Werewindlefr

Using the same calculations, if the attackers had 30 attack instead, they'd have dealt 5 damage (166-161, because of the cap on attack). That's calculated using the same set of rolls than your 1-900, but raising the 10 and 14 to 15 (after square root). I'm... not sure it's enough, really. And if they had 20 attack... I mean, full light plate is 14 defense, and a broadsword is 15 attack. It's not like equal defense vs. attack was rare or extreme. Also, here, part of the problem

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="126" id="2872839"]Can you throw some numbers our way as to how damage vs armor works in 1.19? That knowledge is needed for mods, and for the hardcore players. #52 is extremely vague.[/quote]I think I can answer that one in his place: If nothing else has changed, then the max value of armor or attack is squared before the roll, then the roll is between 1 and max squared with equal probability for each result, then the result is square-rooted. For attack,

[quote]ps. For those interested in explorable dungeons, I would argue that the wild lands in Fallen Enchantress deliver on that goal in way that's less jarring, more ingrained with the rest of the gameplay and doesn't use a separate map.[/quote] Actually, I think the best way to please the people who want this is to make it possible for modders to link several maps and put triggers on tiles. [quote]Throw them in a blender and....[/quote] Funny. The French PC gam

[quote]52. Min defense on armor has been removed. Previously armor never absorbed less than half the units defense value, now it has the possibility to absorb the full range (though weighter to the high end). So every attack can do damage.[/quote] Hmm, is this the only balance change in this patch ? It's going to reduce those blocked reduce a bit and remove total invulnerability, but I'm afraid going for armor is still going to trump going for dodge, and we're still going

It certainly does look better than Sins. But it's not the same scale. The videos for Nexus 2 looked way, way better than Sins, but the game wasn't going to have 200 starships on the screen. What disappoints me greatly is that they've removed "localized subsystem damage" from their feature lists, for the stupidest reasons: the argument could be reworded as "we think players are retards who will think a disabled starship is a bug, not a feature". True, that's what happened with Homeworl

You could try Portal. I was told it's all about cakes and stuff.

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="18" id="2872376"] Quoting Pantasd, reply 16 lets hope that but some info about the expansion would make us happy Only to some. The rest woud start complaining about it (because of wording and/or whatever was shared). But at least people would have reasons to distract themselves while waiting.[/quote]That's harsh. So far, most people who "complained" were actually reasonable, both in their expectations and in the content of their complaints. And us

Speaking of Beta, what's the target schedule for the beta test ?

[quote]Elemental MP would be good, there would be lots of tactics to explore, but the RULE should be, no early rushing. Say you cannot attack till your City is Level 5.[/quote]I don't want to play the game you're talking about. Not only that, but it also makes a good deal of the strategic depth go away; if people want to play like that, they don't need to have it hard-coded into the game, they have an spoken agreement before starting the game or use a mod. [quote]you're

[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="5" id="2872091"] That is definitely one of Brad's strengths that I will never be able to outperform. The real amazing part is how fast he types out huge pages of completely coherent text. I write a few paragraphs, then go back and edit for a few passes. After pass 3 or 4 it begins to resemble English. Brad is a machine.[/quote]To be honest, I think most of us can deal with not seeing new posts from you,

Derek, is there an estimate ETA for this beta (like, for instance, Thursday? :D ).

[quote] Kind of like a side of the bell curve, you get closer to 0, but never approach it, so even if you are swinging a club at a guy in plate armor, you can do some damage.[/quote] Both Heavefall's solution and mine do that. And yes, I agree, because threshold effects are bad. And yes, 2-handed weapons (as well as hit points) need rebalancing.

