Tridus

Oh, yeah. Well I've been in agreement that I want some method of doing that for the entire thread. :) Just differ a bit on the "how".

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="123" id="2424741"] In a computer game, a system like this would require, among many other things (here I am just using the examples from your post): immunity tags (and possibly resistance tags...), special mechanics for poison tags, ignitability for fire (I hope my water elemental isn't going to all of a sudden ignite!) What would affect the chance lightning has of stunning? [/quote] I don't think those are that hard to do. Ignite and poison for e

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="3" id="2424862"]Yes. You're in left field. So hitpoints represent more than just how many times a player can be stabbed through before dying? Will my level 3 swordsman's higher hitpoints allow him to cut down his opponent faster than a level 3 swordsman might've been able to do? Will my level 3 swordsman be able to survive a lightning bolt that would kill his level 1 counterpart? I hope not! No amount of combat experience is going to increase y

I like it. You should post in the economics dev journal thread . :)

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="89" id="2424855"]Correct. Attack and Defense are related to equipment. What we loosely call HP here represents the overall "strength". Instead of HP we should probably just call it "strength" or something since it's just causing confusion.[/quote] Good idea. Terminology is important. :) People hear "HP" and think a specific thing. Since this stat is actually doing something different, another name would be better.

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="73" id="2424718"] That's so wrong in so many levels that I don't know how to properly express it. For me the difference between a rookie fighter and a veterean one is not about who stands more punishement (i.e. in theory the vet could stand less due to old injuries) but on how many different tactics/attacks/defenses they know and how efficient they are in combat (or something like that, not a good day for examples). [/quote] HP is and alwa

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="71" id="2424713"] But leaving the rest of the game in tatters is not a worthy trade off. [/quote] Overstating it a bit, aren't we? Its kind of funny how you made so many posts about unfounded anecodtes vs concreate game mechanics, and now you're here saying the uber dragon example is going to ruin the game. :P

Okay, that's just cool. [e digicons]:frogboy:[/e]

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="557" id="2424265"] Quoting Tasunke, reply 556 it seems like Camp #4 has already been decided upon, Really? [/quote] Over here, under "resources" . It's basically camp 4. This thread is actually several months old now, so its not surprising they went with something. It is kind of surprising they went with that option, but you know.

[quote who="Arbitrator" reply="69" id="2424219"]That's a good point - the trigger doesn't have to be a unit moving though. The point I'd like to emphasise is that if an L1 road arises organically in response to the player's playstyle, the map will look more 'real' and be more satisfying than a series of roads to nowhere based on what seemed like a good strategy in turn 50 - or blanket road coverage, civ-style. I have no doubt there's a good trigger that could be found for this

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="52" id="2424054"] But while going back and forth with these analogies might be fun, it really has no bearing on balanced game mechanics. [/quote] Spearman beating Tank came up because its an actual example of broken game mechanics. In earlier Civ games (Civ 3 in particular IIRC) it was something that occured with alarming frequency. It infuriates a lot of players and shows just how RNG based the combat system is. (Civ 4 is generally speaking bet

You're not alone, I can't play right now either. Head to the beta forum , and use this guide to post a bug . That will help them fix it. :)

[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="22" id="2423401"]If melee units were strongest, then flankers, then ranged then ranged, it still made sense to build armies like 4 melee, 2 flankers and 6 ranged units, because the flankers and ranged would attack the enemy melee units and kill them faster than lone melee units (getting 3 attacks agaisnt 1 unit). [/quote] That's still entirely predictable, though. You're going to do the same thing every time because its the best you can do within the

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="1" id="2423391"]It seems that people have an aversion to the term "random" in the same way that many people have an aversion to the word "taxes," without recognizing the necessary nature of both. Having no dice rolls whatsoever will produce formula outcomes. I was once a very serious chess player, playing competitively in tournaments and studying strategy books. The reason why I turned away from chess is because it became a very p

