Good news all around it appears. I believe FE was released a couple of months too early and as I expected that hurt you on reviews but I'm very pleased to hear that it probably doesn't matter and you're still forging ahead. I certainly believe that with ongoing bug fixing and polishing FE will become a true classic.
[quote who="SOLOSOL" reply="5" id="3285151"]It seems that pathfinding prefers to send you far away, instead of crossing through a dominion of an AI. [/quote] I find this one quite annoying too but at least it is semi-justifiable from Stardock's point of view. The other bugs reported in this thread are not.
Feeling a bit like I'm stuck on auto-repeat, but I'll agree again. Something needs to be done. I've posted plenty of times my opinion on how monsters disturbed by the AI should be fixed so I won't bore by repeating here.
Agreed. There are several pathfinding bugs. The most annoying one, because it occurs frequently, is when you order units in a city to go to an easily accessible location (eg along a road a few squares) and the pathfinder decides to exit the city from completely the wrong square and walk through a few squares of forest first. I've also, much more rarely, had localised areas of a map where the pathfinding is completely screwed up like you describe and ordering units to go ju
[quote who="Tuidjy" reply="8" id="3282624"]No matter what the xpt gain is, it will be either overpowered at low levels or useless at high levels, UNLESS it's tied to the hero's level. [/quote] Is that necessarily a problem? I certainly think low level heroes should get better benefit from being in an adventurer guild than high level heroes. Some partial scaling could be an idea so that high level heroes still got a noticeable benefit but I would expect it to be ov
I must admit I've had this suspicion before when newly settled AI cities had a settler in them but never investigated enough to work out if it was a bug or just that the AI army came along with two settlers in it.
[quote who="Epitagh" reply="8" id="3282752"]Another issue I am having is when, say, i am fighting a pair of two wolves. I battle it, took 2 damage. I run into the same type of army, autobattle it, one of my heroes dies and the other loses half his health. Sorry, but what?[/quote] The problem here is that auto-resolve is broken. Many battles the player will take much more damage with auto-resolve than if they fight it out. The worst I've encountered was one hero vs a wildli
I agree entirely. The ability for the AI to settle largely without regard to monsters ruins the game for me. So many times there is an area that has a great settle spot but with a dragon or similar guarding it. So I work towards building a strong enough stack to take the monster, only the see the AI casually walk a settler up, create a settlement and then laugh (cackle actually, as I imagine only the AI can) as the monster ignores it and starts wandering towards my settlements.<
FE has a reasonable mechanic to deal with this, if a kingdom player seems to be going for a peace victory then the empire factions could get upset about (and vice versa). Having said that I think there should also be a negative diplomacy modifier to even the same kind of faction BUT not a big enough one for someone who is close with you to suddenly decide they hate you. The modifiers should get much bigger for everyone once you start spell of making.
Is this Insane difficulty? Because if not another good question which comes to mind is how did the custom race get 14 million gildar in the first place?
Current update speed is good so long as it is efficient for Stardock (frequent releases can cause too much time needing to be spent testing, or alternatively frequent new bugs making it out to the wild). Performance optimisations are welcome. However my main concern is still fixing the bugs and UI problems in the game, along with continuing to enhance the AI to provide a more dynamic challenge (but without all the apparently unintentional cheating it has been doing due to bugs).
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="11" id="3277986"]Spun it up for the first time and ran at 370K. WOW. Not bad. A little higher than 1.0, but greatly improved from the 700K in 1.01. Then started my the game and was further impressed, only using 550K of memory.[/quote] Just as well. At 700kB you can't possibly run the game, even with as many drivers as possible loaded into expanded memory. 550kB should be OK so long as you get config.sys and autoexec.bat just right. [e digicons
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="7" id="3276713"] IGN says their isn't enough interest in FE to justify a review right now given how busy they are with the Christmas releases[/quote] Ah, I have a bit of a knack at this so I'll translate for you: "IGN says Stardock aren't spending enough money advertising with them to to justify a review of FE given how much money other companies are spending advertising for the Christmas releases"
Interesting.
Agreed. The AI should play by the same core rules as players.
Yes, but manual placement starts off so new players won't have any problems anyway. Having manual placement as an option for people who really want it is reasonable, sure it can be exploited but it is only single player after all, there are already plenty of other ways to make your game easier or harder depending on which mechanics/build options you choose to exploit.
So production doesn't overflow between buildings/projects? It really should IMO, up to a limit of one turn's production.
[quote who="GFireflyE" reply="41" id="3276014"]In the end, 78 is a decent score. Still think that if 1.01 was 1.0, than SD would have received another 4pts to that score. Another 4pts on top of that if the campaign was released to the beta testers so that the excellant storyline could have been supported by decent features and mechanics instead of just tossing it to failure. Now that I look back, I predicted 87 in the metacritic prediction thread, but release was rushed and it show
Good question.
I'm pretty sure they have this restriction so that there is no gameplay benefit to turning on manual placement of buildings. However I think the cure is worse that the disease, it frustrates everyone to not be able to build on a river/forest once your city reaches it. Who would it really hurt if you allowed it? It is a single player game, if someone wants to cheese by snaking long distance to a river/forest then surely that is their choice? Of course in multi-player it would
Hard to argue with the thread, hope Kael is reading...
[quote who="tkobo" reply="72" id="3274469"]People keep saying it isnt a replacement game,but it is.When refunds were offered,the choice was hang in there and get incarnation 2 (then called an expansion) for free because, "companies have a moral obligation to deliver what they say they're going to deliver and frankly, Stardock failed to deliver the game we said we were going to deliver." or get a refund.I didnt want a refund then, i dont want one now.I also however do
Count me in. Was initially sceptical about a map pack but the big map sold it for me.
[quote who="Trojasmic" reply="6" id="3274087"]Nice list except for the one above is a feature not a bug. The pathing in tactical combat is almost brilliant. Your units will try to attack from the farthest point around which allows your other units to be able to come in and attack too.[/quote] Interesting - I hadn't looked at it that way. However I still think it is a 'bug' in that it is not what the typical user would expect. I also question whether the
[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="2" id="3274020"]1. Are you using a custom faction created during 1.0 or older? The Spellbooks-tech was bugged previously (it required Enchanters instead of The Decalon), but is fixed now.[/quote] The custom faction was created in 1.00 so that might explain it. [quote who="Gaunathor" reply="2" id="3274020"]2. Feeding the Fire has nothing to do with this. Fire Elementals (Burning Wraith count as those) have a continuous Mantle of Fire-effect on them