfer to a two-handed weapon and vice versa.

Please note, however, that after the update, modified weapons used as materials will not transfer modifications.


[h3]Changes to Weapon Quick Slots and Inventory Rules[/h3]

Given the game encourages “weapon usage based on a given situation”' without requiring additional resources for weapon changes, manually selecting a weapon every time by opening the inventory can be quite inconvenient. The “Weapon Quick Slots” feature was developed to make this gameplay more convenient.

However, especially when switching from a “one-handed weapon-shield” setup to a two-handed weapon, if the weapon inventory is full, players often had to go through the hassle of dropping weapons on the ground one by one before making the switch. This was inconvenient, leading to feedback indicating that this feature was not yet polished enough and sometimes resulted in players giving up on weapon changes.



Therefore, we plan to make the following changes to the weapon quick slots and inventory rules.

• The limit on the number of weapons/tools/food/material items that can be held in the inventory during combat will be removed.
  
• Instead, the limit on the number of weapons that can be taken on a mission will be changed to a maximum of 4 (the limit for tools will remain at 8)
  

With these changes, due to the removal of inventory restrictions during combat, it will be possible to handle situations like switching from a “one-handed weapon-shield” setup to a two-handed weapon while still having the quick slots accessible.



Additionally, as a result, there may be cases of holding more than 8 weapons during combat. In such cases, a “page” will be displayed on the quick slots. You can switch pages by clicking the UI arrow button or pressing the [TAB] button.


[h3]Other QOL Updates[/h3]

In addition to the major changes mentioned above, there are UI/UX QOL improvements as well.

• Adjusting the volume and playback frequency of the bell sound before departing on the “Monastery” map
  
• Displaying the quantity of main gathering materials at each scavenging location when “Scavenging” at the camp
  
• Displaying only the current required weapon tab when using “Tool Crafting” and “Blacksmith” functions at the camp
  
• Highlighting the most recently played data slot at the top
  
• Addressing issues such as AI returning from a too far distance
  

Apart from these changes, QA for a version with improvements to various bugs and issues observed during the early access period is underway. The update is expected to be released as early as next week, or at the latest, within two weeks.

In addition to preparing for the upcoming update version, the development team is continuously analyzing and addressing the linear issues and more “long-term” problems shared in the previous posts.

As always, if there is progress or questions regarding these issues, we will share them through the weekly developer notes!

Also, don’t forget you can get in touch with us directly over on discord, if you have any concerns or questions about any of these changes!

Thank you!

Hello again Survivors!

In our previous post, we shared our interpretation and questions regarding the “puzzle game feel” feedback and thanks to your help, we feel confident we’re going in the right direction now. Once again, thanks to every one of you that helped!

Keeping up this momentum, today we want to share our thoughts on another major feedback point, which was the issue of the game being too punishing, and we would like to hear your opinions on it.



As the game's narrative is set in an apocalyptic setting, we do not think players simply want an easy game...

In fact, there has been positive feedback about the high difficulty and tactical aspects. The issue, in our view, is not the "threats and crises themselves" but rather a lack of rewarding feelings when overcoming them.

We can list out these lacking situations as below:

1. Due to insufficient tutorials and learning opportunities, it's easy to experience punishment (death) more than intended.
   
2. Even when choosing “strategic builds” such as character perks and weapon modifications, there is not a strong sense of getting “stronger”.
   
3. Lack of emotional/cinematic rewards corresponding to “good play” during combat.
   
4. Insufficient narrative delivery at the completion of each stage to give meaning to the gameplay.
   

Of the issues above, the first one “lack of tutorials and learning opportunities,” was similar to what we discussed in the previous post about the “puzzle game feel.” The analysis suggested that, if the intended balance between punishment and reward is 50/50, the absence of learning opportunities could shift the weight much more towards punishment.

However, it's not simply that one problem. Even players and streamers who quickly grasp the game mechanics and clear stages up to the Stag Manor have provided feedback that something is still lacking.

Since understanding what is lacking and how to address it is our next challenge, we would like to share our thoughts on it!




[h3]Lack of Perceived Room for Growth[/h3]

With the current linear-based stage structure, elements of “growth,” such as acquiring character perks or weapon modifications, are more like essential requirements than actual rewards.

