mqpiffle

No, I'm pretty sure it can't currently be done. The devs would have to implement it.

I would like to see the addition of a GameModifier flag of vsFlanked, which would allow the gamemodifier to be applied only if the target unit were being flanked, as if it were engaged in melee combat.

If a player (AI or human) decides to create a single powerful army with all of their units, this is a strategic decision the player has made and does not need any counters except the fact that a good player will be able to hold off the army then counter-attack appropriately. It does not need any special attention, because any other player can decide to use the same strategy. I'm not sure why you consider it cheese.

[quote who="seanw3" reply="21" id="3083620"]Discipline: +1 Strength per level. You can guess what I think of this one. Too much Strength in the late game. Lower it to +1 per 2 levels and make it part of a Path trait for Warriors. You should want to avoid making traits that are so good it is not a choice, but an imperative. You could make each spell free and I would still rather have Discipline. It's so much better than everything else. It is also important to make sure this ki

[quote who="seanw3" reply="18" id="3083437"]I agree in concept, but 1 per level is a dangerous slope. 1 per 2 or 3 levels would be a better balance. It is hard to say because regular troops have such low stats. [/quote] Regulars will never be, and should not ever be, as good as heroes. The numbers I present are intended purely for demonstration, and are not meant to be taken literally, but I don't see what the problem with each class gaining +1 whatever per level is when we

After a bit of thought I have two main issues with the current level-up/trait system. Accuracy gained per level by every hero and traits granting bonuses to base attributes. Starting with the latter, I feel that it would serve the game best to not allow heroes to gain or lose base attributes through level-up bonuses, traits, or injuries. This would help mitigate effects like always choosing a certain attribute increase because it will positively effect X number of

[quote who="Manii Names" reply="21" id="3083047"]With the way spells ramp up based on shard type, I am against changing the shards in any way.[/quote] Why? If the AI can be taught how to use it properly, what would be the problem?

I feel that instead of having the ability to pick bland trait options during unit design, traits should come with the equipment chosen during this phase. And perhaps units gaining levels could open up new traits down the line (you don't get to choose them, per se, they just get unlocked.) For instance: Mounted Spearmen Level 1: Flanking Charge(active): May only be used against an enemy who is already engaged in melee combat (being flanked.) Unit

We shall see... [e digicons]*_*[/e]

Is it just my eyes, or am I seeing differently-colored quest icons in the second screenshot? [e digicons]o_O[/e]

I would like to suggest the importance of using tacitical OUTPUT as a key component to the tactical AI. What I'm thinking of here, specifically, is a concept know as 'aggro' which I encountered in my brief MMO playing career. Basically, this would take the output of what is currently occurring inside a tactical situation and cause the AI to strategically adapt to the circumstances based on the interactions of the strengths and weaknesses - or simply if some units

There need to be alternative methods of creating, manipulating, and amplifying mana-types.

I disagree on all points as well, but I do wish they would include more spells to be researched (or unlocked, if you will) in the magic technology tree, especially for the more powerful spells in the game (rank III and greater.)

I think incorporating a lot more spell research into the magic tech tree would make it significantly more meaningful. Right now the magic tech tree is, imo, the least fun, useful, and/or necessary in the game, and really breaks immersion for me. Otherwise, I'd say minor tweaks and balances to the other two trees would be in order, as they are definitely more flavorful than the magic tree at the moment.

[quote who="Lord Reliant" reply="17" id="3080553"]I have a bit of a concern that dividing XP will make champions either too watered down or difficult to upgrade, but we'll see how it's implemented.[/quote] One thing's for sure, you'll have to adventure with fewer heroes in a single group in order to increase XP gain, which is a solid rpg mechanic.

I wouldn't worry. This will give an added layer of strategy to the game and help control the flow of xp. The results will be just fine.

Are you auto-resolving battles? If so, that's the problem.

I'm thinking one more week myself...SD has a lot to work out right now.

[quote who="Aeon221" reply="98" id="3078514"]Every player should start the game with leather armor and basic weapons unlocked. These two item classes are so critical to early warfare that not immediately researching both is a suboptimal strategy. Period. No arguments. If you don't have both and you get rushed, you will lose. It's so blatantly required that it shouldn't be an active element of the early game because it screws up balance. [/quote] There should be alternative

The problem with tweaking tactical spells at this point is that we don't know if the whole tactical battle mechanic is set in stone yet. We know the AI will be tweaked, we're pretty sure they're going to tweak traits and add new ones, maybe they'll add a formation feature. Also, imo, different spell types should *not* be balanced for effect across different elements. Fire should have the strongest direct damage with short DoT. Death very good DoT and

I'd like to see SpellResourceCost moved into a tag within GameModifiers, rather than the current implementation. Specifically, I would want to be able to alter mana costs as a spell grew more powerful, usually through number of shards.

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="16" id="3078208"] In E:wom we had three different ways to explain damage or healing inside spelldef tags - Value, MinValue, MaxValue. The rule was, you either had Value or MinValue+MaxValue. The difference was, Value is a single number, but when we did MinValue+MaxValue the game would randomly choose a number between those and count it as Value for the modifier. I would like to see this return, it would help us produce a

[quote who="maniakos" reply="3" id="3077961"]What about adding a button on the enchants list to "upgrade" each enchant by paying some mana cost, to a more powerful version, when you get new shards.[/quote] There's no way to scale mana cost with, well...anything, really. But there should be!!!

I was thinking more along the lines that UnitStat_Attack_Fire was set to a non-zero value. It's somewhat unclear to me what all of these new attack/defense types are really doing, and how they affect and interact with each other.

Either DefendableDamage always returns *something*, or GetNumFireShards is doing something strange, because this: Unit DefendableDamage UnitStat_Attack_Fire</A