kenata

[quote]This could work, and would certainly achieve the goals you’ve outlined. I definitely appreciate the focus of making quests flow naturally from the individual game being played. There are two challenges with this idea, though, that we would have to keep in mind. First is the sheer workload. The idea here is that each recruitable hero has their own individual, personalized quest. For one hundred heroes, that’s one hundred new quests that have to be written and implemented. If

[quote who="Jounk33" reply="92" id="2895774"] Do you have already add them in the last version, or is it to do ? [/quote] I added throwing daggers a while ago in a previous version, and in many ways the skill was a success. The idea currently on the table is to add a similar ability to the battle axe, but making it throwing axes instead of throwing daggers. However, I think the skill will end up being 2 range with 10-50% dmg and doing a small debuff of s

[quote]2% chance of assassination (double damage) trigger[/quote] I'm fairly certain I can not simply activate assassination this way. However, I have been pushing for game modifiers to be probabilistically triggered. I love the idea of casting a spell and simply having it fizzle out for no good reason. The general idea would be to have a trigger change tag for a game modifier, that says when the spell is cast, you have some X percent chance of the modifier being applied at all. This

This is a really intriguing idea, and one I think could have real merit. In general, adding personal quests to heroes would in fact add character to your heroes as well as draw the player deeper into the evolving in each game. However, there are several key things about adding heroes quests that need to be considered beyond simply throwing in more quests. Currently, most players seem to cast many quests and quest locations aside towards the middle of a game, as these tend to take the player o

[quote quoting="post"] Any way to mod the minimum distance needed to settle a new city and the minimum distance allowed between city improvements? Are there two options or just one? It would suck if both the distance between improvements and the distance to settle were handled by the same value, but I could deal with it. =P I've noticed that when two cities touch by stringing resources in a straight line from one city to another that it consistently goes to the same city, and

[quote]That said, I think "Dread Fright" should be weakened a little bit by making it more resistible. I am not sure how to make this work in the code, it just seems to work around 95% of the time. Maybe tone it down to 75% to make the ability a little less uber?[/quote] After a conversation with Cari, I have come to understand that the modifier used for dread fright doesn't allow for any sort of additional variance. This is sad as I really do like this ability and think it has a

[quote]You're right. For example, some other strategy games (which won't be named here) have a horrible system in which (very broadly speaking) spearmen gain a bonus against cavalry, cavalry against non-spearmen infantry, and armored infantry against spearmen. There was a lot of min-maxing going on with this game, and it was horribly bothersome to have to worry about army composition in the first place.[/quote] As I have said previously, it is possible to have this type of mechanism t

[quote]Passive abilities: These are abilities that are computed and transparent to the user. For example, My unit makes fire damage and your unit has fire weakness, I make more damage, but I do not have to manually activate the ability. Active abilities: This means that the unit can take a different action than move or attack. This kind of abilities requires a decision from the player.[/quote] Defining passive abilities this way is almost indistinguishable fr

[quote]I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it seems really hard to balance units composed of groups in the same battle as units composed of individuals. If anyone knows a game that pulled it off well, I would like to know it.[/quote] Heroes of Might and Magic was fairly successful at making this functionality work. Really though, I have never really had a problem with WoM for this. The current mechanism simulates each unit attack at their standard attack power ( ie not combin

[quote]ISSUE: Sovereign Balance[/quote] I completely agree that the core sovereigns should probably be updated, though I am not so sure about your solution. I think you point about attempting to make each sov a unique archetype is a sound idea, and would probably go a long way in giving each faction a bit more uniqueness. However, I think your point about attempting to have all 10 sovs include all possible starting choices seems a bit overboard. This would not necessarily help d

[quote]He's right in a way, your earlier comparison didn't consider that the Monastery-builder can continue building other things in the last 5 turns - he needn't sit idle for 5 turns collecting points while the arcane lab-builder catches up, but can make use of that extra build time. Theoretically if you built 3 Monasteries in a city (is this even possible? not familiar with the building), after 30 turns you'd have 90 points generated and be up to 9/turn, whereas a guy that spent 30 turns bu

[quote] The build time is the only significant advantage, after 30 turns you will be producing 9pts per turn vs 6 with the Arcane labs - however that is more than offset by the pop upkeep, which is likely to be the limiting factor.[/quote] I am not exactly sure how you came to this conclusion.