As the threat level and enemy density increase with each stage, even if a player can come up with a well-thought-out build in “hard” or “despair” difficulty, it is difficult to feel that you have become stronger. This makes it feel like “you have to do this” in order to survive.

Even games known for their high difficulty like Darkest Dungeon, Battle Brothers, or well-known titles like XCOM don't seem to constantly escalate difficulty with every battle. Initially, they present a challenging difficulty, but once you overcome it and achieve a significant level of growth, you can feel “strengthened” until the next boss or major threat.



We did notice this during the internal level design process, however, we concluded that it was unavoidable if we wanted to showcase the “inherent fun of a tactical game” we are aiming for. The limitation stemmed from the number of stages we could implement before Early Access.

We hoped to create a sense of “'relative strength” by consistently having the weakest Infested, “Knawer” present and there were limitations like not introducing pursuing enemies on maps like the “Barracks.”

However, in the end, while this design allowed us to showcase “tactically,” we missed the quality present in many good turn-based strategy games – the enjoyment of growth.



To this end, it seems that, similar to the “puzzle-like feel” discussed in the previous post, addressing the linear design issue while providing 'learning opportunities' could at the same time fulfill the role of “perceived growth space.” This approach might be a potential solution.

However, I am cautious not to quickly conclude, "All problems lie in linearity, and if we fix that, the game will level up!" So, I would like to ask players if they agree with this analysis.


[h3]Disappointment in Combat Presentation[/h3]

On the other hand, we also considered that the lack of emphasis on “combat presentation,” which we did not prioritize while focusing on creating the logic of the game, might be contributing to the “lack of reward.” As mentioned in the initial post on linearity, since we have only one artist, the time was limited for both creating the current number of stages and essential elements for the game.

Therefore, we have been concentrating on basic combat satisfaction, focusing on the “resulting satisfaction of solving difficult situations.” We have made efforts to design and portray combat situations as efficiently as possible.



The aspect of presentation definitely becomes more satisfying as the development team invests more effort. However, increasing the standard for this could potentially hinder the already limited production speed. We have to approach this carefully!

I would like to ask if players feel that the level of combat presentation, such as critical hits, is lacking and disappointing when compared to other games with similar gameplay styles. If so, prioritizing improvements within a range that doesn't significantly decrease the production speed per unit content seems necessary.


[h3]Disappointment in Narrative Delivery[/h3]

The last possibility we considered is that, similar to combat presentation, due to the lack of resources allocated to artwork, most of the narrative is delivered through text. Consequently, the emotional reward after clearing challenging stages might have been weak.

[Caution!] The following section contains spoilers for the 3rd stage, “Inn”. If you prefer not to have spoilers for this map, I recommend skipping this part of the post.



On the “Inn” map, the rescued NPC “Wyvern” not only serves the functional purpose of being able to “scavenge” but also carries a narrative as the husband of the cook NPC “Ayela.” Originally, in the early planning, there was a narrative cutscene planned for Ayela expressing great joy and gratitude after the successful rescue mission, portraying her happiness more strongly.

However, feedback suggested that when expressing this scene solely through character movements and dialogue boxes, the emotions were not conveyed effectively, and the scene felt like a meaningless time-consuming moment. To convey it as intended, it was concluded that additional elements such as character animations and dedicated space for cutscene direction would need to be created.

Even if this scene was the game's ending or some other “crucial” part, it might have been considered appropriate to implement despite the required investment. However, this scene is only a “mid/early-game moment.” Considering the level of investment required for this scene, a concern arose about the emotional balance if similar levels of investment were not present in clearing other maps.

As a result, the expression of Ayela's gratitude for Wyvern's rescue was ultimately decided to be conveyed in a simple text format.



However, ultimately, we feel the reduction in the “reward” for the player's efforts in clearing the map and rescuing NPCs contributed to the feedback that the “reward satisfaction (sense of accomplishment or satisfaction) compared to the difficulty of the game” is weak.

While this is just one example case there are many episodes where the enhancement of direction could have been better achieved.

Especially due to its linear structure, it was crucial not only to progress through the stages but also to strengthen the reward for a feeling of “meaningful progression.” Given that even games with non-linear progression like XCOM or Darkest Dungeon strongly portray emotional rewards such as cutscenes when players achieve significant tasks, it seems even more crucial for our game.


