HenriHakl

Don't worry about modders finding use for programming constructs

How would you use while loops in a TBS mod? Example: Spell: Fall of Leaders Description: All enemy heroes take 10 damage. Script: List = GetUnitsInArea(WholeMap); i = 0; while i begin Unit = List[i]; if IsEnemy(Unit) and IsHero(Unit) then begin DamageUnit(Unit, 10);<

hmmm... you mean out of balance considerations?

It has the advantage that it can help make factions more distinct by having unique faction buildings that increase probability on specific hero abilities. If an ability has a probability of 0% initially then it even allows for faction-only hero abilities.

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking like this: but aren't improvements the perfect way to specialize a city? A city is not just what is contained in the city walls, but the surrounding (i.e. improvements) area as well. Production town is build in the hills with lots of mines. What would be necessary, in my opinion, is having the options for improvements that aren't purely environmentally controlled. We'd need wizard towers for research, temples/shrines/holy sites for religi

I was thinking it over; and assuming there is an actual building-in-city limit it would be possible to create a city specialization strategy around this concept: - Assume that a total of 10 buildings could be placed into a city - But also assume that the same building cannot be built more than once (so no 10 temples but 0 forges) - Then that there are several categories of buildings (educational, warfare, production, moral, religion, etc) - And that each catego

I'm not familiar with what E:WoM exposes to modders; but I'd very much like to see a scripting engine for E:FE akin to the WarCraft 3 world editor. Basic functionality is enough (meaning access to units and their attributes, ways to do logic parsing, like while-loop and if-statement). This would throw the doors way wide open for custom spells and cool new in-game mechanics.

In the recent FE update there is an epic screenshot of a hero leveling and having multiple choices to upgrade their abilities - including the "rare" Double Strike. My suggestion is to have certain techs and buildings (and quests and everything else) influence the probability of particular abilities. For example a level 4 city upgrade could be "Duelist School" which has all the usual bonuses for a city upgrade, but also increases the probability of having the choice of "Double Strike"

I'd like to request to upgrade seeing "random stuff" in this thread to: "frequent random stuff" :D

I don't think it is a problem, given time and effort: If the questing system doesn't inherently allow for branching and random numbers, then the "same" quest could be created multiple times with different ways of progressing. So when you get the quest-hook "There's a message for you at the Black Boot Inn", you don't know whether it will turn out to be the rescue-maiden quest or the betrayal-at-inn quest. Even then, if you see it is the rescue-maiden quest you d

More information on the "world population" would be nice. Including: can I manipulate it by slaying all the citizens of a rival city? Can I conquer a city and move the population to own of my own cities, then raze the conquered city? Other forms of population manipulation?

I suspect, at a minimum, they'll want the beta to be WoM-level (as it stands now); other than the design-specific changes.

[quote who="maniakos" reply="92" id="3006604"] Quoting seanw3, reply 83Hey, can the Frogmeister, when he finishes the basics like counterspells, set up some systems for the AI to play dirty tricks on us? I was thinking that if much of the AI's thought is on countering, so will the human player think. So, say the AI sets up a one-two punch with different elements, going from a medium spell in say fire, only to follow up with frost. That way we of course would want to put up a frost sh

[quote who="seanw3" reply="86" id="3006341"]I will always do a manual tactical battle. I like to role play during the battles. The units get quite a bit of dialog. [/quote] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]

[quote who="maniakos" reply="75" id="3006116"] eg: slowing an opponent's unit tagged as a charger is a poor choice if there are other units that are much closer to my vulnerable units. What the AI needs to do is asess the situation each turn (after all there are only 16 or 20) units and assign multiple values like (melee threat, ranged threat, weakness, strategic importance (killing a spouse, or a hero that gives a specific bonus), and so on. Thease weight should be computed by takin

Ah, we disagree on that then - I think the more complex but robust system is better. Consider: if you have spell-name-only counters, then you can still not force the AI to use a specific spell as a counter. Assume you specify "A", "B" and "C" as counters; it could just be that the AI decides to stick to "A" and "C" and simply not use "B". You could implement it that there's a percentage weight indicator with each spell-name specified; or make the order of specification relevant, b

[quote who="Sir_Linque" reply="41" id="3005690"]HenriHaki, so you want to have spell tags AND unique spell counter information in the XML, in order to simplify it from having only unique spell counter information? I'm with Heavenfall on this. Doing it by tags makes it a lot harder to make AI do the right choices. You need to balance the tags perfectly for it to know which spell is the best counter. There's also a big risk that the AI would cast a spell that is in fact not a

Something I'd like to see very much is that there are spells that are unique to a particular nation. Not because it is pre-programmed, but because spells available for research are determined randomly and different nations end up with different sets of spells (naturally different each game). Trading spell knowledge or/and stealing spell knowledge (when conquering cities) for example would become more meaningful, and knowing what spells are available to a different nation can change my str

I approve of this message

[quote who="Mistwraithe" reply="38" id="3005589"]HenriHakl has the right of it I believe. If you want people to be able to mod in a few extra spells without having to also modify EVERY existing spell in the game to update counter spells etc then you need it to be done through applying multiple generic tags to each spell. Having said that I think there is a benefit in also allowing a spell to specify that it is a counter to a specific spell by name for a few special cases there ther

No, each type gets multiple tags. Instead of [CounterAOEFire] you'd have [AOE] and [Fire]. "Deadly Blizzard" would indicate that [Fire], [Defensive], [Resistance], [Immunity] are valid counter tags. [Fire] would fall under the category of Damage-Type tags, while [Defensive] and the rest are under category Protective tags. The AI's job is picking a spell that ideally matches at least 1 tag from every of the categories specified. So its not a matter of a single super-tag [CounterAOEFire

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="14" id="3005347"] Anyway, human player chooses to cast Deadly Blizzard which takes about 10 seconds to cast (not "real time" seconds but game seconds). Deadly Blizzard shows up on the film strip above a few other units who get to do their thing first. One of those units is an AI unit who sees that a human caster is going through the motions to cast deadly blizzard and looks to see if he can counter it. The Deadly Blizzard spell XML contains a list

Like a cancer?

We shall call them "gloves of transparency", or alternatively a weapon called "unarmed combat training". hehe