Wizard1200

After getting the required water book the spell Mantel of Oceans is not in the spellbook.

[quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="2" id="3208480"]This was interesting to watch. Just wanted to say that I am pretty sure accuracy doesn't effect magical staves, they always hit. So get ironskin or something. [/quote] I think that is not the case, because my units have "dodged" staff attacks multiple times.

Spells: - Fireball: 18 fire damage and 6 fire damage per shard, damage is NOT multplied with the number of units, 50 mana, casting time 1 -> 6 fire damage and 2 fire damage per shard, damage is multiplied with the number of units, 40 mana, casting time 1 - Billzzard: 8 cold damage and 4 cold damage per shard, damage is multplied with the number of units, 30 mana, casting time 2 -> 15 cold damage and 5 cold damage per shard, damage is NOT multiplied with the number of uni

[quote who="seanw3" reply="11" id="3208018"]And outposts should take one season to turn over to another side. One turn of no one benefiting seems like a good strategic design. That way I can't benefit from taking over an outpost next to the AI. On the same coin, the AI can't benefit from an outpost that I just took over, which is currently the case.[/quote] That is a great idea, because it is currently easy to capture one and use for example the + 25 % defense bonus to attack

Burning Blade correctly updates, too, but Regeneration is not working.

[quote who="Kongdej" reply="1" id="3208044"]whut, probably would help with a screenshot or two, and the details in which you generate the random map (map size, and map type (balanced, mountain, etc). I usually see essence in my starts though, might be your just damn unlucky.[/quote] I think chance to get essence at the start is high, but not 100 %. In 3 games (medium map, hard difficulty, standard settings) i had once 0 Essence, once 1 Essence and once 2 Essence, but the 0

Outposts: - Razing: It should be only possible to raze an outpost after 5 turns like a city.

[quote who="LNQ" reply="13" id="3207580"]Good and elegant solution that allows for both auto-placement and manual placement: - Cities can only place tiles max 2 squares away from the hub - You can place buildings into any of these tiles at the very start, no adjacency requirement - Placed buildings are purely cosmetic; to attack the city you need to reach the hub tile This way there is no need to snake out to rivers or forests, and there is no advantage / disad

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="7" id="3207681"]I think some half decent starting 3-men units would help the game get started a little quicker. Maybe when balancing the Sov Professions, all profession could get a Profession-specific starting unit or 2, or if they only start with units and no other bonuses, give a bit more powerful, or more numerous starting units, preferably the former (to make up for not getting any other bonuses). This would mean the early game when still explorin

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1" id="3207289"]Thanks for the feedback! If you get a chance, please you (and anyone else playing) vote in the poll so we can get an idea of how Beta 4 compares to Beta 3 (statistically).[/quote] You are welcome. In my opinion Beta 4 has so many improvements that it is basically another game. Spells: - Burning Hands: 1 fire damage per level and 4 fire damage per shard -> 10 fire damage and 3 fire damage per shard

I think 0.95 is a huge improvement and it is much more fun to play. The new city management and outposts are great and being able to resist damage spells is amazing. Professions: - Adventurer: Sovereign starts at level 2 -> it should be level 3 - Bandit Lord: Sovereign starts with 2 Bandits -> it should be 1 Bandit henchman - Hunter: + 50 % attack vs. Beasts -> + 25 % attack vs. Non-Humanoids - Warlock: + 50 % spell damage -> + 1 additional

[quote quoting="post"] All damage from spells is halved if resisted Quests no longer require techs- Their difficulty is given in the popup, be careful going on quests you aren't ready for You must own a city for 5 turns before you can raze it Immune to Counterattack is now a Defender upgrade ability Immune to Criticals is now a Defender upgrade ability Resist Cold is now a Defender upgrade ability Resist Fire is now a Defender upg

[quote who="seanw3" reply="103" id="3206252"]Modding is not an option for this because the AI will not know how to use it. You can't mod for MP, so don't start on about it being useful for MP. When modding, one has to limit oneself to what the AI can cope with. Otherwise you might as well add 1000000 Gildar to the player and call it good. The best thing to do is have people like Napean mod away features that are too complicated. Let him delete hundreds of lines of xml

