Dev Journal: About Dragons

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Dev Journal: About Dragons

This topic contains 94 replies, has 27 voices, and was last updated by  Gloweye 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 95 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10150

    TheSpeaker
    Member

    When I first saw Brother JO’s picture, I did NOT see “fishing” 0_0

    Yeah, humans and Archons could make sense, or even a future undead race, but I don’t think there is anything for orcs and goblins if we had to tie them together. Are there going to be any of the more savage beastfolk, like centaurs or harpies? They could probably ally with one of them, if there were an independent dwelling for them. Or even savage barbarian humans. Dunno. I hope we get more types of dwellings in the future. Really liking the idea of them.

    #10152

    lmao Jo xD lmfao!

    #10153

    Tomipapa
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TheSpeaker wrote:</div>
    I really like Red Key’s idea of the Draconians having a diplomacy bonus with the Dragon Peak. Is that possible to do?

    The High Elves should probably have a bonus with the fairy shee, and the dwarves should have a bonus with the giant’s keep. Maybe each race should lean a bit more toward one dwelling or another to even it out, though I suppose that’s for the balance department to look into.

    +1

    Also humans can have better diplomacy bonus with archons, but what of goblins and orcs?

    +1 from me too. Not sure about the goblins because trolls are in the giant’s keep and wyverns in the dragon peek now, so only the big betlee and the Karagh remained as a possibility(or the frostlings with a little twist), but i dont expect to see a betlee dwelling lol. Orcs are even harder question, only the doom bat was with them both in AoW and AoW SM

    #10154

    TheSpeaker
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Brother JO wrote:</div>

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TheSpeaker wrote:</div><br>
    I really like Red Key’s idea of the Draconians having a diplomacy bonus with the Dragon Peak. Is that possible to do?

    The High Elves should probably have a bonus with the fairy shee, and the dwarves should have a bonus with the giant’s keep. Maybe each race should lean a bit more toward one dwelling or another to even it out, though I suppose that’s for the balance department to look into.

    +1

    Also humans can have better diplomacy bonus with archons, but what of goblins and orcs?

    +1 from me too. Not sure about the goblins because trolls are in the giant’s keep and wyverns in the dragon peek now, so only the big betlee and the Karagh remained as a possibility(or the frostlings with a little twist), but i dont expect to see a betlee dwelling lol. Orcs are even harder question, only the doom bat was with them both in AoW and AoW SM

    True. Maybe Dwarves and Goblins both have a diplomacy bonus towards the Giant’s Keep? I totally forgot about the trolls, ogres and yetis.

    #10155

    Brother JO
    Member

    +1 from me too. Not sure about the goblins because trolls are in the giant’s keep and wyverns in the dragon peek now, so only the big betlee and the Karagh remained as a possibility(or the frostlings with a little twist), but i dont expect to see a betlee dwelling lol. Orcs are even harder question, only the doom bat was with them both in AoW and AoW SM

    Well, aside from doom bat they had red dragon too, but red dragon left orcs for draconians 😛

    Maybe it’s just better to forget about faction relations just give slightly better relation for draconians with dragon peak and leave other races with neutral/better/worse depending on faction’s and player’s alignment.Because some races has nothing that can have them more favoured for a faction.Like orcs…

    And from future races ; who will be more favorable against frostlings when they’re added? Or tigrans?

    #10157

    Unfortunately, AI has control over Eye of Sauron in Mordor, which sees everything

    Well, that is if he has the One Ring on his hand: without it, he can see anything, but not everything all at once (that’s why the good at hiding and Lorien cloak clad hobbits were able to not get seen). That actually sounds like a good awareness spell set up, where the ultimate spell is Sauron has the Ring, All is Known to the Lord of Mordor.

    As to the hit point differential: I don’t mind one dragon at the top of the pile, we still don’t know if the Red Dragon is equal to the Gold, and the Obsidian Dragon is in line with SM second tier dragons hit point wise.

    Ok, so I was forced to use math here (double check because I am a law student), and it turns out that the ratio between the Obsidian Dragon (the BatDragon)’s hit points and the Golden Dragon’s is equal to the average of the ratios between the Ice Dragon vs. the Golden/Black Dragon, and the Red Dragon vs. the Golden/Black Dragon. The original ratio for Ice was 1.346, and 1.4 for Red. If you average the ratios, and then apply it to the new 110 hit point Golden Dragon you get …… 80 hit points for the Obsidian Dragon (with a little rounding)! So they kept it exactly the same.