[quote who="VicenteC" reply="98" id="2423031"]A single magic damage and resistance offers a trade-off between versatility and complexity. It succees separating magic from non-magic attacks, it's easier to understand, to test, to balance, and to be aware of it. [/quote] With some way to add modifiers, yeah. If all you have is resistance and all spells go against it, what you have is a fairly simple system with no way to do the odd things (like unit X being immune to something).</p

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="102" id="2423382"]I single magic damage and resistance annihilates versatility for pretty much no meaningful reduction in complexity. It really is not hard to understand that "hey, my fireball's only going to do half damage against that thing with 50% fire resistances." IMO one only needs to worry about things being too complex when their effects are not obvious upon first inspection. Resistances & such are about as obvious as you can get - even more so to

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="43" id="2423418"] I want to see 5000 archers be able to make a dent in a Groglock and, given enough archers, even kill it. It's not unknown that lowly defenders have killed great beasts in fantasy--- as a matter of fact, it's a staple of fantasy (think of the Hobbit and the defenders of Esgaroth). For one, Smaug wasn't defeated by a horde of lowly defenders, he was defeated by Bard, a singular archer who was literally told of a

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="37" id="2423211"] "How does allowing low end units the chance of damaging a high end unit damage the balance of the game?" I still haven't recieved an answer to this question beyond a response that distills down to, "Because it's uncool." [/quote] Ever seen a Spearman defeat a Tank in Civ? That is your answer. Completely obsolete, underpowered units should not be able to defeat overwhelmingly superior u

Some good ideas in here. I like the idea of roads having an upkeep cost, particularly really good roads. A paved stretch of road is really good for trade and movement in general, but its a huge expense to build and maintain. You shouldn't be able to spam those everywhere. Going down the scale you can have maintained dirt roads, and unmaintained trails that are just kept down due to people travelling them. I'm against automatic road building, particularly if roads carry an expense. If

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="4" id="2422582"]Yeah, Total War always had these issues as well. What also plays into this equation is the to-hit ceiling of each unit (can a peasant even hit a knight?) If it's fairly high, there is more room for a broader range of units in an army late game. If not, you might see an overemphasis on the heavy hitters. [/quote] It was a stated goal earlier int he process that a peasant rabble be viable. So I'd say based on that, yes

One of the things that causes this is stack limits. AoW2 had a limit of 8 units in a stack. Faced with that, do you use a combination of sowrdsmen, archers, and other tier 1 units totalling 8? Or do you use 8 Chaos Lords? You always use the Chaos Lords, or the Dread Reapers, or the Red Dragons. Putting weaker units in a stack just makes you more likely to lose. Now, 8 Knights vs 8 Peasants is a no brainer. 8 Knights vs 100 Peasants? Peasants are a lot cheaper to equip, I don't know ho

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="31" id="2422510"]Thus begins the slide toward the Monolithic Army. This mechanic limits player thinking. If you are always encouraged to build the biggest and baddest units, why even bother with the small ones? [/quote] Becauase not everything is a dragon. Dragons are rare. You can't build them. You can't easily recruit them. You won't even see them in every game. They're an exceptional and badass case. Elite units you can build w

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="87" id="2422360"]But you still do actually have a damage type there - the information is just encoded elsewhere. If a fireball is tagged "fire" then it does fire damage. That damage would only be differentiated from any other form of damage if used against something with an ability that provides immunity/resistance to things tagged "fire," which is exactly the same case as if you just use resistances. Against something with no resistances to anything, it doesn

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="21" id="2422282"]Even if non-venomous ants bit you long enough, they would cart away miniscule chunks of your flesh until you were dead--- and the size difference between an ant and human is vastly larger than the difference between even the largest dragons in fantasy literature and a human. [/quote] That's because the ant is actually capable of damaging you skin. One ant can't do it enough to slow you down, but they are having an effect. A woo

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="23" id="2422305"] A grasshopper can't kill a man. A million grasshoppers still couldn't kill a man. How would the million archers kill the dragon? It would depend on whether they can penetrate the dragon's armor. If they can't. They can't. While the battle system in Elemental is still something to be fully fleshed out, I'm of the opinion that when a unit rolls their attack and defense that the minimum should always be say 10%