A small suggestion: berserk shouldn't transform armor rating into attack rating: that doesn't make much sense (a suit of armor doesn't become "offensive" for a berserker...). Instead, make it "+50% attack, loses armor". Edit: also, make accuracy equal to 15+2*level ; it'll make dodge-based characters slightly more worth it.
Combat rewards are bugged. It looks like I gain rewards for the current battle, plus all the battles before or something. My damage spells (arcane arrow and the AoE spell in the same line, can't remember the name) work against creatures, but don't work against Capitar, for some reasons; they are perma-resisted, even by pioneers. I haven't tried against other factions. Also, the damage value of arcane arrow is wrong (4.5 with 18 intelligence...)
[quote who="Frogboy"] The Design: v1.1 technology tree has a cavalry sub-tree now. The design calls for the new technologies to give new abilities to your existing cavalry units such as “Charge” and “Evade” (to evade arrows).[/quote] Can we still expect this in 1.1? And in 1.09n?
Actually, essence might be easy to put back in a mod for its intended "sacrificial cost for extremely powerful spells".
Maybe I can bribe you with Motor City's Nut Brown ale so that you release it in an hour instead?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="119" id="2826125"] Yes. But not in 1.1. Those would be in the first expansion pack. I don't like the current tactical battle system but it does work as designed. Because we don't like it, we're are providing a budget for the development team to make a new one in the first expansion pack. But a whole new tactical battle system isn't the type of thing you "patch". Similarly, I would like to see leveling up be more in
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="106" id="2826071"]The goal of v1.1 is to address the major issues we all -- as a community -- have identified as being basic issues with the game -- the magic system, AI, and economic system being the top 3 IMO. Beta 1 is a big step towards addressing magic and economics in the game (they'll need to be balanced still but it's a much better mechanic).[/quote]Do you share the opinion of those who think that other aspects of the game also need overhaul/major imp
[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="70" id="2826015"]Gazz_: We'll be consistently taking suggestions from you guys while solidifying the future designs internally. Once a vision is solidified and agreed upon, we present that vision in some official manner (and the cycle continues). At no part will we break the comminucation cycle, but as future design/vision decisions are agreed upon and finalized, us mortals in the bullpen have to be careful not to step on the toes of the
I'm not sure I understand the point of Greater Evasion (or event evasion): it seems on the weak side of the scale, especially with Guardian Aura being quite more powerful on almost any unit.
What's the point of turning grassland into wasteland, or the opposite? Does it even have a mechanical effect? [quote](with loftier goals already being plotted for future patches).[/quote] When the patch is released, will we get a very rough roadmap of what's to come?
The changes make me look forward to 1.3. I still thinks that the game will be extremely lacking until a major overhaul of several other aspects of the game is conducted. It's a step in the right direction -or so I hope - but I will not call it a great game until core features, such as tactical battles*, start really looking like something. *What remains for those: initiative and a better action point/speed system, more positional gameplay based on flanking/a system prev
Nice job giving a personality to each element; although I find the spellbooks to be lacking in size, it's a start. Are spell effects still stackable? Are we still able to put the same buff on the same unit multiple time? Puting a "non-stackable" flag that can be turned on or off is vital in my opinion.
Essence points actually had a purpose at the begining of the game: it was a currency for really potent spells or abilities, something that could only be increased via leveling or maybe very rare items and that would be sacrificed to cast world-shattering spells. It should have stayed separate from intelligence and mana from the beginning; it should have been its own thing instead, with very situational (and yet gameplay-changing) use.
Will we be able to mod the impact of the stats in the XML?
So, I have a few questions: -Aren't you afraid that Dexterity, as previously mentioned, will become the dump stat? Maybe it'd be nice to tie accuracy to Dexterity, or to make dodge scale better with higher levels of dexterity. As it is now, a Str 40 hero looks clearly better than a Dex 40 hero; although it is true that I can't know without trying first. -Are there plans to make the tactical battles somewhat more... wll, tactical in the future? As in, making positioning count m
[quote who="Ilindil" reply="11" id="2821462"]It`s so quiet for devs side today... seems like they work on some surprise .[/quote] Or maybe they just work. I wouldn't hope for too much.
The combat system overhaul is due in another update, am I correct? What about special abilities for heroes/units? And "perks/abilities" at level-up?
Actually, see the wonder that Chris Avellone (Obsidian) and his buddies have managed to make with the crappy Gamebryo (Oblivion/Fallout * 3 *) engine? See how good writing, not-obvious multiple choices, and deeper meaning (via allegory or good characterization) can transform a decent RPG into a masterpiece? This is what it's all about, especially your "point 3".
[quote]v1.1 engine doesn’t support adding abilities to existing units. [/quote] Does that mean that the future (as in, post-1.1) versions of the engine will support this?
Not a web-based review, but the French magazine CanardPC gave the game a 4 out of 10, and a pessimistic conclusion about what patches can do...
[quote]Yes, Jon, Kael, Soren, etc. We're all friends in varying degrees in real life.[/quote] What about Sid?
"-Units positioned in front of Archers should be subject to friendly fire"
[quote]You do not really have control on anything that is happening in your cities, there is no way you can really adjust anything for any kind of a strategy or balance (actually you had more control in Civ:Revolutions on XBox), stuff just happens and cities grow - so the game is very heavly dependent on military ass-kicking while empire-bulding and economy are virtually non-existent.[/quote] While the military part has certainly been overhauled and made more fun, I do not think you have been
[quote who="Mystikmind" reply="8" id="2783804"] Quoting _PawelS_, reply 6Civ5 with the ability to design your own units would be interesting... And the man involved in developing the civ series already did that in Alpha Centauri - so it begs the question as to how that feature could be repeatedly ignored thus far??[/quote]It's called unit promotion, and it's more balanced while achieving the same goals. [quote]We need some classic rock-paper-scissors choices in design[/quote] No,
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="23" id="2780050"] Quoting guzzleguts, reply 22 How can you prove what you think? You just proved my point. Thank you.[/quote] There was a poll recently, which showed that half the buyers were disappointed by Elemental; and that poll was answered to by people who cared enough about the game to come to the forums, so it ended up being more positive than what the general feeling actually is if you read other video game forums. Also, look at t