Tasunke

It's not a bad idea, while perhaps unrefined. What about the time when a nation has just enough resources to buy a single peasant? or when one wants only a single scout? or a single flag-bearer? or when one wants only a single death-knight? obviously there would need to be changes to the combat system for a single death-knight to be useful ... or for a flag-bearer to even be possible (improves morale).

And yes ... I do highly like the new equation for the SHOP-COST of equipment ... I just want another option than Shop-cost only. Which is why I propose a Shop AND an Armory. The armory is only accessible to the Sovereign, and uses a raw-resource price ... while the Shop is open to EVERYONE and uses the proposed gold-price equation.

Yep ... gotta agree, when it comes down to it, while I never wanted a unit of 1000 soldiers, I ALWAYS wanted a unit of 40-100 soldiers. Call me a Total War purist if you will, its just my preference, and I believe that single heroes can be balanced against a squad of 80 soldiers. // I'm not saying a hero will always kill 80 soldiers, I'm saying balanced ... as in a really good hero will *actually* be really good. ;)

1. You have the appropriate tech and resources. 2. You have the appropriate tech, but not enough resources. 3. You do not have the appropriate tech. If 1, simply buy the weapon at "the armory", state owned, costs the exact resource requirement. Accessible only to yourself. If 2, buy the weapon at "the store", privately owned, accessible to yourself, NPCs, and Rival Champions If 3, buy the weapon at a Rival Factions "Store", privately owne

1. Basically, if you have the resources AND the tech, you should be able to simply pay the raw resource cost ... 2. however ... if you have the Tech and not the resources, you can buy it from the shop. 3. If you don't have the Tech ... then you can buy it from a Rival's Shop that does have the tech. a randomly wandering NPC with its own AI and its own treasury of GOLD would only have the option of purchasing from a Faction shop. (or go adventuring

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="10" id="2775923"] Quoting ajax bomb, reply 4 Quoting Frogboy, reply 2Fixing the bug in monster loot necessitated a review of the cost of weapons and such. Our primary game play changes are actually in a separate branch that will show up in v1.1 (new UI, new spell system, etc.). But having monsters give 2000 gildar loot was game breaking and was never the intent. Are the reductions in equipment cost significant? Yes. In to

Economy, I'd prefer a "hybrid" approach myself, as I have discussed earlier UI, meh ... not my priority, I'm just glad its better than Dwarf Fortress UI (subjective, I know) Combat, ... I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Combat is the essence of these sorts of games. And how combat integrates into the rest of the game determines how easy or hard the game is as a whole. Without goo

Well ... I think the ideas of "Global Economy" and "Resource Sites" should first be separated for this thread to continue. Global Economy ... each city in the world has the POTENTIAL to access your supply of resources. Resource Sites ... large amounts of resources are granted by specific locations, as opposed to buildings. I still support a "Global Economy" ... although I think cities should only have access to metal if they have a "smelter" building + r

Nice ... Codex Alera xD

Well, I was just saying that the Kingdoms were more based on Codified laws ... and while the Empire society obviously has its own sets of norms "similar" to laws ... the Wisdom and Judgement of the strong are what truly guides the practices of the Empire. (when I say Wisdom and Judgement ... basically the every Whim of a strong empire leader is to be followed)

Anyways ... Armor should be static, damage should (probably) be gaussian ... but attack really should be X + 1DN. Of course, since armor is static (C), then the relationship between X, N, and C should be the most important. For instance, if N is 100 (meaning a 100 point spread possible between attacker or defender ... or a 90 point spread if one were to assume a 5% "always" buffer at each end) ... then X and C should be made in relation to 100 ... like C should

(DIfferent Topic) as to our earlier discussion on 3 Inn AIs ... instead of being fully "kingdom, empire, and neutral" ... instead lets have Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. As for "why" the distinction ... Chaotic Inns could have organized gambling and Black Market services (like human trafficking, or experienced and willing assassins, or weapons that were banned by the "Ele-Geneva Convention" or w/e) Neutral Inns could appeal to all ranges of Champions, an

Heh, I now see why your having them be "non recruitable" NPCs ... because they are a function of the Inn. In your current theory, your "Inn AI" is an organism with several static locations/ waypoints. This organism uses adventurers as Antibodies to fight monsters and complete quests (the antigens). Personally I'd rather see the Inns as "Cities" on a smaller scale, and these (recruitable) NPCs may interact with an Inn just as it may interac

Yep, Empires are more about Chaos, and freedom of the strong ... while Kingdoms are more about Law and Order, and about everyone obeying a certain code of conduct (as well as providing entertainment to the masses) whereas, instead of a "code of conduct" for EVERYONE ... the Empires have the strong do what they will, and the weak must fulfill any service or obligation required of them by their betters.

Combat Mechanics, Magic, and Tactical Battles are definitely the Top 3 ( and AI well ... yea that's there too, but you can only see how to make a good AI in reaction to the core mechanics ... therefore these battle/ magic mechanics need to be changed first, so that the AI can adapt and evolve to a "good" game) yea ... it needs to be a "good game" first, and then have "good AI" later. Edit: This relates to the thread because ... I believe that the Combat features

Also, how about allowing the Intra-Inn network "micro trade" only for Champions that do "NOT" belong to any faction (so if you go Gandolf, or if you play as a meagre peasant/ any single Champion ... on a smaller level) but Nations are too big to be bothered with such things (thus its disabled for nations, or even the Inn AI factions themselves) of course .. this "free agent" only micro-trade can be enabled later as a separate yet integrated system

That seems like a fair middle ground.

I'd rather share spells (spell-name) that share functionality.

Actually, I'd prefer WeGo to just adding more numbers .... [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e]

Well, the idea is that each Inn is like a "Clan" ... Inn A *could* in theory decide to go Mafia and "hostile take-over" other Inns. The faction (of mafia Inn-keepers) would share resources globally ... but separate Inns would (ideally) be separate factions. Why have "postal-service" micro?? Well, its a personal thing: my favorite thing from Mount and Blade and Suikoden was traveling to cities with Trade-goods looking to make a profit.

Well ... this ties into Inns having "Inn merchants" ... and the trading system between inns, and cities ... So an NPC champion or Inn merchant could take the +5 sword of awesome from Inn A in your land, to Inn C in your rival's land. Especially if Inns actively send out their rare items/resources to be sold to the highest bidder (farthest accessible lands) obviously if an Inn Merchant carrying the +5 sword got killed by creature, the

Right ... yea simplifying it would be best for now ... I'm just trying to keep an end-goal in mind (an end goal that at least should be possible on the Elemental platform) But yea, your current implementation would be a great idea for a mod.

As far as Inns being a single global resources ... again I'd rather see each Inn be a separate pool, and such Inns could even trade with each other at some level (there could be special "market" resources ... and a good Micro-er could "play the market" to take trade goods from one Inn to the next, etc)

Off the top of my head ... you don't need to have fully "non recruitable" heroes ... instead you can have heroes with low honor, low loyalty, or both. For instance, a free-roaming bandit would likely have low honor and low loyalty. Meanwhile, a Thug might have low honor but high loyalty (looking for the proper nefarious Mafia boss/ Gang to join) Equally, a Disillusioned legendary soldier could have EXTREMELY high honor, yet little to no loyalty (think Kenshin Himura fr

Interesting idea. I like it. One possibility is that (assuming each Champion is their own AI, and parties are "alliances"), perhaps each Inn has its own set of global resources, and maybe you have "travelling merchant belonging to Inn X" ... so you can give the resources to either the Inn or the merchant. But really, if the correct Inn is on your map, you should be able to simply click on the Inn itself to interact with it (without sending someone there). <