moi-meme

[quote who="Azunai_" reply="171" id="3354694"] your logic is flawed. if you want to model the game in a way that allows you to solve it by math, you have to take more then just the single XP split mecahnic into account. i doubt it's even possible to calculate which playstyle is better. if one level 11 (or whatever) hero is better than two level 7 heroes for you, that's great. go for it. claiming that the alternative isn't smart is just arrogant. you have nothing to bac

[quote who="Anelyn" reply="165" id="3354639"] My level 12 Assassin would like word with you about low level heroes being useless in combat. On 50 defense targets am doing 100-150 crits (not gonna mention gamble strike when the 50% odds of doing triple damage kick in, and it also crits). She has 60 dodge, 35 armor (waiting for enchanted master chainwork and to unlock chainmail armor in 3 levels), she can do double attacks at 75% accuracy (race specific), can teleport anywhere on map

Yves[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="161" id="3354613"] Your posts are getting ridiculous. .... I want you to show me, in detailed mathematical terms, how it's possible that splitting XP amongst your heroes is preventing you from using them at all.[/quote] Well, you're just doing what you condemn. Anyway, I've looked hard in the data file, but heroes progression is hard coded. So I don't have the numbers to do any math. The scale

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="160" id="3354598"] An army of three units and three mid level champs will outperform an army with a single champ. [/quote] Well. You are unclear. I don't know what mid level means. If you keep your heroes together, mid-level means level 5 because they will have a hard time getting over level 10 by the end of the game. An army of three units and three heroes is likely to perform slightly bet

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="150" id="3354369"] The point is that the hero stacks should be seperate. At this point all I see is rhetoric as to why we should have no XP split... I played it with no XP split, wasn't anymore fun, in fact I just kept only one stack of units until I couldn't hold anymore, and then filled up another stack... it was less strategic and I got bored quickly (and still didn't get the XP I was hoping it would provide, just not enough lairs for that)

[quote who="Mistwraithe" reply="136" id="3354243"] I can see your point. But completely removing XP splitting goes way too far in the other direction and virtually forces the player to stack all heroes together to maximise XP gain. Maybe some scaled formula like was being talked about on the previous page could work but I remain unconvinced about any of the solutions I have seen so far. [/quote] Yes, I understand your point and am concerned by it. I woul

[quote who="nukularpower" reply="30" id="3352574"] Then you're looking too hard. 50 mana is hardly "hefty", [/quote] We're not playing the same game I guess. For the first 25% of the game, I have a hard time making more than 25/turn. 50 is thus at least a 2 turn mana income. That is not going to be used to ensure a victory and clear an area (say fireball or such), but to put something that may well go puff in the next few turns when a monster rampages ov

[quote who="davrovana" reply="129" id="3353992"] Quoting moi-meme, reply 128 I've shut down my beta test and sworn not to play LH again till that restriction is lifted. Hunger strike or you're not serious.[/quote] Bah... Hunger strikes are overused these days. LH beta strike is much more uncommon and thus carry more weight! [e digicons]:banhammer:[/e]

There is not a word here with which I could disagree. XP split and reduction just shuts down one possible strategy and gives nothing in exchange. Heroes are mostly single men units, with nothing that shines. They are not fun to play with now. Except maybe the sovereign, and only because it's you... Otherwise, he mostly sucks in combat (like all other heroes) compared with simple troops. I did it on challenging: build armies with three troops and wipe out the map...

[quote who="nukularpower" reply="26" id="3350364"] AM is definately overpowered. Like it or not, most factions are stuck with Pioneers, and they seem to do ok (heck, it isn't that hard to cover the land in outposts, pop cost or no.. just take them from a fort or other city that isn't likely to upgrade anytime soon ) AM should really have a 10-turnish cooldown, a higher mana cost, a research req, a limit on how many can be active at one time, or

No ;its a good trait, but not overpowered. Its not that easy to spam them early on because mana is really in great demand. You need it for combat, for enchantments etc. Other faction who don't have arcane monolith do have other advantages,and these are not draining their mana at each use. So considering that the faction points for that advantage are already steep, I fin that on the whole, the trait is fairly good, but not unbalanced. Early in the game, it is as expensive t

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="36" id="3341733"] I'd be happy to show you all the xml code that I use for any of my mods... they are just a text document in a particular grouping...I don't trust a lot of mods, but most of my mods are just .xml text files, with a few pictures (jpegs). I can even put it here in text and you can copy it into your own file (by typing it yourself) and you can trust the mod completely then...[/quote] I think that viruses ca

The title says it all. There are seas, but it is impossible to use them. It would be nice that one of the eldest transportation means that humankind invented could be used in the game. This would induce new buildings and new units ; as well as opening new choices. Yves

I had this too. Only this game, not any other games before...

