[quote who="HerrGamenon" reply="14" id="2860151"]Hey all... Dave Stern here, thanks for the welcome, look forward to participating in the forums, and working on the game (not necessarily in that order!) [/quote] Dave. I love your forum handle.
[quote who="charon2112" reply="105" id="2860499"]If that's the real Jon, then I'm a bit disappointed at his button post. It's pretty unprofessional. [/quote] what the deuce is a button post.
damn... I'm going to go ahead and blame this on my current plagued condition :) this would never happen if I were 100%. Oh and bring it on the geekhood test ;)
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="62" id="2859815"]Yea, but these guys are all geeks, and geeks tend to be friends with anyone willing to be friendswith them. Or that's pretty much how I am...why I have a menagerie of friends of varying race, creed, and sexual orientation, when you are a full-blooded geek, you are willing to judge people by what's on the inside and their ability to make jokes using the words: Flux capacitor, Wookie, and C.H.U.D.[/quote] what's this about carnivorous
This just means this is the winner of this spell contest and his spell will for sure be going in. Like we said before a ton of these submissions were either great spells in their own right or had parts of them that were innovative and interesting that we could potentially work into different new spells. I wouldn't expect probably to see any of these spells with the EXACT name and features (wouldn't say for sure it wont happen though) but know that we do like a lot of them
to back up Boogie: tons more changes are coming to the magic system.... and I don't mean 'we plan on looking at it', I mean 'we have changes thought up already that we just didn't have time to implement in 1.1. These aren't little things like "more spells" or adding a starting spell either, expect some seriously adjusting because, while it does serve a purpose now, it isn't where we want it to be either. As a note, having magic spells (particularly damage ones) can b
as the guy who balanced the numbers for the current system I feel I need to point out a huge part of the equation you are neglecting: what tier of techs these items are unlocked at. Remember, the first tier of weapons are unlocked at the start of the game for free (Club and Staff) while armor is not. The idea is that if you have out teched someone's weapons with your armor they will have an advantage, ideally they wont be 100% ineffective, but they will be pretty weak. &n
yea looks like those two pieces got missed... fixed now
thanks, all reports help! Also worth noting that when the game crashes it creates a zip crash dump C:\ProgramData\Stardock\Elemental - War of Magic if you have those zips to go along with these it helps the coders as well, they don't get deleted when you run the game again so they could still be there :) thanks again for the reports
[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="98" id="2839632"] Also as you said the benefit is generally only significant with a decent strength bonus, however, you are neglecting HOW much better it can be with a high strength. Well, in the case of the longsword, to have it become slightly better than the hammer against light infantry, you need *very* high strength. And to have it become really better... you need tremendous strength. With 40 strength: + 15 damage. Again
[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="96" id="2839602"] That's why Longsword specifically is a 17 attack vs the 30 attack of the slower battle hammer. Actually, there's a small issue with that I believe. There are 2 factors which make combat speed a bit less desirable than an increase in attack power: -If you already increased combat speeds with other powers or tech, then the +1 in combat speed won't take you from 3 to 4, but (say) from 5 to 6. 5*30 compar
[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="67" id="2839116"]Sorry for having been a bit aggressive. My main issue is the following: a weapon of a given tech level will give a lot of "blocked" results on an armor of exactly the same tech level. Broadsword against light plate, for instance. Mace against leather, although it's still okay-ish. Longsword against heavy plate. Broadsword's tech line is: equipment, weaponry, cutting weapons. Light plate's is : equipment, armor, light
btw I just wanted to point out that these kind of threads really help us as developers :) Sometimes the most valuable information you can get from your testers isn't even about bugs, its about how they end up playing the game. IE if 100 people reply to this and no one ever goes up the diplomacy tree that means something... The same is true for things like 'what spells do you cast the most' or 'what resource do you find yourself always needing more of' or 'what weapons ar
[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="20" id="2838236"] 20. Lowered defense values slightly. Uh.. it's been changed to "slightly". Seriously, I don't get it. With the major changes made to the game, how can values which were already completely inconsistent still make any sense and be relevant ? I mean, it's not like I'm the only one thinking this. And it's not like it's not obvious: if you rethink your system as deeply as you did, if your probability cu
[quote who="greggbert" reply="3" id="2838901"]I usually have a soverign or hero with 4 MP and then a smaller mobile army with 3MP kind of shadowing him, lagging behind. The 4MP guy does most of the exploring and then when he find something too tough he merges in with the 3MP stack to take it out. After you research the first equipment tech you can get these 4MP scout type guys and those are awesome for exploring. Finally, once you get RETURN you can use your soverign an
we are (and have been) looking for more ways to give players interesting choices in the early game (particularly the first 10-30 turns). Look for some changes to this effect in the future... For one I whole heartedly agree that you should start with a small amount of materials, not enough to neglect needing a workshop at some point soon but enough to give you options with your first couple buildings.
