Mistwraithe

[quote who="Burress" reply="7" id="3359522"]There is a big difference to me between an AI with bonuses and an AI that doesn't play the same game.[/quote] I agree entirely. As soon as I see the AI doing things that I just flat out could never do then my interest in a game is dented. Unless of course it is a game or scenario where that is part of the point. Last time I played FE/LH there was still a bit of that happening, such as settling squares that I can't. The one th

[quote who="moi-meme" reply="29" id="3359557"]Seems that people who want to stick on with the XP splitting mecanism want to play a standard wargame. That's not what I expect LH to be, that is a mix of RPG and Strategy, where RPG has a dominant but not overwhelming role. That's where Master of Magic (from which LH explicitely draws) was.[/quote] Underpowered heroes and XP splitting are hardly analogous with each other. Heroes were much more powerful in most versions of FE and t

Great move. I know I've said this ad nauseum already and repeated it at every release but I honestly think the main thing the FE/LH franchise needs is a dedicated period of a month or more just fixing bugs and polishing things. I don't mean to be rude but it honestly reflects the fact that this hasn't been prioritised earlier that years after WoM was released and patched, after FE was released and patched, and late in the beta of LH we still had a situation where dragons g

[quote who="Burress" reply="4" id="3359483"]I am totally not against this idea, but it moves in an important way from the fair AI approach that Stardock uses, in the sense it starts to simulate how a player plays instead of playing the same game, even with bonuses. I know many strategy games do this. I am pretty sure MoM did it, it didn't actually run an economy or have a build queue based on production capacity, it just added units at intervals and then sent them out. I remember casting

[quote who="Burress" reply="27" id="3359222"]I think people in this category do a lot of playing around that would be nonsense to a player who sees the game as a goal to beat the opponents and the systems as tools to that end. That is what I meant, not that they are the exact opposites of people who are playing to win.[/quote] I think I see what you mean but I'm not sure you have got my point. I think I am at heart someone who WANTS to play to win, the problem is that this goal do

[quote who="Burress" reply="26" id="3359452"] Coyote303, I am curious, how would you play in the following situation? It is a 2/(X+1) split instead of a 1/X. 1 hero = 100% 2 heroes = (66% each) 133% 3 heroes = (50% each) 150% 4 heroes = (40%) 160% 5 heroes = (33.2%) 166% 6 heroes (28.5%) 171% [/quote] That is sort of what I was thinking. I would probably make it even flatter (ie closer to the current full splitting) but a formula like this which gave a small rise in t

[quote who="Burress" reply="20" id="3358815"]I assumed that most people didn't play to win, but I was basing it off my own experience and generalizing it. I could be really wrong, so I wanted to find out. It seems to me an important distinction, since it determines what we value in the game. If someone is playing to win, the tightest, most balanced, challenging experience would be the most rewarding. If someone is not, what they find rewarding isn't as clear. I don't know if

I play to not to lose. So I'll do everything I can to ensure I'm not being beaten by the AI. However once I get parity or ahead of the AI I often just have fun building up my heroes, cities, completing quests/wildlands etc. I practically never just go ahead and stomp the AI, at least not until I feel my hero/city/empire uber plan has already come to fruition. I presume this is in response to the post by Frogboy saying that most people are not able to beat LH on above Challengi

If it helps ongoing AI improvements is #1 on my list too? I suspect it is for quite a number of people from the threads I read.

I agree so much with dropping the Potential traits. Get rid of them so we can use those early picks on fun things instead. As I've said before I don't see anything wrong with XP splitting for heroes. I do see a lot wrong with completely dropping the XP splitting as it makes a single uber hero stack by far the optimum plan. However Stardock could probably come up with a slightly more relaxed scaled version of XP splitting and have it work.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="80" id="3357982"] The mistakes you point out the AI makes there might make a difference in a challenging game. But in a hard or later, that wouln't be the difference. There must be fundamental differences in play style going on. I mean, after all, if what you say were the key thing, I could just bonus the AI with more resources and call it a day. Clearly, there's something else going on.[/quote] There are two things goin

I think what it really shows is as bpalczewski said, people are playing on different difficulty levels and therefore having different experiences. Only mages can stay relevant at high difficulty levels.

