Werewindlefr

[quote]Opinion: Level 1 champion shouldn’t be able to take out a black widow. Suggestion, Stone skin should do +4 defense plus +4 per earth shard.[/quote] Or make the monsters really powerful, instead? The main issue, as I see it is that monsters are laughably weak. 6 armor + 3 per shard looks fine to me, a giant spider that has as much attack as a peasant with a mace (less, actually) and a low number of HP is the real problem. [quote]My op

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="20" id="3136941"] Can you point me to where I said something like this? First, as I've said elsewhere, it's Kael's design and he has some very specific city changes in mind for beta 4 which revolve around city specialization, fewer (far fewer) city tiles being used on the map, and an economic system that is tied to city level rather than population which will have a lot of consequences. Second, I personally disagree with sugge

Bug in CoreUnitsTest.xml : should be removed. I must warn the people who will use this mod: the monsters are quite a lot tougher :).

[quote]I've played two games so far and my sovereign pretty much was a wrecking tank that just mowed down every monster and every city.[/quote] Actually, depending on the path and the defenders, they're either useless or too strong. A warrior is weak, unless he has one of these overpowered unique weapons. A mage is strong if he fights groups that he can fireball, otherwise he's okay if he has a supporting army to buff Units can be OP too. I took cities with

Historically, maces were also really good against armors, actually. Flanged maces had very good armor penetration, and hammers/maces would push the armor inwards, to the point where the armor would damage its wearer (and be hard to remove).

I know I only had a night to play Beta 3 so far (and what a night it was :D!), but I've still played it extensively enough to be able to provide some early Feedback. I'm playing almost exclusively with Tarth, so of course, YMMV. First, I must say I've seen major improvments in this beta. There's still a lot of work, but faction differentiation is starting to show up :). It's really more interesting than beta 2, and there's a good foundation for an exceptiona

[quote]Tarth units get +2 to Attack an Initiative when in armies of 3 or smaller. [/quote] This gave me a modder-boner.

He's talking about SotS 2, not FE. No, SotS 2 isn't playable. It's still a mess, with terrible AI, an engine with poor performance (especially when considering what is displayed Oo. The graphics are cute but far from SOTA), it's terribly unbalanced, the interface is clunky, and in general some aspects of the core design are quite questionnable (combat isn't as tactical as in SotS 1, missions are a terrible idea, station management is a hassle).

And that's how the Dark Yor were born.

[quote] I didn't say black holes are the holly grail of FTL. I merely stated that the physics involved breaks down inside the event horizon. The point I'm trying to make is that the amount of energy needed to achieve the beginnings of an FTL drive is slowly being realized. I direct your attention to this article. It isn't there yet but at least its a start. http://news.ya

If constitution doesn't exist anymore, how will HP/level be handled?

Again, "we don't understand everything" isn't equal to fairy dust and "all my dreams come true". Black Holes aren't the magic wands of physics (they are in Science-Fiction, but that's different). By definition, there's quite a lot we don't understand about black holes since (aside from possibly Hawking radiation) nothing comes out of them -make them hard to measure on. However, that doesn't mean that suddenly all laws of physics become different or wrong or

[quote]Whose to say that some brilliant mind won't come up with a way to achieve FTL even on a minor basis.[/quote]. No one. But if the most resilient theory ever says it's not possible, then saying "we don't understand everything about the world yet" is really light as a justification to believe in the possibility of an FTL drive. "We don't know everything yet" doesn't mean that what we don't know holds the secret to what we wish for.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="79" id="3117291"]Re: How time travel fits in. Faster than light travel with some methods means time dilation. You would end up in the future, far beyond where you began. I would simply search for a race that has perfected a means of reversing the effect, ergo time travel. [/quote] Uhm, no, Faster than light travel just means that you can find a referential where you arrived before you left. It's more like going into the past (althoug

[quote]All you're doing is generating power.[/quote]I misunderstood you - I thought you were talking about the FTL know-how, not the power generation know-how. Regardless, then, saying the hardest part of FTL is power generation is plain wrong. The hardest part of FTL is that it is most likely just impossible, period. If it is at all possible, it might require a lot of power or no power at all or anything in-between: how can we do more than pointlessly speculate on the amount of e

[quote who="Uvah" reply="58" id="3116647"]The hardest part of building an FTL is generating enough power to make that first leap. That's what some people say we can't do but they're wrong. The only thing we lack is the proper technology. The know how already exists.[/quote]No, it doesn't. We have speculation that amounts to little more than science-fiction, and a century-old theory that says you can't do such a thing. That theory has resisted all our best attempts to make

[quote who="seanw3" reply="29" id="3116045"]It is theoretical, but there may be mass quantities of dark matter out there for harvesting.[/quote] Leave us time to find out what dark matter is, first. They might be WIMPs, after all. [quote]One funny thing with AM production is that more energy is used for create antimatter that energy will be created by mixing antimatter with matter...[/quote] With current technology, replace "more" by "much, much more". A

The defense issue rarely happens. For 100 armor (which is exceedingly high), you need a unit (single soldier, actually) with ~10 attack to deal less that 1 damage. Armor values rarely get over 40, and attack values rarely get under 10; I'd rather they keep something that almost always work than replace it with something that almost always doesn't.

It does feel like a champion, for now, is a peasant that can wield Heart of the Glacier when others can't. I do think that a high-level champion should be godlike even when armed only with chopsticks. [quote]less ridiculous stats.[/quote] Champions stats aren't ridiculous. Actually, armor and weapon stats are usually fine. It's late game artifacts which are off the charts, and unit hit points which are ridiculously low. I've been trying with 12 base hit

It's not like we're waiting for the tool release to start modding anyway. The only difference is that we're introducing MORE bugs with our mods currently, because we're doing it the old fashioned way. Edit: And be careful, tornado alerts in your area, Brad.

[quote]+Unique weapons are more balanced with trainable weapons. The damages were way out of hand.[/quote] I'm glad I'm not the only one to thing that Heart of the Glacier (as well as other artifacts) was ridiculous (and quite inconsistent design...). Sure, it needs to be powerful, but 90 damage, REALLY?

I'm not sure I am entirely pleased with this whole change of heart. I've read Frogboy stating several times that kingdoms vs. empires wasn't good vs. evil (it sounded more like 'idealism vs. pragmatism', 'survival values vs. tradition values', etc.); The relationship between Capitar and Tarth was interesting in that it showed there was no correlation between faction and morality. Having the kingdoms occupy the upper-left half and the empires occupy the lowe

I thought fallen weren't evil, and kingdoms weren't good?

I'm curious, why did you remove the art assets from the items XMLs? By that I mean that the contents of the tags have been removed. Is this intended?

Thanks a lot, Heavenfall! I'll try to make the best use of these weapon-specific UnitStats.