ddd888

they said patch will be next (this) week if i remember they are working

[quote who="Rincewind57" reply="58" id="2694015"]If every diplo capital point was worth, say, 10 gold, it could be a useful 'bartering' resource in mp i imagine. Player A: I want 5 material. Player B: I have plenty of everything your wussy empire has! And I am crawling in gold! Player A: Here, have some diplomatic capital. My wussy empire is friend to all! Player B: 'cor blimey guvnor! If that ain't the fairest deal in the whole of Christendom![/quo

[quote who="Wintersong" reply="59" id="2694018"]I'm absolutely tired of reading people talking like if Multiplayer had the SAME importance as singleplayer [/quote] yeah agree multiplayer should be the ONLY game in the world!

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="57" id="2694013"] Wel yeah, but it would be "balanced" at least...[/quote] sure sure, any useless thing is balanced like putting a option to create a monster who eat your own empire sure it woudl be balanced cause no one would do it :D

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="55" id="2693995"] I think that the diplo points should act like a "normal"/ordinary resource type in MP games, and that's all. You could use it for trading, just like you use the mats/iron etc. Sure it's kinda nonsensical to trade diplo points for iron, but at least it won't imbalance the MP games. [/quote] it would just not make sense unless it has some realy GOOD use who on earth would

[quote who="bloodystump11" reply="16" id="2691976"]I just had a brainwave and thought i'd drop it here to see if it has any worth. What about an ongoing, research based increase for all armor/weapon types in a similar fashion to the resource upgrades (the better resource production percentages). All armor types start out with relatively equal values then you can choose to improve one type per research breakthrough. As you improve that type it gets a stat increase and it'

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="233" id="2691238"] This makes caster Sovs have to invest in an extra stat, since tactical spells can cost 5+ mana..[/quote] you can make the same trick as for melee attacks spells have a base cost (mana or level or whatever) divided by attack speed (eventually with a constant to make it balanced)

[quote who="DeadlyShoe" reply="234" id="2691239"]it's just that 8 ice bolts in 1 turn is ridiculous[/quote] yup right now this is one of my concerns, but lets wait next beta to see how they solved it

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="235" id="2691251"] i dont think anyone wants multi-turn casting. You'd be surprised, people have been asking for it [/quote] but not in tactical combats, maybe enchantments or other big land spell anyway the actual magic system is not so bad there is a progression and it takes time to research spells which is nearly the same

[quote who="DeadlyShoe" reply="230" id="2691120"]The notion that you need more stats is provably false. MOM only had attack, ranged attack, shields, resistance, hitpoints. It was perfectly fine and quite interesting combat system. Granted mostly thats because it had abilities on its units. Abilities are coming though. Resistance would actually be a nice mechanic to implement, it would serve to make champions/dragons/etc. far more resistant to magic than

[quote who="Icepick" reply="220" id="2689736"]How about a spell costing its level in APs to cast? I.E a level 4 spell takes 4 AP to cast. Any attacking/moving by the caster during the turns it takes to complete interrupts the spell. This way an opponent has 2 or 3 turns to try to interrupt a Sovereign casting a 9th lvl nuke spell. Also keeps someone from busting out 3 or 4 high level spells per turn. If spell level= # of APs doesn't balance, you can always toss a modifier in there:

and why he reopens a thread closed btw?

i know there isnt but there will be something i suppose if not what would be the point of having blunt and other type of damages? (not that i really feeel the need of having them btw)

[quote who="Tridus" reply="11" id="2689979"] Quoting ddd888, reply 9 yes but dont forget we miss some defensive stats like resistances against elements and against weapon types (if i remember correctly frogboy told he wanted to put them, right? ) You could do those as special abilities, rather then stats.[/quote] true maybe even better instead of f

lizard spock

[quote who="Tridus" reply="7" id="2689953"]We only need a new stat because they're strongly against using overland movement speed as tactical movement speed. If that wasn't a problem we have all the stats we need: movement and attack speed (combat speed). As it stands right now, this part of the system is too simplistic. There's not enough stats. Too many stats is more of a problem for Sovereigns.[/quote] yes but dont forget we miss some defensive stats

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="6" id="2689946"] Actually you wouldn't have to add anyhing if the devs would decide to implement a separated movement/attack system, IF # of overland movement points = # of tactical movement points. [/quote] ah ok i agree and i always told that this is my easiest solution but for some reason stardock dont like it so nothing we can do about it :P

right now its still primitive but if i remember correctly frogboy said he wanted to make different kind of weapons matter

[quote who="Shurdus" reply="36" id="2689891"] Quoting KillzEmAllGod, reply 34 Not until next week.so we not getting it this week? T hat would indeed be an interpretation of the words 'not until next week' that we could agree upon.[/quote] well they could release at 00.00 monday in the same exact moment when its both next week but still this week

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="4" id="2689913"] Actually I'd go with a totally separated movement & attack system [like I've said in the other topic], because that would be more realistic, but this could work as well. [This is somewhat similar to the AoW combat system.][/quote] well if i have to design a new combat system i would use a system of 14 differential equation while the stats of each unit would be a matrix of 256x256 that

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="1" id="2689417"] The problem is not really with just bows and spells, but stats in general. All units end up being basically glass cannons because you can't make them with high HP,[/quote] yeah i wanted to make a post about it i really dont like low hp in general, whatever the dmgs are i really like to start with high number in hp so its easier to balance things [quote] and weapons

[quote who="Civfreak" reply="21" id="2689392"] As for imbuing heroes I don't think you should lose essence permanently, and that weakening the sovereign (temporarly lowering max essence) would work just fine[/quote] imo it would lead to neverending cheating in agame there are a lot of dead times if the loss is temporarty it would end with some time of the game where you charge champions and some cool down whe

[quote who="Twohawks" reply="20" id="2689365"] also there is the problem of other champions, how to make them cast? use spell imbue hero to make others casters...[/quote] yeah and whats the point is you lose the same power than other championg gain?

[quote who="Civfreak" reply="18" id="2689357"] While I do believe some spells should actually lower your max essence (these would have to be extremely powerful and ubber) I dont like how theres many that just flat out gimp your caster permanently.[/quote] i dont agree even on the first part frogboy want sauron like and casters do cast 23124124 times in a single turn and then you put a bit of grass on the ground and lose essence

[quote who="novagenesis" reply="4" id="2688850"] When I thought we were going to balance at fewer cities than Civ, I didn't realize half of them would be paying the gold upkeep on them with the other half paying a food upkeep. I'd still need 8-10 food resources and 8-10 gold mines, even then, to maintain a weak economy.[/quote] dunno in all my games i reach 5 10 k gold no problem