I largely agree Brainjuggler but there is more to fixing the bugs and other issues than just a few weeks work. Stardock don't seem to regard it as a priority. I don't know why, I don't pretend to understand it, but I do live in hope they will eventually realise that the WoM/FE/LH is really getting there BUT needs some serious polish to deliver on its potential. And by serious I mean several months of full on bug fixing, UI improvements, testing, more bug fixing, a bit of balancing

[quote who="fenwe" reply="133" id="3354059"]In FE, I run two heroes. They are not anywhere as leveled as when I run one a lone. I was willing to play it that way though because they could kick tail. What has happened in LH though is that they nerfed the starting hero damage to leave room for what happens at end game, they have reduced over all XP and they have made monsters much tougher. They also reduced Hero damage because special abilities can miss and they have increased monster resistanc

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="3" id="3352805"]The very existence of these [experience boosting] traits is my pet peeve about the game.[/quote] Agreed entirely. Drop them and just make everyone level at an appropriate pace. I tend to treat them as compulsory picks which means there are three levels of boredom while you take them. Or alternatively if the game balance is such that they aren't worth while (ie early LH when heroes were gaining so little XP that you wouldn't rea

Something needs to be done in order to justify the tax slider's existence, currently there is rarely any point ever having it anywhere but Low (except very occasionally, usually early game, where you have enough money from other sources such as starting gold or selling items and can survive on None). I'm not convinced your numbers are perfect but I do agree it needs work.

[quote who="parrottmath" reply="5" id="3354103"]Shhhhh... it is not well known that books contain information.[/quote] You made me laugh out loud. If only there was a short way I could communicate that fact on the internet. Anyway, sounds great, looking forward to the full release of LH so I can play it. (Although I still think it is too soon, like some others have said I would like to see more polishing before LH is released. Not our call tho!)

I've thought every version of WoM/FE/LH was released at least a month too soon (perhaps a year too soon in the case of WoM!). Stardock just don't seem to want the same level of quality that I (and apparently many in the community) want, which is strange given they appear to be pretty much unconstrained by money since the sale of Impulse. I agree with many of the bugs above. In particular I think releasing with the current population/pioneer mechanics would be a huge fail - the

Buckdulane could do with dropping the inflammatory language but the points seem like legitimate ones to make.

This is hardly a new mechanic. There is a strong history of RPG games where the XP from killing monsters are split between the heroes/characters right back to D&D. This persists up to the latest versions of D&D. Why? Because it works. The more heroes/characters you have the easier it is to defeat a particular group of monsters, hence less experience is earned. Makes sense to me (as much as a fantasy game can anyway!). In fact in a pure system the XP should also be split with t

On a related note please, please, PLEASE drop the 9 resource per tile cap or at the very least make it so that mods can turn it off. Most annoying change ever. (apologies if it has already been dropped, I haven't been able to play for a week or two).

Personally I have a strong dislike of the unrest mechanic as implemented. But I've posted my thoughts in detail several times before so I'll just say I don't like it ;-).

I agree in spirit but in terms of implementation what you are saying is not much different from suggesting that Stardock should improve the AI by improving the AI. Getting AI to make intelligent choices about what is best is a large part of writing an AI in the first place!

I like the fact that 0.85 fixes the bug with the whole army being teleported to a city of the leading hero dies. Can we please have more long standing bugs like this fixed? Pretty please? Fixing these sorts of issues really do improve the feel of the whole game.

Too true JShores (although I disagree about LH not adding more bugs, it feels like there is enough new code that there will inevitably be a moderate number of new bugs). The bigger bugs have been fixed and overall LH is a pretty stable game but there are still a moderate number of little bugs and annoyances, quite a few of which can be tracked back to much earlier in the development. These little things really get in the way of it feeling like a AAA game and I think it wou