While I don't really like your tone - a bit too ranting for my taste - I do agree with the message content. I've never felt really challenged by Torchlight and the equipment gathering aspect or leveling up just aren't as cool as D2. Hopefully D3 gets released someday..
I think ZehDon was actually making a joke. Bad mistake there [e digicons];P[/e]
[quote who="StevenAus" reply="50" id="2976122"]I think the "teleportation sickness" idea mentioned elsewhere could work well. Something like halving stats or attack/defense/damage/current and maximum health (including champions and sovereign) for three strategic turns and doubling the mana cost of all spells cast by affected units, using the regular teleport to anywhere in your territory (Cloud Walk and any similar spells) or the spell that collects all units in one spot (Call of the Ti
On a side note, it isn't necessary for the AI to be able to use all the spells itself. Given say 12 spellbooks and a single player could use a maximum of 3 in a game, it would be sufficient for the AI to be able to use 6 spellbooks. AI 1 would have books 1, 2 and 4. AI 2 would have 4, 5, 6 and so forth. Sometime later you could expand the AI to cover even more ground. Most important is that the AI takes into account the books and spells the player has and knows how to plan accordingly. Fo
[quote who="Sir_Linque" reply="175" id="2973833"]Maybe everyone should just wait for a little while before saying that the game is going to be perfect or the worst game ever.[/quote] I think people are raising valid issues about the spell lists. Sure, some comments are premature and of course we are not seeing the whole picture. But I remember quite distinctly the time when I tried to raise discussion of how AI would cope with teleportation magic in WoM. I got shut down by fanboys wit
This is a bit off topic, but having customizable units is a bit of a mixed bag IMHO. It's very nice as a concept and ever since the first Master of Orion got it working well, it's been injected into a lot of games. The problem often is that the fine balance which MoO had is not carrying along. Choices in other games often revolve around to simply strapping as powerful items as possible to a unit. Biggest weapon, best armor, etc. Funding is supposed to be a limiting factor, but this is
I have to say I agree with Sethai and Winnihym on this one. The multiple attack thing worked well in MoM and made it unique. Like Winnihym says, careful balance with the numbers was what made it work in MoM. That balance was helped by distinct unit types instead of free designing. The way I see it, the high fantasy world also worked better thematically. WoM wants to have realistic humans and powerful champions. That doesn't really add up. A lone human wielding a sword can't cope very
A quick note to op. Attack numbers are not multiplied for groups even though the UI shows it that way. A group of 4 soldiers with 6 attack each will make four distinct rolls of 6, not a single roll at 24.
[quote who="Bellack" reply="44" id="2954881"] I knew many people who have "rolled" 18:00. It was amazing how the 18's seem to out number all the other numbers. AS a DM you had to watch the players like a Hawk [/quote] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e] No kidding! I once had a player who actually erased his stats once in a while and inserted slightly better ones. He did this real slowly, just added one at a time so I wouldn't notice. I started getting suspi
Glad to hear someone else is worried about the magical names. Personally I wouldn't even mind having red dragons in the game. Descriptive names are good, you don't need to go check tooltips or whatevers just to find out what something is. Ravenous Harridan? Oh yeah, that was the spider... of course I just had to pick DsRaider's own suggestion as an example [e digicons]:P[/e]
Agree with Bellack here. Both AD&Ds were pretty broken in many aspects. Enjoyable? Yes. Broken? Yeah.. Just the concept of 18/ strength stil gives me the creeps.. 16 str gives +1 damage, no hit bonus? Yup, have to have a pure 18 with percentages. Just how many people honestly roll 18s when making their characters?
I'm sooo glad to see [e digicons]:frogboy:[/e] is on top of the situation. Changes coming in are great, willingness to drop ideas that didn't work is great, having read and understood feedback is great. Thank you [e digicons]:star:[/e]
3.0 has been around for 13 years? Man I feel old... I can still remember playing with the red boxed set of D&D back when there were no editions, just plain D&D. After that came AD&D, apparently that was AD&D 1st edition, since after it came a 2nd ed. Played through all the versions (along with various other rpgs) but didn't like the direction 4.0 took, so never migrated to that one.
[quote who="DsRaider" reply="16" id="2952463"]With simultaneous combat why would I ever bother do tactical combat, except to spam magic. Tactical combat has taken a large step closer to becoming pointless window dressing that lacks any strategy or meaning whatsoever, but ya the AI has less work to do now. [/quote] Simultaneous combat doesn't remove the need for maneuvering. Just because units strike back doesn't mean it isn't important to strike with the right u
My inner geek just had to browse the MoM manual :-) You're right, MoM had simultaneous damage. Based on this, I would vote for it too.
Are you sure? I distinctly remember it being important to summon my Phantasmal warriors right next to enemy units so they get to strike right away. Maybe it was simply because they would have been really vulnerable to archers and magicians then..
I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and as usual, I started comparing the current system with MoM. For those who don't know or recall, MoM didn't have simultaneous strikes. In MoM you could fight against monsters or other wizards armies. Monster fights were interesting because they typically had unique and often powerful units. Fights against other wizards were interesting because every wizard used different spells and they were being used in every combat - a cas
I think getting rid of tactical combat could be a lot more work than just improving it. Without tactical combat, there's little point to unit designing as it is now. Without unit designing, parts of the tech tree become obsolete. And what about spells, quite a few of them are for combat.
A 4 man unit that displays 8 atk, 8 def is actually four distinct figures each with atk 2. Not 100% sure about the defense since I haven't been playing for a while. I've requested for MoM style of displaying the stats: always show stats of the figures, not something calculated together, but it hasn't been changed. The 8 atk is quite misleading since there's no number 8 anywhere in the calculations being done... just 4 rolls of 2. There used to be an associated bug too. When figure count got
I agree that many AI problems can be fixed by changing the game. That's why I feel it's vital to have AI design happening alongside game design, even if implementation takes place later.
Any chance we could get an AI dev diary on FE? It would be nice to see what's being done there.
300 hours of game play and it was able to entertain you for "only a while"? Wow.
Comparing to ETW, the Shogun AI is a lot better. Napoleon already had a lot better AI, Shogun is about the same level I think. Where Shogun shines in, IMHO, is the campaign. The map, units, amount of clans. Everything just works together very well. The strategic AI is not overly smart and still suffers from some ages old problems of the series, but it's entertaining. The tactical AI can challenge me, and I've been playing the series since the first Shogun. Every Total War game
[e digicons]:drool:[/e]
Awesome stuff! Really looking forward to this version. I especially like the change coming to champion recruitment. I just think it will work better this way. It worked fine with MoM. I'm curious to see whether the milestones work better than fame did in MoM. They do sound like a promising idea.