mqpiffle

[quote who="rillifane" reply="113" id="3063368"] Quoting mqpiffle, reply 111 It is my speculation that the xp gain as it currently stands is not what they intended, and thus they didn't realize that it was broken. EDIT: And, fyi, I don't appreciate the more personal tone your posts are taking. I'm only trying to argue a concept, not criticize you as a person. It is difficult for me to reply to this without being out right off

Great work HF. +1.

[quote who="rillifane" reply="109" id="3063318"]Also as a side note, anything the developers intentionally put into a game is not a bug...[/quote] It is my speculation that the xp gain as it currently stands is not what they intended, and thus they didn't realize that it was broken. EDIT: And, fyi, I don't appreciate the more personal tone your posts are taking. I'm only trying to argue a concept, not criticize you as a person.

They probably just "officially" announced it. Long time board creeps have been aware of it for about a year now.

I would say have maintenance cost grow as you build more buildings in a city. So the buildings you build first have relatively low maintenance, and after a few of these the maintenance grow. There needs to be some sort of limiting factor to the choices you can make. Also building upgrades!!

[quote who="Nehanski" reply="33" id="3063301"]some kind of cap on how much mana can be spent in a single battle,[/quote] I don't know what it is, but anytime anyone mentions capping something, it just makes me crankier than normal. Maybe I just need anger management...

Well, the AI is definitely still in its infancy, and there is a huge issue with gaining xp right now. Many things to be worked on at this stage of the game.

It seems to me the biggest deficiencies in tactical battle right now are 1) the inabilty to initially place your units on the tactical map 2) the fact that you can wait for the AI to come in to melee range to attack on your terms. A unit should be forced to move their full range of motion every turn (like an action point system.) If you stand passively you should be considered flat-footed and gain a severe penalty to your next dodge. If you stand

[quote] No more mages using 2-handed Axes and wearing Plate.[/quote] I don't see a problem with this, as long as they are not as good in any one area as someone who decided to specialize.

The other positive aspect of the one queue + hurry system currently in place is that is gives another economic outlet for gold in the game. With two queues, you would very rarely need to hurry build anything. [quote who="childofdark" reply="17" id="3063166"] It is much more realistic.[/quote] I don't understand this argument, because this entire game is an abstraction of some barely plausible alternate-dimension-style existence. [quote who="childofdark"

Yes, having OR choices would be a great design decision.

I, for one, never found the dynasty system very engaging. It added zero strategic depth to the game, and was just annoying the way it popped out kids with the name of "Goofelbrod" or "Invetsibloghjoyuryal." I have no interest in seeing this aspect of the game return unless it makes some kind of strategic impact on gameplay.

[quote]+ Regeneration also works in tactical combat (instead of just on the world map).[/quote] I don't get this. Should be two different spells.

[quote who="Martimus" reply="13" id="3063086"]You still need to make choices with multiple queues. I know i never had all my cities producing troops at once, nor did I have them all producing buildings at once in WOM. You couldn't afford to do both, since you only had so many resources. The lack of the option miffs me, and to say that it takes away from the strategy is dumb in my opinion. It is a different type of strategy, but it is a derived game mechanic that do

Forgot this one!! [quote]Overland 'strategic' level buff spells are a terrible, terrible investment of mana. Again, the whole mana system... well, that's another post.[/quote] Agree. Strategic spells should be city/empire/movement etc type spells. BIG spells. Those enchants on single units are worthless.

Now that I actually read the entire post, great ideas, and thank you for clearly outlining some of the glaring issues in the game so far. I'd like to comment specifically on some points in the magic section. [quote]Mana usage in battle per hero is not constrained. AoM, MoM, and other games have done this - simply give heroes a cap on tactical mana that can be spent, adjust spell costs to compensate, and you prevent endless spellcasting of hyper-powered spells from the mid al

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="3" id="3062996"]@Mtrixis, this is a great post, everything you say I agree with (what I'm saying is I feel the same way when I play). Except the part about shared xp because I didn't understand what you mean.[/quote] To further describe his point (abstractly): Right now if you have one hero that defeats one enemy in battle he gains X xp. If you bring two heroes, they each gain X xp. Same for three, four, or ten. Basically an i

[quote who="StevenAus" reply="97" id="3062684"]I meant, split it evenly or give more/less to those of higher/lower level. For simplicity though, I think it would be best to give each army (multi-unit stacks and champions on the same square each count as one army): Total experience of defeated units --------------------------------------- number of surviving winning troops[/quote] I assume that a unit (hero) needs to gain progressively more xp to gain f

[quote who="rillifane" reply="102" id="3062905"] I have already presented an idea that hinders hero growth rate while at the same time not ruining the flow of the game as sharing xp does. This idea does not reward you for single or dual champions all it does is punish you. Even with the idea of supplimenting with regular units this idea still punishes you because they take a share of the xp as well. Then theres the fact that if something is punishing the player the ai is screwe

Yah, exactly.

Big, fat, hairy "No!" If you're gonna have more than one, might as well have 75.

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="4" id="3061441"]Making buildings upgrade-o-rama instead of taking their own tiles would certainly fix the sprawl abuse, but I fear it would also bee-line every city. I mean, you'd pretty much lose every interesting choice that is currently in the game for cities. Or is the plan to have mutually exclusive upgrades? Ie barracks can become garrison - extra militia - OR fortress - extra defense for stationed units?[/quote] Of course, the more interesting

[EDIT: Just so it's clear: I'm not yet in the beta. I've read exactly one post where the poster has come to the following conclusion and it was a huge red flag for me. If others could test and confirm (or deny, for that matter) its truth, I would be most appreciative. ] So, I just found out that the xp gained from a battle is not SPLIT, rather all the combatants involved on the winning side GAIN THE SAME AMOUNT OF XP. Does anyone else see the prob

[quote who="Ihfacny" reply="1" id="3062215"] Also the mechanic of giving everyone the full experience bonus also encourages "packing heroes".[/quote] I was thinking tonight about the hero "problem". I was wondering if / how xp was being split among members of a party. This mechanic of not splitting xp is a complete game-breaker. I can't believe SD hasn't figured this out yet. I really can't emphasize that enough.

I wouldn't even use the worker mechanic, instead, like was previously mentioned, have a trade screen where you can setup and manage traded routes for each city.