CdrRogdan

[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="30" id="3073872"]Quoting seanw3, reply 29Magic section 2 There will almost certainly be more magic put in the meager books we currently have. Were you suggesting that all spells should be researched? That would reward researchers with too many spells compared to warfare and Magic Tree purists. Adding maybe 50 new spells to the tree by release is a must in my book. There are so many unrealized spellbooks to be made. Exactly. Some s

Healing quickly is not an issue within your own territory, in fact I encourage this mechanic because it makes defending easier. Healing quickly is not an issue within neutral territory, as all it does is slow down the rate at which you gain xp. There are much better ways to do this while still allowing armies to be active. Healing quickly IS an issue within enemy territory. When you have 'just' conquered a city, it should not immediately flip to your terri

[quote who="taltamir" reply="69" id="3073344"]Why is it a bad thing that mana is precious and rare in early game and plentiful in late game?[/quote] It is not that it is rare or plentiful, it is that it is too rare to make using a mage soveriegn a viable beginning strategy, and too rare to adequately enchant units. Late game it is too plentiful to the point of being exploitative. [quote who="Asmodean_dk" reply="68" id="3073179"]Loads and loads of people in this thread are flin

@seanw3 Actually we are talking about what the game will be like when it is balanced out. ^^; I was referring to the notion that the mechanic used to expand and grow cities (and control the pacing) does not hinder an explorative route to victory. I don't think it's right to assume that the reason that the nation is 'hindered' is because they aren't conquering other nations, as that in itself is another victory condition, and a serious issue right no

[quote who="seanw3" reply="11" id="3073318"]I commend you on structure and analysis. This will be a great post for discussion. We should designate you as [Discussion] manager. [/quote] Hahaha, what? I do like many of your points. Especially about making victory conditions more interesting, but Primarily: The AI or the world become hostile when you are winning the game. I'll just sne

Champions consuming more than one slot is an interesting idea.. but as champions don't really start to shine until they reach a certain level/or ammount of gear, you would have to base this around their current power rating. Which hmm... actually.. Perhaps army size should really be a function of 'power rating'.. On second thought, that would require the game had a firm grasp on the strength of each individual unit (and it clearly rates mages far too low), and would

-Ultrarare- should not exist. Ultrapowerful? Sure. Ultra-interesting? Yes please! The game is already based way too much on random factors. The champion system is something I would really like to change, and encouraging them to use a terrible level mechanic by creating a greater disparity of 'good' 'bad' and 'awesome' level choices is not a good idea.

@Drakohan I like your ideas, and that is nicely summarized. [e digicons]k1[/e]

First off I just have to stop and apologize to the devs: They must be going stir crazy with all the feedback lately. That out of the way... Master of Magic was (and arguably still is) a great game. It wasn't balanced in the sense that armies vs spells vs heroes were all equally weighted against each other, it was balanced in that there were mutliple viable methods of beating the game. Even if some of these were broken such as starting the game with stream of life, they

While I initially voiced my opinion about having heroes mostly function as army buffers I am not on board with this. Joining a champion with a unit proposes a massive change to the game and a removal of many aspects that are still entertaining. I like the idea of ransoming units. I like the option of creating a champion that buffs the army units he is grouped with. I still want that champion to be capable of fighting on his own. With split xp, we may see more diversifi

I actually prefer this to a low random chance the champion can die. Controlled numbers can be planned around (even if you argue they are less realistic). Champions are pretty sturdy right now and this will only effect the AI. As additional code would be needed to prevent the AI from being aggressive with high wound characters, I would prefer a hold be placed on such a change until the computer becomes more competant.

[quote who="malekith" reply="21" id="3072790"]There's a giant unit design feature that is entirely player-facing (the AI doesn't use it). It serves no purpose. The cities that build these troops... they serve very little purpose. The tech trees that improves the cities and the worthless troops... no purpose. If there's no reason for a player to build troops, more than half the features in the game serve virtually no purpose. Who cares what race you pi

@LordRikerQ Seriously.. what.. the.. fuck? Did you even read any of my post? Clearly I stated no such thing. Put down the weed for a minute and think before you reply. I am not disagreeing that regular units couldn't use more options, I am all for this! But the pacing of the game makes it so that empire building and research are functionally useless with the comparitive rate at which champions advance. Maybe the devs intended for the game to end in 200 turns, but if that is

