psychoak

Yeah... There are two, non-repeatable quests for level 4 dungeons. There is one non-repeatable quest for level 5 dungeons. No quest, no dungeon, poof.

To "fail" a quest and not receive rewards and success text, you need to end with a Failure condition. Just replace Success with Failure and fulfill the condition requirement. The tagging for Success and Failure is there for triggering quest success and failure, it's not used for passing the condition itself and needn't even be included in the rest of your conditions. It wont interfere in failure either. As long as your ending condition

Depends on the game you want I guess. I expect them to live up to fixing the messes, it's pretty much a guaranteed event. This isn't an idiot fan that thinks they're all wonderful people either, I'm a pessimistic realist. Even if they're all assholes that don't give a damn about you, Stardocks gaming career is over if they screw their loyal fan base. They're not EA, they can't give an entire franchises customers the shaft because of their bottom line and do anything bu

They really aren't that weak, it's just the bleeding system. A champion is much, much tougher, it's just too random and damage numbers are absurdly high in comparison to hit points. Combat is like a river, it's either fast and shallow, or slow and deep.

The retroactive bit was already stated a while back.

It's the moohoo armor system that gets high level combat heroes killed. You've got your 20 armor suit, the enemy unit of 12 has their 20 armor suit on each unit, but you've got 20 dex so your armor weighs in at 40. Instead of being nigh invincible, as the number would suggest, you roll a 1 for your armor roll, and die. A unit of 12 with 240 combined defense is much, much easier to damage than a champion with 40, the problem is one lucky stri

Meh, I don't really have a problem with their physical status right now. The costs are pretty absurd and the items they have available to them are limited and vanilla, but their physical capabilities themselves are vastly superior.

I like unit customization, but it's bare, severely. Simple things like a feudal army are purely impossible to replicate. I can't pick colors, I can't wear the bleeding clothing that has the colors on it anyway because armor 0 units suck monkey nuts and wouldn't serve any purpose. We need a tactical combat system deep enough that crappy units can actually serve a purpose, so that armies can actually vary. Faction colors should just be a default, if I

That is a pretty good one there.

Yeah, when they stop getting cracked before they're even released in spite of anal retentive security features, I might be slightly more forgiving. Till then, it's fucking me in the ass for no reason. The glowing success stories are few and far between, and they usually come with horrendous sales numbers that are either an indication of why they weren't cracked, or an indication that not getting cracked was itself a detriment to sales.

You don't need a different race to have a different faction. Screw mixing in traditional fantasy races, mechanics are what matter and those are what are utterly lacking from faction diversity.

[quote]Well, maybe the acquisition of these customers was the reason behind the hiring? *gd&r*[/quote] Eh, I'm supposedly the biggest cynic I know, but that would probably be stretching it. The Frog has basically dismissed modding as a mover of sales repeatedly, considering it a wasted investment fiscally. A sales boost from a modder's fans is more likely to come as a shock than be the reason for the hire. Kael is efficient and kee

Make sure you didn't junk filter their reply.

Homogenization isn't just restricted to the sides, it's all the way up the tree. Every unit can have one weapon, no multi-classing. Combat is so simplified that there are no roles for units to take, so what weapon they have comes down to a simple numbers game. Every champion you imbue gets access to the same sphere of spells you have. In the midst of our massively customizable game, our options all boil down to zip because the underlyi

[quote]It's ok, FUN always carries a resurrection stone for just such an occasion! *does the monkey*[/quote] I hope you used protection.

[quote]I'm sure this is a stupid question from people who don't understand programming, but to the untrained ear it just doesn't sound right or make any sense.[/quote] As I spin around in circles trying to figure out what I can do with quest generation, I find myself unsure various features are even functional right now. Odds are they don't, I'm probably still an utter moron though. It's an easy answer. The more complex the system, the more you screw

[quote]There's basically a disconnect in this game with fortress tech, I'm just not seeing the fortresses in T.battles.[/quote] More like a disconnect between the rest of the game and tactical battles. It's like they were designed by people that don't like tactical battles! I'm pretty sure my joke is at least partially reality, but I'm a sarcastic bastard, it's the way I roll... If we have trebuchets, we really need a

With a good CPU cooler you can clock the i7 to 4Ghz too... There's nothing wrong with being the bargain processor, but they are the bargain processor.

[quote]the patches didnt bring anything new the game is more stable but add new stuff goes very slow[/quote] Attention to detail is required, but there's a lot of new stuff. As an example, combat mechanics are on par with Master of Magic now. The straight addition of stats used originally was an utterly homo, vastly inferior design. The changes are simple, and less than obvious in most cases, but very important.

I'd rather overland movement rates not suck. You need piss poor movement in games that lack tactical combat. Your tactics are all played out overland. As we're devoid of any real point to positioning and such, base movement being 6-8 wouldn't change anything but how obscenely long it takes to get shit done.

Had*

First. WBC3 sucks monkey nuts in comparison to it's predecessor. WBC2 is awesome in a box. This isn't to say WBC3 is a bad game, it's fucking fantastic too, it just really bit the dust on some mechanics that were superior in the previous iteration. There were some improvements though, like in game hero leveling. Why WBC3 is awesome is because it's not a basic RTS, not even slightly. When you think of RTS games with command

Yay for this idea!

[quote]You can sign a non-aggression pact and enter other AI lands. Being able to stroll next to an AI capital with an uber stack without declaring war and just sneak attack it would simply make the game unplayable .. the AI is already a military pushover, why excacerbate this?[/quote] Moving an army through another players sovereign territory without permission is how you get a war started. Belgium anyone? The AI would be

Not getting food free population zones anymore is good. Being able to have a zero population settlement(I hope that's what you meant at least) that can be turned into a supply point or fortification is even better. The specialist bit, meh. Sure would be nice if you'd just employ population with structures in order for them to produce. It's not a negative though, just adding another mechanic I don't like into a system I want to get rid