[quote who="Dsraider" reply="26" id="2871036"] Quoting Werewindlefr, reply 23 That would not change the problem, I think (mostly because of the 12-stacks issue, which makes armor very difficult to balance in the current system). The whole attack vs. armor formula has to change. I'm pretty sure they have already fixed this in 1.1. It came up in another thread. Now units in stacks calculate dmg versus armor as if they were a single unit and then multiply it by the siz

Well, to answer the question "why don't I have this on my computer and never will": DeskScapes is the kind of thing I will never use; I like my computer relatively clean and efficient. WindowFX4 is more useful, but I use windows almost only for gaming and leisure in general. As such, I cannot justify spending more of my small grad' student pay for such an application. When I work, I do it exclusively on linux (not much choice anyway), and I don't believe Stardock sells anything for us linux u

I think just reducing the effectiveness of armor to dmg from a 1:1 ratio to .5:1 or something would be better. That way armor still works the same but 2-3 armor wouldn't make the difference between weakness and total invincibility. Health could also to be increased to compensate for the reduced survivability of units. That would not change the problem, I think (mostly because of the 12-stacks issue, which makes armor very difficult to balance in the current system

[quote]I have two programs that we make that should be on every computer but aren’t.[/quote] Are you planning to make them free for us graduate students ?

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="17" id="2870500"]NPC monsters have not been too tough. They tend to be heavily weighted towards attack, anyway. I've had a few cases where the AI will wind up with units with similar attack and defense values (10/9 in my last game), but nothing that I couldn't punch through. The AI seems to prioritize attack over defense, and it may also under-prioritize military tech compared to players who know that they can become invincible.[/quote]If armor

Monsters. AI will have the same gear as players. The idea is that they want to see if there are any 80 armor monsters leftover.

Heavenfall was discussing a change that was withing the reach of 1.2. Also, I like this change. Maybe increase the power of training slightly, too ? I mean, x3 health will not help you against a 12-squad of glass cannons.

Yes, I agree with Heavefall, although instead of capping at 80%, I would think that the formula I've seen - Max Damage=Attack*(Attack/(Attack+Armor)) - seems to actually be quite good, and shouldn't be too hard to implement. The good part ? I would work quite okay with current armor/weapon values. Edit: Credit goes to Pax Terminus.

I'm going to investigate this ASAP (Martin Luther King days helps), but I was wondering: wouldn't it be more simple to make some change to the Attack vs. Damage formula ? For a simple formula, would this be too complicated to implement ? I've seen an example of such a formula that would probably give decent results with minimal changes to the rest of the game, or so it seems.

[quote who="PaxTerminus" reply="8" id="2869747"]My solution to the indestructible soldier would be that the actual damage is calculated something along the lines of: Damage = Attack * ( Attack / (Attack + Defense)) This way if my unit is 50 attack and 78 defense (real stats from my last game) an enemy unit with attack 14 could: cause 14 * (14 / (14 + 78)) = 2 damage. Considering that my sovereign had 168 life the unit would be dead meat after 1 chop (that 12 life for a u

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="78" id="2869038"] What do people think of this possible solution, and Dsraider's? Best regards, Steven.[/quote] Well, there are 3 things that need to be avoided: -Armor that gives %age damage reduction. This makes armor as efficient against any weapon, and doesn't work in my opinion. -Armor that negates damage completely, or at least against weapons which aren't so outdated that they're the equivalent of the spea

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="73" id="2868993"]I don't understand people talking about being invulnerable with armor. The enemies in my game seem to research lord hammers pretty damn quick and are able to hurt me no matter what armor I wear.[/quote] The issue being that having only one weapon and one weapon that work in the game doesn't strike me as interesting. Not to mention that this whole "quality vs quantity" thing that was advertised just doesn't work at all. In oth

[quote]Compressing armor values such that weapons still cause reasonable damage to armor one tier above them is another basic option that would improve balance tremendously, and give outdated civs a chance against superior groups. Also, zero should not be the minimum damage value weapons can cause -- this virtually guarantees that a sufficiently armored unit can take down an enemy army of any size -- instead, even the crappiest weapon should always do at least one damage, even if it is well b