    The High Elves should probably have a bonus with the fairy shee, and the dwarves should have a bonus with the giant’s keep. Maybe each race should lean a bit more toward one dwelling or another to even it out, though I suppose it’s for the balance department to look into.

    Sounds fair, Each of the major races is “very distant kin” to a group of the fantastic creatures, but we know that there is already a kinship for the giant-kin independent of the general dwarf giant link, so I’m not sure how that could be reconciled. maybe its a sort of “different quest text/slightly better rewards/one less quest to win allegiance” rather than a unit based recruiting mechanism?

    #10159

    11balanced
    Member

    +1 to all ))

    I like the idea of specific race relations with some monster dwelling (like draconians with dragon peak and so on). As it makes races more individual and has solid lore-related logic, it would definitely adorn the game.

    #10161

    Fogcrow
    Member

    Are there terrain types not listed in the Obsidian Dragons concealment list?
    If it really has concealment on all terrain types, please put it into one word/one line on the ability sheet.

    #10162

    Brother JO
    Member

    Are there terrain types not listed in the Obsidian Dragons concealment list?<br>
    If it really has concealment on all terrain types, please put it into one word/one line on the ability sheet.

    I don’t think obsidian dragon has concaelment on every terrain, otherwise they would just add “invisibility” ability, instead of all those concaelments.

    #10163

    I like the idea of specific race relations with some monster dwelling (like draconians with dragon peak and so on). As it makes races more individual and has solid lore-related logic, it would definitely adorn the game.

    I am really against this for game play AND lore reasons.
    Game play wise it will result in people pushing specific areas of the map due to the race they chose/were given.
    Lore wise it makes no sense at all for giants to be loyal to all dwarves in the world, whether they were allied a thousand years ago or not. Dwarves under 1 mountain may be very different to dwarves under another mountain and that sort of thing. Perhaps specific ogre cities/nations would be allied to specific dwarven cities/nations but not ALL of them.

    The same can be translated to all other races, even draconians. I dont think ALL the dragons gathered and said “hey, lets make some dragon versions humans! yea thats a great idea, then that race will take over the humans and everything will be OK, call the wizard hot line asap!” Im sure some would of been disgusted that their proud race (the first race) was diluted with the filthy human(oid)s. And likewise, some draconians may hate dragons for the hatred they receive (the scales! hunted for their scales!)

    Are there terrain types not listed in the Obsidian Dragons concealment list?
    If it really has concealment on all terrain types, please put it into one word/one line on the ability sheet.

    Im unsure about this, i like the idea of individual concealments as it allows specific counter concealment spells to work – but it may be better to have 1 counter concealment spell (glowing or something lol) then we can do away with each concealment and change to a specific type.

    #10166

    v8man
    Member

    I really like the backstory for the dragons. To justify having dragons, most games and movies just say something like: “…and some foolhardy adventurer woke up the sleeping ancient dragon which now plagues the land” or “…the prophecy says that now is the time that the dragons must return to scorch the kingdom.” Really stale stuff. While AoW3’s dragon story is not particularly deep, it does sound interesting and like someone actually tried to think of something new.

    #10170

    Draxynnic
    Member

    The same can be translated to all other races, even draconians. I dont think ALL the dragons gathered and said “hey, lets make some dragon versions humans! yea thats a great idea, then that race will take over the humans and everything will be OK, call the wizard hot line asap!” Im sure some would of been disgusted that their proud race (the first race) was diluted with the filthy human(oid)s. And likewise, some draconians may hate dragons for the hatred they receive (the scales! hunted for their scales!)

    This argument would apply to explain why the draconians aren’t always allied with dragons in all cases, but it still means that draconians are more likely to be allied with the local dragons than any other humanoid population, which can be reflected by a diplomacy bonus with dragons. Chances are mapmakers will have the opportunity to set starting attitudes, so if a mapmaker wants to have a settlement of draconian-hating dragons, they can set the starting attitudes appropriately. By default, though, I’d expect dragons to be more favourably inclined towards draconians than they would be to, say, humans.

    On your gameplay argument – I think it’s entirely reasonable to encourage players to focus on recruiting their race’s natural allies rather than just grabbing whatever’s convenient on the map.

