Vallu751

Vallu751

Joined Member # 659419
0 Posts 57 Replies 15,543 Reputation

Kudos for being able to read through my cryptic notation. It got a bit messed up with the +dodge things, sorry about that [e digicons]|-)[/e] I haven't looked at the actual numbers in the game yet. Maybe it's just too difficult to get a meaningful dodge now? To keep the game interesting though, units should be hitting a lot more often than missing. It's very boring if a combat drags if no-one can hit.

7 Replies 2,844 Views

Isn't Challenging a full AI without bonuses? If it isn't, then I think we would be better off having a difficulty level with the best AI, but no bonuses instead of splitting the options. That said, the situation isn't as simple as one might think. Some things are just incredibly difficult for the AI and some small help - not a bonus giving numeric advantages - may be necessary in order for the AI to function. Typically these include Fog of War cheats. Besides, huma

6 Replies 2,822 Views

Let's go through examples to see if the suggestion makes sense. 'High' units are high level units. 'Low' units are low level units. Current system, only accuracy raises: Low vs Low fight: Medium chance to hit for both. Low vs High: Medium chance to hit for Low, High chance to hit for High. High vs High: Both have high chance to hit.

7 Replies 2,844 Views

[quote who="Replicators" reply="5" id="3131078"]Graphics/Engine/UI Optimization. Current Fallen Enchantress runs poorly, especially near late game, focuses on wrong areas of graphics usage (Too much details on towns, too little details on terrain, shaders, and textures), and the UI is often plagued with long wait times.[/quote] I've actually thought about this very same thing: focusing on areas that are not important. It seems - I may be wrong here - that they are spending a

15 Replies 19,436 Views

[quote who="larienna" reply="26" id="3126119"] OK, maybe complexity was the wrong word. The idea was restrictions did not necessarily made the game better but rather different. I am even exploring ways to design games by having as few restrictions as possible to the player's actions.[/quote] Ok, that makes sense. One thing I learned during a brief time spent with improvisation theatre was that sometimes limitations are necessary to feed creativity. If two p

41 Replies 189,161 Views

Restrictions don't have to increase complexity. For a simple example, consider a game that has units that can move to any adjacent squares. Then change the rules so that units can only move directly forward, left of right. Movement has been restricted, but it hasn't become more complex. There's an interesting geeklist on Boardgamegeek about Depth vs complexity . Th

41 Replies 189,161 Views

It's been said by the developers that xp gained is divided by the amount of champions in your stack. So 2 heroes getting ~50% xp is exactly as the devs have said. The wither thing is probably a bug. The spell probably affects the stats that are used in calculating what the base xp is. Why do you think the xp system is weird? Seems to be working exactly as intended with the exception of a small bug.

2 Replies 2,208 Views

Sorry about sounding negative, but I don't agree with this. Master of Magic managed the champion vs unit attacks. Battle of Wesnoth manages different attack counts for different units - albeit with a slightly different combat system. I feel the problem is the huge leaps the values take with e.g. weapon attack scores. Higher tech tier weapons have incredibly high attack scores when compared to the lower ones. I don't see any reason why this can't become balanced.

15 Replies 24,576 Views

The reason people don't like your suggestion is because it would add complexity and repetitive tasks (moving back and forth) to an area of the game that isn't very important. Gameplay trumps realism here. Your heroes need to go to the toilet sometimes too, but it's not in the game because it wouldn't add to the fun. The example is a bit exaggerated, but I hope you see the point.

35 Replies 13,281 Views

[quote who="Lord Reliant" reply="2" id="3105182"] Quoting Publius of NV, reply 1The auto select next unit is so annoying that I have it turned off in the game options. Same here. It seems like units forget to move (which may or may not be happening), but it's also really annoying when you move one unit, discover something, but the camera focuses on your next unit instead. These are some things I'm hoping will be addressed in the near future. It really detracts from the

20 Replies 80,297 Views

I was just reading a thread on Sword of the Stars II forums. Turn time by turn 203 was reported as 7 minutes. Pretty impressive work, Frogboy :-)

41 Replies 59,863 Views

I'm annoyed by unit movement path only showing after a unit haa started moving. Seems a liitle pointless at that point, only slightly useful for movement spanning multiple turns. The path should become visible when mouse button is pressed down, not when it's released. A lot of games manage this, best implementation I've seen has been in Civ 5. Also if you uncover stuff, keep the camera still at least a fraction of a second before jumping to next unit, so you don't have to manually scroll back to

7 Replies 8,024 Views

[quote who="Neilo" reply="5" id="3095306"] How would that even be possible? Brad doesn't specify where he gets the crash reports, but is it not a given he is referring to those emailed in by the FE beta testers???[/quote] FE gets Smart Exception support

7 Replies 21,399 Views

[quote who="UmbralAngel" reply="2" id="3094193"]Once that stability improves I think I might take a leap of faith and pre-order the game! [/quote] The game really is very stable by now. I've never had the latest version crash on me, and I've played it more than many released games. The view from the developer side is very different, since a single developer sees the crashes of every user. I develop and maintain a piece of software that has a couple thousand users

7 Replies 21,399 Views