[quote who="davrovana" reply="24" id="3341380"] What if you picked from the tree on even levels, but got the old random perk selection on odd levels. The thing I miss most about the random leveling system is that you'd end up with skills you normally wouldn't pick, and find out they were great. If, say, your sovereign starts with tactician, he'll never get to tactician II unless you choose Commander. Under the old system, though, you could eventua

I actually finished the master quest before I expected. I only used my three ranged units and sovereign. The sovereign was only usefull to interrupt Samarra's spells. Samarra died within three rounds due to the high damage from the trained units. I previously had done that fight with a full stack of level 20 heroes : it had been much more tricky and long. One more proof that their really is no 'stack of doom' syndrom in FE.

[quote who="Wizard1200" reply="19" id="3341311"] Fire mages are very strong, but a water mage is very powerful, too, because as soon as you reach water level 4 you can cast blizzard and mantel of oceans. Blizzard destroys every army with one or two casts (8 (base damage) + 2 (water shard) + 50 % (warlock) + 80 % (evoker) + 25 % (item) = 25 points of damage per unit in every group) and mantel of oceans reduces the mana cost (40 %).[/quote] Inefficient against most monster un

This is a bug. I have an army in a town. Opposing armies are arriving. I attack one of their armies, adjacent to the city. This makes my units 'go out' of town. The other opponent army which I did not destroy captures the city even though my army technically stands on top. Yves

Despite what I wrote above, I decided on one more game by following what the game mandates : one army=one hero. I played Pariden, large map, challenging, dense monsters, custom sovereign (fire/life mage.) I had the luck to start close to Magnar whom I dispatched before turn 30. This let me a large area at my disposal. Anyway, by the end of the game, I controlled 80% of the map, where I actually had the opportunity to destroy monsters. I also did not raze any lai

Among the things that I find missing too: * a possibiity to reorder initiative. In addition to 'pass', which increases defense, I'd think that the possibility to move the current army/hero initiative later in the initiative stack would be welcome. It is of particular importance when armies are in a smal passage where they can only pass one at a time. * A skill to reposition units at start.This could be a good adition to the commander. * Some quests come too

I fee that the spell tree is not baanced. Fire comes first, because it has a tremendous effect on battes. Then come the others. Why not some new spells,such as mass slow (water),at level 3 to compete with fireball, and similarly mass haste (air) ? I'm pretty sure many other spells can be created to make all paths a solid choice. Yves

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="15" id="3339956"] I think quite the opposite. Removing the XP penalty associated with multiple heroes in a stack results in removing your choice. Without that balance mechanic in place, 'stacks of doom' become the only viable and obvious option to persue, leaving most if not all other strategies aside for the sure win. That's just not fun, and imo would be a bad business decision for SD to make a gam

[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="13" id="3339859"] Sure. Pick the hardest creature in MoM as the 'typical' creature you're up against. That'll be statistically accurate. I did play MoM...alot of MoM...and I do sometimes still pull it out. The stack of Doom with movement speed as the focus is an unstoppable force with very few exception. [/quote] Of course, I take the hisghest level heroes in MoM and pit them against the highest level monsters in MoM

I won't play the beta till this is solved, if ever. How do you mod it out ? I've not seen anything relevant in the data files (but I may have missed the info...) Yves

[quote]It's for the precise reason that you listed that this XP sharing system was put into place. The stack of Doom is MoM was what broke the game. Pack all your heros into one large army, give them movement speed up the nines...and destroy everything...not fun.[/quote] If you did play MoM, you know it did not work that way. I remember clearly that capturing an air node stuffed with lightning dragons wouod usually lead to disaster with hero group, un