yea, as said before this is a known issue and is not how we intended them to function. We have a fix that appears to be working internally, look for it in an upcoming beta build, as this is going to drastically increase the income for your faction in the late game there is a very high probability that the numbers on these improvements will have to be fiddled with. Either that or maintenance costs may have to go up slightly to find a better middle ground (obviously not up to scale
thanks for the feedback!
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="102" id="2826055"]Unfortunately, the fanboys outnumber the non-fanboys so I won't be able to say much here without getting trounced ... (all the non-fanboys have left the building). I'm glad we're getting a few new spells to try out and a new game mechanics: global mana pool and tactical battle attack/dodge. The reasons 1.1 will be underwhelming still remain: 1) no improvement to AI ... Every game I've played I've pla
[quote who="Gazz_" reply="59" id="2825947"]One important point on spell design: Please keep the resist calculation in the Spell.xml instead of making it a hardcoded black box system. The spells calculate their damage therre, they can also calculate their resist chance. That ensures some desperately needed flexibility like... Other resists: Just because there is a "magic resistance" stat... that doesn't mean that every spell has to use it.<br /
[quote who="nikmesh" reply="134" id="2822509"] Derek Paxton or Kestral, has it been at all considered having armor being detrimental to dodge? The way I thought it could work for example is each armor weight class could halve a units dodge score. This could only work if dodge was made more powerful to account for the halving effect and that dodge would be at it's most effecient when used in light armor -Padded and leather armors-, with reduced effects on medium armors.[/quote] in
[quote who="FatNonFree" reply="125" id="2822425"] Quoting Kestral2040, reply 124 Quoting cephalo, reply 123All this stuff sounds like an enormous improvement. I do still have concerns about the I go You go combat. Especially in range combat, you have a situation where the team that can attack first can greatly hamper their opponents ability to retaliate, simply because they went first. I would very much like to see an initiative system, so that every battle doesn't play out like an
[quote who="cephalo" reply="123" id="2822414"]All this stuff sounds like an enormous improvement. I do still have concerns about the I go You go combat. Especially in range combat, you have a situation where the team that can attack first can greatly hamper their opponents ability to retaliate, simply because they went first. I would very much like to see an initiative system, so that every battle doesn't play out like an ambush.[/quote] its coming but not in 1.1 :)
[quote who="Werewindlefr" reply="105" id="2822304"]So, I have a few questions: -Aren't you afraid that Dexterity, as previously mentioned, will become the dump stat? Maybe it'd be nice to tie accuracy to Dexterity, or to make dodge scale better with higher levels of dexterity. As it is now, a Str 40 hero looks clearly better than a Dex 40 hero; although it is true that I can't know without trying first. -Are there plans to make the tactical battles somewhat more... wll,
some quick feedback: [quote who="Gwenio1" reply="2" id="2821875"] quoting postThere are a lot of UI improvements, one of my favorites is the city idle popup. You now get warned when a city has nothing let in its queue, and you have the opportunity to jump right to it. I would think a popup that tell you that there ARE idle when you try to end turn and asks "Are you sure you want to proceed to the next turn?" would be better (with the ability to mark cities