seanw3

If you are really that worried about it, increase the shard distribution. You can also just be a Fire Wizard without any Fireshards. Evoker I-III will boost Fireball enough to kill just about anything. If you want to calculate the risk, look in the xml for resource distribution. You can figure out exactly how likely you are to get a Fireshard. I think each start has around a 15% chance to have any one shard near the start. There are usually two there. Another 33% at your first e

I am going from experience too. GalCiv2 got an entire espionage reboot after release. I think the crux of that matter is how good the game is on release. If it gets the rating they want, Metacritic 90, they will go ahead and add MP, better AI, and content. If it gets a mediocre score they will probably move on the expansion after a few patches. Think about how the WoM train wreck was patched into a decent TBS. This game is going to get just as much attention after release, but since they won&

Multiplayer is coming after release or in the expansion

My Strength based armies would mop the floor with your well rounded heroes. Strength is the most powerful stat. Magic requires too many levels and strategic factors to compete. Since the AI is not that challenging, your leveling works too, but if things stay the way they are, you will have to only choose Strength in multiplayer and on hard settings.

Horses, Warhorses, Wargs, and Spiders all have different bonuses. I think you are right about those bonuses needing some more differentiation. There seems to be a fundamental problem with the mounted unit bonuses. They are immune to prone, get +1 moves, and make encumbrance a non-factor. I would like to see some redesign here. There is no penalty to spears. The prone thing feels like an inability to animate the function rather than a logical bonus. Movement makes sense, but I would be ha

[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="10" id="3083312"]You are misunderstanding the system.[/quote] Then static bonuses are fine. Maybe Defender should get +6 Constitution, +2 Armor per 3 levels.

[quote who="crass_monkey" reply="9" id="3083225"]One general thing that I will say about the traits is that, as implemented, Discipline (+1 str/lvl) and Brilliance (+1 int/lvl) are OP to the point that I always choose the Warrior path or Mage path (whenever latent spellcasting ability is present) for all of my champs.[/quote] Exactly. We would be crazy not to. This is why they should be changed to +1 per 2 levels and 2 per 3 levels. They should also think about attaching all per level

Defender Traits: Path of the Defender : +6 to Strength, +2 to Constitution. There is a good opportunity to add a per level bonus to Paths. A +1 per 2 levels or +2 per 3 levels would give a better progression to heroes. That would free up later traits to give actual abilities, instead of incremental stat gains. I would also give every Path a special ability. For Defender: 10% chance to stun enemy when attacked. (Requires Shield) </p

Path of the Governor : +1 to Prestige. This Path is not ideal for any hero. It would be fine as a supplement to a severely injured hero, but I would be crazy to specialize in this Path. There are not nearly enough benefits. Administrator I : -10% Construction time for buildings. Administrator II : -10% Construction time for buildings. Administrator III</st

Alright, I am convinced. Trained units need more options. The Traits they get are decent, but most of them only modify one stat or give a slight trade off between two. Traits need to be more creative. Mounts are a not all too well implemented in .77. They should be vulnerable to spears. But here is what I was talking about with archers: Mounting them makes them immune to all knockout attacks, an excellent archer counter. Leather makes them slightly more expe

Trained units are supposed to have one standard attack. That is the design scheme. They are to be only as good as the weapons they are carrying. Traits will give them a little flavor, but it is specifically limited to having each unit be designed for one function on the battlefield. Heroes are unique individuals and can have many options, both strategically and tactically. This is a unit that evolves as the game goes on. They are limited, making them all the more interesting and

Basic Rule: Strength is all that matters. Get Strength. Maybe a few attack abilities or some magic. But Strength first.

This is disinformation designed to create a following of testers that will lobby for those features. We shall see...

[quote who="Sarudak" reply="2" id="3082804"]You missed the bit about true strike ignoring defense.[/quote] That is a bug.

Assassins are all about accuracy. It is their main stat. Critical is their secondary. A guaranteed hit is an excellent counter to many spells and units with a very high dodge. Unfortunately, accuracy goes up with every level where dodge does not. This is making Assassins useless.

While I wait for the next beta, I think an examination of the current level trait pool is in order. Assassin Traits: Path of the Assassin: +6 to Dexterity, +2 to Strength, Unlocks Assassin Traits. There is a good opportunity to add a per level bonus to Paths. A +1 per 2 levels or +2 per 3 levels would give a better progression to heroes. That would free up later traits to give actual a

Useless feedback is when a tester points out something as a problem that is only a problem to the tester because they don't understand the game mechanics. Ex: The game needs cities and roads to be good. There has been quite a bit of this and the only thing it really tells the devs is that the tester did not play the tutorial. It is also useless to develop convoluted solutions to problems in the game. Ex: Magic is too rare, don't make it require mana. Techs are boring

There is a stat called Air Dodge to prevent focus fire. A low level Air Mage can counter focus fire pretty well. Adding a higher level AoE defense for higher level Air Mages would be an appropriate balance. The stat reducing idea is better suited to special abilities for heroes. As you say, heroes have no incentive to become an archer. Adding several new attack types and a Path of the Archer to contain them is a good solution to this problem. Perhaps a unique bow tech could be balanced in to

I don't know. I have seem walls of useless feedback by people that are either not in the beta or don't understand the core mechanics and what is possible with this game. Let them change the things we asked them to and then give us a polished beta. I think that is fair.

The real question is if this direction is due to an engine limitation or the extra time it would take to develop. If it is just how the devs want tactical to work, they may be convinced nearer the end of the development process to add in some more complicated tactical features. I think a carbon copy of the MoM maps would be a good start. Movement penalties and bonuses would go a long ways toward tactical nirvana. Larger maps too.

It has changed to a direct grain to food ratio. No farmers and citizens.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="19" id="3082108"]you need to rethink your strategy.[/quote] You know you have access to about 2 of 6 shards near your starting location. If you are focusing on magic, you'll want at least 4 elements for your Sov. But you will also find mages throughout the game. Many of them will have Fire magic. It's not that crucial. Magic Sov builds are not risky. Only taking Fire Apprentice is risky.

It is a bug that all races can be used. Not sure about the copying in general.

Making the game elements fit the lore is one area that needs work in FE. This is going on my mod list.

Yes, but for all we know the entire Stardock Corporation might be in the internal beta test. From everything we have heard, it seems like they are moving in a good direction. Remember that the beta is about making the game good, not our personal enjoyment. [e digicons]:borg:[/e]