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="64" id="3205605"]I don't plan to work on tactical AI until the decision comes down as to whether terrain is going to be added or not. I would like there to be terrain bonuses but there is concern that this could make tactical battles tedious for those (the vast majority) who don't care that much (yes, I know and the team knows that the people on the forums are very into tactical combat just like they are really into multiplayer).[/quote] I thi

It looks great and i think it will be much more fun than beta 3. The feedback in tactical combat should be reduced to four types in my opinion: - Miss: The attacker misses the target - Resisted: The attacker hits the target, but the weapon or spell has no effect - x: The attacker hits the target and inflicts x points of damage - Critical x: The attacker hits the target with a critical hit and inflicts x points of damage

[quote who="seanw3" reply="17" id="3190459"] I don't think that would make for a good game mechanic. Even if you disregard that that AI will never be able to compete with human imbue choices, it seems to only add an addition step to spellcasting. I think it is more useful to discuss minor adjustments at this stage in development, like adding to Sov creation. Implementing imbuing again is unlikely to add much to the game, except more work. I think it is sufficient to limit imbuing to

[quote who="seanw3" reply="11" id="3190202"]To me the best solution is to give Sovs special traits at the start. Some super powers for lack of a better term. The history traits that we all get one of should come with more powerful abilities than one can find in the game. The extra traits one can spend points on should also be Sovereign unique so that each Sov plays with more character. Limiting magic use is not the answer. One powerful thing research needs to be able to do is

[quote quoting="post"] First, eliminate or decrease the number of Champions that have access to magic. It is the exception to find a Champion that cannot cast magic. This minimized the Sovereign right off the bat. The Sovereign’s were supposed to be special and they are not. Right on the front page of the website it reads “the world’s most powerful sorceress will destroy the world unless you stop her.” She is not the most powerful sor

That is a great suggestion, because it is MUCH easier to balance the game if the ablities do not stack.

[quote quoting="post"]So here's my proposal for the encumbrance system: Instead of a 2 tier penalty like it is now (where you get -2 initiative above 40 and -4 above 80), extend it to a 3 tier penalty system. In this new system, you get -3 initiative when above 30 encumbrance (light), -6 when above 60 (medium), and -9 when above 90 encumbrance (heavy). To compensate for the harsher penalties, add 10 capacity for everyone. The idea is to design your unit with either minimal (30 or under) o

I think critical damage should be calculated before the attack is reduced by the defense, because this makes weapons with a low attack and a high critical chance useful against heavy armored targets if the attacker is lucky. Base critical chance: 20 % (1 handed weapon without a shield) or 10 % (1 handed weapon with a shield or 2 handed weapon) Base critical damage: + 50 % attack before the defense Path of the assassin: critical chance x 2.5 Vital strike I: + 15

[quote who="discodog" reply="9" id="3157401"]It seems to me that this thread really broke down to a diablo sucks, don't bring that shit in here, vibe. Which is cool, everyone can hate on Diablo. But that doesn't mean there is nothing from its game design that can be learned from it. Don't get me wrong I don't want FE to be Diablo with armies. But let me come at it in another way. Stardock is awesome. Really, really awesome. No

[quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="2" id="3156904"]2. Not true. People complain that many level ups you don't gain anything (because attribute and skill points were removed). Also leveling slows down majorly after level 30. This was done to help out casual players who are probably going to play the game only a small amount and then quit.[/quote] Yep and many skills and runes are not very useful, because in most cases only more damage is important. Who cares if you can slow enemies wi

Great changes, but i think increasing the critical damage of vital strike is the wrong direction, because it makes the combat even more random. The critical damage should be REDUCED and the critical chance INCREASED. The change to the spell resistance trait is very good, but i think + 15 is enough, because otherwise it will be very difficult to counterspell the spells of that character.

You are right accuracy and dodge traits are useful now, but the difference between having a trait and not having a trait should be more than a few % in my opinion. For example the new evoker traits or the special warrior attacks are perfect, because you really see if you have them or not. In the current version i noticed the apprentice swordsman trait (+ 10 % attack with cutting weapons) and that is a great example of a useful but underpowered trait, because you have to specialize you