[quote who="LordRikerQ" reply="16" id="3072699"] Nerfing is the lazy way out. [/quote] It's not lazy, it's efficient. If something is broken, you don't break everything else so that is is less noticable. You FIX it! No one said anything about fewer options. In fact I argue for more options that are 'viable' not just possible. If obtaining a viable balance between champions and armies means bringing out the nerf bat on champions, then thwak away

If the game releases with the tech tree as it is currently I can tell you right now I would have no intention of purchasing this game. The mechanic is uneeded, arbritrary and unfun. Many of the buildings are lackluster and those that are not (food buildings) are so integral to the economy that the other tech trees require their research. However as I am going to recieve this game for free, if indeed it stays the same without some major overhaul, I intend to mod the game by remov

I am not a fan of this. Singular units should be unique in that they do not lose power. A dragon does not need to become less powerful as it's hitpoints decrease. Plus how do you determine the rate of lost strength and at what point does the unit no longer benefit from expending mana. For that matter.. how do you address buffs/debuffs that would be difficult, if not impossible to adjust based on health (loss). The absolute most I would be willing to accept from this is a &#3

[quote who="Breniir" reply="28" id="3071023"] It's already been suggested, but make it a "jump" across a fixed distance over any terrain. Say 3 squares +1per air shard, and this allows you to bypass a mountain range, small lake, or other obstacle. It would then be a air caster's counter to an earth caster who rings their territory with mountains. A knight movement in chess, rather than air dropping a queen onto any square on the chessboard.[/quote] Rogdan the idea-k

[quote who="Sethai" reply="24" id="3072593"] The "multiple roll" system is a good one. It moderates randomisation. It's how Warhammer, or total war or any other game works. It's intuitive and realistic. 3 Spearmen = 3 attacks = 3 dice. 5 arrows = 5 dice. What I'd do would be to make characters and monsters behave more like units. I'd give a standard spearman an attack value of about 10, and an elite infantryman an attack value of say 20. A sov by contrast might have an at

[quote who="dracophoenix" reply="11" id="3072628"] Again, Nerf mentality is fail. Many people enjoy this, some don't. Does that make one more right than the other? No. Lets focus on creating MORE playstyles and not LESS by destroying one that many find enjoyable.[/quote] Only in the world of video games do normally intelligent, rational human beings make such nonsensical statements. Let me put the whole idea of 'no more nerfs' into a real world scenario. A plu

Just as an aside, who have you been having playtest this derek? Retarded monkeys? I think I've only had a champion die twice, both times from some rediculously lucky maul stream attack. Champions are rediculous for reasons other than that they don't die. It's just that the lack of death mechanic and their recovery rate means steamrolling is easier. On the other hand it is =much= less likely that the defending army will be doomed after losing the 'game-breaker' c

Losing a level (or a big chunk of experience) makes more sense the majority of injuries. Near death experience can fuck with your mind.. Perhaps more importantly even if the empire wins, that champion should have a recovery time at the capital. That way the stack of doom is weakened at least long enough for the enemy empire to retake the city.

I'm not sure I like the idea of such a low random chance spawning a champion unit. The idea has merit, but unless units leveled frequently on their own this could get pretty frustrating. I suppose it's not much different than a chance per turn to get a hero to join you in Master of Magic.. but then that was frustrating enough to include an additional mechanic to force 'hiring' a hero. Hmm.. perhaps once a unit reaches a certain level you could have it 'retire' an

Sorry what? Strength increases both attack -and- damage? Do you mean to say accuracy? And intelligence increases accuracy? Because my mage needs to really hit with his staff? Perhaps accuracy shouldn't be tied to level. It certainly makes the dodge mechanic sort of weird. Perhaps dodge shouldn't even be a stat in the game... The changes you are suggesting ... are you sure they are what you meant to say? They seem a little conflicting.

Stop nerfing kitchen sinks, make bathtubs more useful!! .. Champions need a reduction in ability, but regular units also need to be brought in line. Remember that the issue also has to do with how easily the champions kill the regular monsters, not just champions vs units. Changing just regular units means all monsters would also have to be adjusted, which is probably more work, since they would have to be tweaked on an individual basis. And if anything is going to recieve the

Partial resists please. Unless the number of resists is high enough to provide the average outcome (such as a case where a spell targets 7 units in a stack) or the loss of an action is minor (it isn't) there should be some effect from the spell cast, even if it is reduced. All or nothing mechanics are for gamblers not strategists!