[quote who="Magog_AoW" reply="6" id="3037246"] Really? I would like more hills. Now its either completely flat or a huge mountain, which looks very unnatural. Also the tiles with dead trees look terrible and feel like WoM leftovers... The new little icons are a nice improvement though! [/quote] I would also like more hills. I just prefer to have some control over where they can and can't (or are required to) be placed.
You know what I like best about that video? Mountains to plains without mandatory hills tiles between them. That really made the mountains look very unimpressive in WoM. The rest is pretty good, too.
[quote who="DsRaider" reply="291" id="3035583"]I'm not usually one to request stuff from developers, but since the Beta was delayed could we get a new journal on the updated magic system please? I'm dying to know about the new spells and counter system. I understand that you don't want to advertise too much, but since several sites have already claimed that you have already released a full spell list you might want to correct them anyway. [/quote] Yeah, I'd l
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="26" id="3033433"] Quoting seanw3, reply 25 I think they would make it so that you needed to find a coast to embark. If the random maps are capable of limiting coastal space, it would be a good way to keep terrain advantages nominal. It would also be nice to see some warships. It all depends on balance. You know, having to use coastal areas would be pretty limiting, and not a bad choice and would
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="121" id="3022954"]People are under the misconception that Stardock has to make PC games. It doesn't.[/quote] This is not entirely true. I have a large quantity of Varoa mites and elecromagnetic radiation stockpiled for the event that Stardock decides to stop making strategy games. Should that happen, they will be released into the environment which will precipitate massive colony collapse throughout the Michigan region of America, depri
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="15" id="3021572"]I hated how troops could just become boats when they touched a beach. I hated it because it just broke the sense of immersion. And I loved it for how great of a solution it was to annoying gameplay elements like loading transports and such. I think the system in shogun2 is one of the best, and I would suggest that with some modifications. My ideal naval set-up is that there are pre-determined troop transport routes across
I'm also curious as to whether Python functionality is still an intention. I remember a poll-type post a while back, but haven't heard anything about it since. Anyone heard anything about this?
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="11" id="3021504"]Boats seem difficult in TBS. The AI never seems to know what to do with them. I would love boats, naval battles, sea related magic and fun exploration shit, also lets you have continents and islands, instead of just one landmass. Doubt the AI can figure out using terraforming magic any easier than boats. [/quote] I'm sure that it's difficult, but it's possible in principle. Thol
Looks good. But... you can cast any spell that a champion knows in tactical combat even if that champion isn't present?
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="10" id="3016658"]Dude, what's a turn-based strategy game if you don't need any strategy to play it? It sounds like Diablo III is the game for you ... not EFE.[/quote] I think what he meant is that he wants multiple flavors of AI with personality, rather than one very good AI that's that plays the same way regardless of the faction (which is what WoM's AI kind of seemed like). In that respect, I agree with him. I'd rather have a
Yikes. That is all.
I would prefer if their type or intelligence was referenced in their decision to attack. So... very aggressive to aggressive only when chances of winning are good to somewhat passive. I'm sure that's a ton of extra work, but hey, you asked.
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="3" id="3006757"]Charisma needs to be more useful, and all stats need to be useful for all champions, both in combat and out. [/quote] I agree completely. Random events applied to sovs or individual heroes with choices that have minimum stat requirements would be pretty fantastic.
[quote who="HenriHakl" reply="39" id="3005594"] Quoting Mistwraithe, reply 38 HenriHakl has the right of it I believe. If you want people to be able to mod in a few extra spells without having to also modify EVERY existing spell in the game to update counter spells etc then you need it to be done through applying multiple generic tags to each spell. Having said that I think there is a benefit in also allowing a spell to specify that it is a counter to a
Haha, thanks. I also think that these changes would open up a lot of design space for people who want to modify the spell system. It's a shame that we have such an awesome particle effect creator without having equally awesome effect functionality that can be tied to them.
1) Seige battles 2) The ability to apply effects to multiple targets (e.g., target and self) in the spell xml files. 3) Calculates on duration in the spell xml. 4) The ability to attach different durations to different effects in the spell xml. 5) More control over shard editing and seeding (and seeding for tiles in general) 6) Boolean logic capability in the spell xml. 7) Removal of multiple text messages for multiple effects on spells ("+ Spel
Maybe off-topic, but I really fucking love that art in the OP. My compliments to whoever drew it up.
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="5" id="2984492"]...copious attention from the ladies.[/quote] Ok, stupid question, maybe, but no need to be cruel.
Yikes. I'm a cognitive scientist, and I have to put my two cents in, here. I can't help but think that your reaction is somewhat overblown. Advertisers have been using the principles of psychology to market things to you ever since Watson left the field for this line of work more than a half a century ago. I know that the idea that looking into the brain seems scary, but just remember that brain activity is only an intermediate step in the relationship between advertising and
This is a great topic. Now for my token stupid question... Are Bayes nets or MCMCs too computationally intensive to use for game AI? Anyone know?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="62" id="2983714"]I had a talk with Derek today on this very issue about the decision to move Fallen Enchantress from Fall 2011 to Winter 2012 and that this would add $1M + to the budget. There's no way we'd recover that since most WOM buyers are getting FE for free. But luckily for me (And you guys) we can afford to do this.[/quote] It's shit like this that makes me feel like a substandard human being for griping about the development of FE. For
...an all night coke party for the team when it scores above 90 on Metacritic.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="4" id="2983702"]That said, to keep expectations realistic, you should all assume FE will suck and give you cancer.[/quote] Ha! You know we won't.
[quote] (i.e. every tile of terrain matters i.e. building near rivers or forests or hills and that kind of thing will matter and there are things like unrest and tax rates and that kind of thing).[/quote] Wow, I think that this probably the most exciting info about FE yet. I can't wait for some details.
I like this ideaa lot, but I think that [quote who="Redwind85" reply="1" id="2978612"] the Googles of farsight[/quote] would have to be a really really high-level tech.