[h3]Conclusion and Question! [/h3]

We have discussed three main causes of “lack of reward satisfaction” from our perspective. If our interpretation of these issues is correct, we can conclude that our efforts to invest in aspects other than tactical elements in the overall development were, in effect, unsatisfactory.

However, if player’s feel we are shooting in the wrong direction here, we would like to know. Therefore, hearing from you whether you find the points mentioned so far to be the most important causes or if there are other more critical factors, we might be missing would be a huge help!

Over the past three posts, we have focused on our analysis and questions. Next week, we plan to switch gears and discuss the details and intentions behind the upcoming short-term updates!

Thanks again and see you next time!

Greetings, Survivors!

Since sharing our concerns last week, we have been going over your feedback to determine what is essential and exploring the best solutions for those issues.

Today, we would like to share how we see the issue that many of you have pointed out - that the game feels less like a Tactical RPG and more like a puzzle game. After sharing our thoughts we’d love to get your perspective and feedback.



The “Tile Puzzle,” where you need to push and pull on a grid-based system and utilize the attack range of weapons, is one of the key gameplay identities. Gameplay here involves considering actions such as pushing with a shoulder bash, using grappling hooks, barricades, bursting Blisters to damage enemies or finding ways to avoid the Skulker's counterattacks.

When we received the feedback that "it feels like a puzzle game," we wondered, "Should we just accept that many people don't like the core gameplay, and if so, what can we do about it?".

However, after more thoroughly checking opinions, it seemed that the issue was not with the core fun mentioned above but rather that “this game is like a puzzle where the developer has set a solution, making it impossible to progress if you don't find it,” in other words, "the solutions feel limited.”

We believe this problem ultimately stems from the linear structure and the small number of stages.

1. Each main stage assumes that you have already learned the concepts introduced in the previous stages and introduces new concepts to increase the fun.
   
2. If you cannot immediately grasp and fully utilize a concept, you will repeatedly die and retry since you are forced back to the checkpoint upon death.
   
3. However, there are no “sub-stages” where you can learn the rules of the game through trial and error.
   

For example, in the case of the “Blister,” we have prepared some “solutions.” Using the most basic starting weapon, the “Wooden Pitchfork,” you can push and burst the Blister at a distance of one tile. If there is another enemy right behind the Blister, you can stay safe by pushing or grappling away. Weapons such as the “Shovel,” can be used to push other creatures into the Blister. We have prepared these solutions according to our own interpretation.

Furthermore, the decision to not to use resources like WP/TP when changing weapons was intended to allow for the free use of these various solutions in diverse situations. Since there is a certain degree of randomness in the situation each time enemies sound the alarm, it is challenging to have a “developer-prescribed solution” at a specific moment.



However, based on observations since the start of Early Access, it was clear that in order to utilize these “free solutions,” players needed to grasp the rules of the game, skills of all characters, and weapons thoroughly. The point at which players' understanding of the game reached the intended level was at least around the 4th stage, “Barracks,” or the next stage, “Grocery Store.”

In essence, players who faced excessive pressure without sufficient time to become familiar with the game felt that the experience was more akin to a “Twenty Questions puzzle” rather than a tactical game where “various solutions” could be freely employed.

Therefore, in our analysis, maintaining the pressure of features such as the Infested like the “Blister” and the pursuit design of main stages, while placing intermediate difficulty maps between the current ones, could be a good approach. These maps would serve as a kind of “choice” for players.



Not only would there be an increase in the volume of the game, but players would also be given time to become more familiar with the game mechanics. This would allow them to understand the “various solutions” more effectively.

Of course, we do not want these “intermediate stages” to be seen as either an “easygoing area” or, conversely, as “boring stages essential for growth.” Unlike the main stages that require a kind of “comprehensive game understanding,” we believe that designing tactical levels that clearly demand “one or two specific mechanisms” would be a better direction.

Furthermore, since applying such solutions is practically challenging in the current linear map creation method, resolving the issue of “linear structure” mentioned in the previous post is considered a prerequisite task for addressing this problem.

[h3]In conclusion…[/h3]
Throughout development, we set and tested these hypotheses within the team. However, since players have pointed out these issues in Early Access, we believe it's essential to directly ask whether our interpretation of the problem is correct.