Here is the best breakdown I can give: Monastery: Cost: 12 Mats Build Time: 10 Turns Required tiles: 4 Upkeep: 30 pop, 2 Gildar Output: 3 Spell Points ( spell research points) 3 Arcane Labs: Cost: 9 Mats Build Time: 15 Turns Upkeep: 15 Pop, 3 Gildar Required Tiles: 3 Output: 3 Spell points While the Monastery cost less gildar to upkeep and takes only 10 turns to b

[quote]I'd say a nice improvement to tactical combat would be adding 'feats', gained once per level up available to all units (with special feats available to champions) - a lot like promotions in Civ IV. To avoid just replacing their base attack, these feats could either add specific enhancements to your attack (armor has reduced effect, chance of slowing opponent, etc) or give specific tactical abilities (unspent action points are used against enemies entering melee range on their turn, sh

[quote]That's the exact reason I made it the way it is. I wanted npc's to be able to hit a quest location and cause things to happen, I wanted mini factions to be tied to quest lines and spawnable by quests, I wanted people to be able to set quests to have different consequences for failing, not just a "You're dead" or a "choose your fate menu" deal. And the last bit was that I wanted a somewhat interior ruins tileset for tactical battles.[/quote] I feel the same way. Dark Rising has

HFS+ is an Apple file system, used for many Apple products. I am not sure why you would want to run an HFS+ file system on a windows machine at all. In the most general case, the windows drivers for that file system are relatively new and they seem to only be there to support removable drives which bounce between windows and apple platforms. There could be a benefit to creating such a file system for a removable drive but there is no real advantage to the file system over NTFS.

Gratz Tydorius! Honestly, if they make this quest I will be able to mod in Dark Rising. :)

[quote]if it eases your mind Jon wasn't in the office that week, he was forced to talk to me instead[/quote] Yeah, I just got old second string Toby ;) Though actually, Toby is a pretty interesting guy to talk to, and has a incredible amount of knowledge of various games. Then again, he does favor Civ IV BTS over SMAC so I guess he has his moments of heresy.

[quote]Me too. It's not terribly accurate to use a 1v1 battle as an example. Even the game itself defaults those scenarios to auto-calculate. It gets more interesting when you have multiple varied units and you have to plan tactically for them to engage enemy units that they are best equipped to deal with, while trying to deny the same edge to your enemy.[/quote] Its true that a 1v1 battle is hardly a great example for why damage types shallow tactical combat, but it

[quote]I guess what I like about the ZOC is it keeps units from casually strolling past enemies to get into a flanking position. If there is a break in your line big enough for one unit to pass, do you really think the two on either side should let him past to get to your archers? I can agree it doesn't make as much sense to have AoO for moving out of ZOC, but it could be used to exploit in the same way as moving through. I also see it as a retreat-penalty mechanic, presumably you've got to t

[quote]yes to unit ZOC with Attacks of Opportunity for units leaving or moving through ZOC.[/quote] I actually never liked this mechanic at all. It is one of those D&D mechanics that I always felt was odd. So I am fighting a person with a sword and move back, now you get to attack me without using an action. The only reason to have this would be in the normal D&D sense where a unit could simply move into range attack and then out of range again without reprisal. However, since

[quote]Special abilities are great but specialized equipment would also bring welcome depth. Examples: * Spears doing extra damage against mounted units * Grouping weapons into damage types: magical, elemental, slashing, piercing, bludgeoning. * Grouping armors into damage resistant types: magical, elemental, slashing, piercing, bludgeoning. * Unit visibility: let units with certain gear or traits to hide in tall grass / trees. * etc Also bringin

[quote]Speaking of news, who won the contest? There's nothing up on the page for me. >.> Not that I took today off from work to see if I won a graphic card or anything. But I totally took the day off from work so I could see if I won a graphic card.[/quote] Same here. I was wondering the same thing myself. Honestly, I will just be happy to get a new game from impulse.

YAY! So Updated Weapon has just hit 1000 downloads today. I want to thank everyone who has downloaded the mod for the support. I am currently considering go over the spells for a balance, though it would be nice if people could comment about what sorts of experiences they have had.

[quote]4)Not 100% sure on this, but using a looping effect and setting to 0 should do it. If not, try setting to 1.[/quote] There are a couple of things he could do if he wanted to the unit to remain stationary, but pretty much nothing if he wants the particle emitter to follow his units.