Wizard1200

[quote quoting="post"]It takes approximately 4 hours for me now to get a band of 2-6 heroes (who I keep in a single group because experience isn't split) up to the mid 20s in level. I can then split them out and have them mop up the rest of the map with ease. This is playing on large maps and normal difficulty. Unfortunately, reaching this point consistently has kind of burned me out on the game, but I look forward to diving back into it after a few more patches. On the downsid

Yep, dispel magic should be a basic spell like counterspell.

All spells should be resistable, but a resist should only reduce the effect: Fireball: 6 damage (+ 3 per fire shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists Burning Hands: 8 damage (+ 4 per fire shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists Slow: - 2 initiative (- 1 per water shard) if the target does not resist and half of the initiative penalty if the target resists New spell that replace

[quote who="scifi1950" reply="10" id="3068877"]Maybe the champions could have bonuses that only buff the non-Champion units they are stacked with?[/quote] Yep, perhaps the sovereign and every champion should get one talent (+ 5 attack if only one hero is in the party, + 5 defense if only one hero is in the party, + 2 initiative if only one hero is in the party or + 2 move if only one hero is in the party) for free.

I think blizzard is as overpowered as fireball.

Another improvement would be that a hero can not learn spells from the opposite element. That would make the spell selection more difficult and would limit the hero to three schools (life or death, fire or water and air or earth).

As suggested in another thread i think the mana system does not need a complete overhaul. Instead it needs only a few changes: The evoker talents should be changed to + 25 % damage, because the damage difference is currently too big. The brilliant talent should be changed to + 3 intelligence. Every spell effect should be based on the heroes intelligence. The bonus effect should replace the bonus XP and it should

Another improvement would be that a hero can not learn spells from the opposite element. That would make the spell selection more difficult and would limit the hero to three schools (life or death, fire or water and air or earth).

I think the accuracy penalty should be changed to - 5.

The evoker talents should be changed to + 25 % damage, because the damage difference is currently too big. The brilliant talent should be changed to + 3 intelligence. Every spell effect should be based on the heroes intelligence. The bonus effect should replace the bonus XP and it should be intelligence x 2 %. Every element should have a spell to change the type of a shard to that element (spell level 3 and 100 mana). Fireball should be changed into two differe

[quote who="seanw3" reply="23" id="3066857"]I play on normal and everything is giving me 5-20 XP. I am still fighting weak creatures and it is early in the game. Maybe start one on hard or normal to see if it's a matter of difficulty. [/quote] The game difficulty and the encounter difficulty are more important now. If my level 4 sovereign fights alone against a bear and a bear cup (strong encounter) on hard she gets around 50 xp per fight.

I think the new XP system is great, because it takes longer to reach new levels, but the profession scholar (+ 2 int) and the talent brilliant (+ 1 int per level) are now much more powerful, because they increase the XP rewards. The XP rewards should not be based on int. Instead int should increase the spell effects.

[quote quoting="post"] Far far too many units and monsters have 2 movement. Because there are no simultaneous attacks, the first strike is extremely important, and tac combat often boils down to 'wait two turns for AI to close while pelting with ranged attacks/magic, then strike first to guarantee victory' Changing up some units movement speed (particularly monsters) and encouraging the AI to build units with movement/init traits would help to alleviate this a bit.[/q

[quote who="joasoze" reply="23" id="3066016"]I just have to say that I strongly dislike the save and reload agruments that pops up everywhere. If someone wants to save and reload to make the game easier, then so be it. Game developers should NOT care about this at all. I only reload if I misclick a button that I did not intend to click. I dont want FE or any other game to be made easier to play, cause people can just reload bad desicions or bad luck if they want to. If I do a gambl

[quote who="Mtrixis" reply="9" id="3066288"]Misc equipment needs a hard cap, as do potions. The encumbrance system is near meaningless for heroes, the max penalty is tiny, removed entirely by a mount, and easily bypassed and then some by other hero gear and a few levels of traits. It's slightly more relevant for regular units, where their initiatives are constrained and trait slots are limited, but it does not scale to hero abilities well at all. The desig

Yep, damage would make more sense.

I think stronger injuries would be a mistake, because they would hurt the AI more while the player loads the last save.

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="67" id="3065188"] Exactly...if you want powerful heroes there should be risk involved. If you want safe, albeit slower, leveling, you would build a larger party. I'm not sure how this would be unbalanced.[/quote] But in most cases there is no risk, because there is a load button ...

[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="3" id="3065053"]Should only have one size. And that size should in reality be only cosmetic. Whether 5 or 9 soldiers in that unit, it should be equal to a hero with average stats. This would make balancing the hero, who would have better stats, upgrades and magic be balanced with the units. This would make balancing monsters, heroes, and soldiers easy. I should be in the beta tomorrow and will look at exactly what the

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="26" id="3063796"]Please think about changing the xp gained after battles from the current system of every unit involved on the winning side gains the full xp value of the defeated party to every unit involved on the winning side gets a share of the full xp value of the defeated party. As it is now, the system promotes a "kitchen sink" party banding method, where the more the better is the name of the game. Cha

[quote who="Sanati" reply="3" id="3064251"]I think as far as tactical combat goes we need more spells per tier, but each champion/sov should be limited to one school, maybe two in very special cases. The tactical spell bar just doesn't work well with 4 schools of spells cluttering it up.[/quote] This could be implemented if it is impossible to learn the opposite element (air earth and fire water).

I think the single queue is better, because the player has to make a choice.

Yep, the AI was the only reason i started playing FE on hard. I like a very good AI and think a weaker AI is boring, but hard means that the enemy stats are increased, too, and that part should be another difficulty setting.

Fireball should be split into two spells: A spell that inflicts damage against all units in a single square A spell that inflicts damage against a single unit with 1 square radius

[quote who="Mtrixis" reply="22" id="3062753"]GC2 didn't have tactical combat, and research/war strategy revolved around building to counter your opponents choice - vastly different game situation than FE. Too much detail in tac combat in a game like this bogs it down to the point where you dread getting into wars in the late game (unless you _really_ love fighting), because you can't always rely on the auto-battle to handle medium size fights efficiently. Not jum