By doing so, we aim to reduce the risk of our focus heading in the wrong direction and seek opinions on potential issues in other directions that we may not have considered.

While we said we would provide details about short-term update plans, we find this matter as crucial as linearity and so decided to organize our thoughts on this topic first.

The build incorporating the short-term update content is currently undergoing QA to ensure stability. If there are any important questions like today’s issue next week, we'll address that first. Otherwise, we plan to provide a detailed explanation of the update content.

Thanks as always!

Hello once again, Survivors!

First of all, a huge thank you for all the feedback! We especially loved the very positive reactions to the fundamental combat and the strategic/tactical fun in the game since Early Access opened.

Seeing players engage with and enjoy the parts we put the most effort into was truly valuable. This is what game development is all about!

One of the biggest points of feedback was that “the linear structure makes the game feel small, and the replay value seems low.” Today, we would like to dive into this a bit and share the current thoughts of the team.



[h3]Reasoning for going linear[/h3]
Firstly, we completely understand the players' disappointment regarding the current linear structure. We know that giving players the freedom to choose their path for resource acquisition in a much larger number of stages suits the theme we are aiming for better.

The reason for the current approach is that within the development team, there was no other way we could find within the timeframe available to us, that would allow us to create a game with minimal value as a finished product while also making sure it’s still fun.

As mentioned several Dev Notes ago, our initial inspiration came from “Zombicide” and, while preserving the desired theme as best we could, we went through a long trial-and-error process to find gameplay mechanics that we were satisfied with.

Although initial development began in 2020, the point where the entire development team gained confidence and said, “We don't need to change the core anymore,” was less than a year ago. Until then, everything was just a prototype rather than a concrete basis. In other words, the time we have been focusing on “content” rather than “systems” has only been about 10 months.

During that period, we didn't want to compromise the charm and quality of the art style that our artist (just one!) continued to strive to create. However, maintaining the current quality, the production speed was limited to about one stage every three weeks. And if characters, items, skills, etc., were to be added, the overall time required would increase accordingly.



[h3]Dev teams current position[/h3]
We are currently at a very crucial crossroads. The issue we face is whether to maintain the goal of an official release by 2024 as initially planned and focus solely on raising the completeness “as much as possible” in the current direction, or to challenge ourselves to create the game we originally wanted, even if it means increasing staff and extending the development period.

As a developer and as a player who is passionate about this game, I naturally lean towards the latter option. However, finding team members with both an understanding of the direction we are going in for the game and the necessary development skills is not an easy task.

The issue of time is also crucial. Doubling the team size does not necessarily mean the development speed will double. If it means spending an additional 2-3 years in a highly uncertain state, it might be more realistic to settle in the current direction and not be completely self-satisfied. We could then use the lessons learned in the next project to pursue higher completeness in a shorter time.

Currently, the team is diligently evaluating whether we can realistically achieve our goals within the given time frame and whether we can quickly find good colleagues who can help in this journey.

However, if we stay radio silent during this process, we believe it would break the promise we made when we started Early Access, which was to “develop with the players.” So rather than adhering to the previous style of dev notes that have been closer to showcasing content, we plan to share our ongoing thought process, the state of development, goals, and any changes in plans transparently through a “Journal” format, to be published weekly.



[h3]Short Term Goals and Live Updates![/h3]
Shortly after creating the Early Access version, the development team internally started addressing areas that needed improvement based on our own assessment. We realized that if we began making modifications only after receiving player feedback, it would be challenging to provide updates quickly enough given the current size of the dev team.

However, as we are currently in the process of thoroughly reviewing the possibility of a long-term goal change, we have decided to temporarily suspend the internal modification/improvement process for the current version. Instead, we plan to structure the next update based on the content that has been prepared so far.

The upcoming update includes improvements to the “Continuous Support” perk tree for Edwin and enhancements to weapon swap quick slot UI. Additionally, known bugs have been fixed, and improvements have been made to issues such as the frequency of bell sounds before the monastery map, which many players found annoying.

To ensure that development does not stagnate for too long, we will make a prompt decision on whether to change our long-term goals. Of course, we will continue to immediately fix any bugs or significant inconveniences that may affect gameplay through Hotfixes.

Next week, we will share more detailed information and intentions regarding the specific changes mentioned above!

Thank you, Survivors!