    In terms of who gets bonuses to who – rather than trying to give everyone a bonus, what might work better is to have every bonus offset by a penalty. Draconians get a bonus with dragons, but a penalty with giants. Elves get a bonus with fairies, but a penalty versus archons (I’m presuming that the undead archon abominations are NOT the archons that were willing to forgive and forget after the elves stymied their attempts to install humans as the top dogs of the Blessed Continent). Humans get a bonus with archons, but a penalty versus dragons (in previous lore, it was humans specifically that pushed the dragons to creating the draconians).

    You could even have a more quantitative system – humans, for instance, might have a large bonus with archons (who want to see humans rule), a small bonus with giants (those interested in fathering ogres…), a small penalty with fey (humans looking to overturn the old magical world, general human distrust of fey), and a moderate penalty with dragons. Elves might have a large bonus with fey, a small bonus with dragons (we see elves and dragons working together a LOT in AoW2, even ignoring the fairy dragon), a small penalty with giants (friend of my enemy and all) and a moderate penalty with archons. Draconians get a large bonus with dragons and a large penalty with giants, but fey and archons don’t have any strong feelings either way towards them. And so on.

    #10172

    Brother JO
    Member

    I am really against this for game play AND lore reasons.
    Game play wise it will result in people pushing specific areas of the map due to the race they chose/were given.
    Lore wise it makes no sense at all for giants to be loyal to all dwarves in the world, whether they were allied a thousand years ago or not. Dwarves under 1 mountain may be very different to dwarves under another mountain and that sort of thing. Perhaps specific ogre cities/nations would be allied to specific dwarven cities/nations but not ALL of them.

    When I think about it, you’re right about that. With a system like that if I play elves and I have a human enemy in the same area with archon faction.If I started doing archon’s quests before humans came and completed like 7, when humans completed their 4th quest I wouldn’t want archons to join humans.That would be unfair advantage and also push people only ally themselves with favoured factions because their enemy can ally with them more quickly than they can.

    There is also not enough factions to ally each race with them, not to mention not all of the alliance would be lorewise logical.

    Ok, so I was forced to use math here (double check because I am a law student), and it turns out that the ratio between the Obsidian Dragon (the BatDragon)’s hit points and the Golden Dragon’s is equal to the average of the ratios between the Ice Dragon vs. the Golden/Black Dragon, and the Red Dragon vs. the Golden/Black Dragon. The original ratio for Ice was 1.346, and 1.4 for Red. If you average the ratios, and then apply it to the new 110 hit point Golden Dragon you get …… 80 hit points for the Obsidian Dragon (with a little rounding)! So they kept it exactly the same.

    Bro, tier2 dwarven muskeeters hit 40 damage with each shot(as much as their hp,as I could see from unit sheet) and 3x(40-13)=81 this means 3 shot is enough for them to kill a dragon.Let’s say shooter were attacking from too far or they did glancing shot. Well even then 2 dwarven muskeeter would be more than enough to deal with an obsidian dragon.

    #10173

    Brother JO
    Member

    On your gameplay argument – I think it’s entirely reasonable to encourage players to focus on recruiting their race’s natural allies rather than just grabbing whatever’s convenient on the map.

    In terms of who gets bonuses to who – rather than trying to give everyone a bonus, what might work better is to have every bonus offset by a penalty. Draconians get a bonus with dragons, but a penalty with giants. Elves get a bonus with fairies, but a penalty versus archons (I’m presuming that the undead archon abominations are NOT the archons that were willing to forgive and forget after the elves stymied their attempts to install humans as the top dogs of the Blessed Continent). Humans get a bonus with archons, but a penalty versus dragons (in previous lore, it was humans specifically that pushed the dragons to creating the draconians).

    You could even have a more quantitative system – humans, for instance, might have a large bonus with archons (who want to see humans rule), a small bonus with giants (those interested in fathering ogres…), a small penalty with fey (humans looking to overturn the old magical world, general human distrust of fey), and a moderate penalty with dragons. Elves might have a large bonus with fey, a small bonus with dragons (we see elves and dragons working together a LOT in AoW2, even ignoring the fairy dragon), a small penalty with giants (friend of my enemy and all) and a moderate penalty with archons. Draconians get a large bonus with dragons and a large penalty with giants, but fey and archons don’t have any strong feelings either way towards them. And so on.

    I strongly oppose this idea, this will push players to ally with only 1 faction and prevent variety of selection. As I said in above post, if I play elves and if I have a human enemy in the same area of archons I would have no chance to ally with them before my human enemy allies with them in this system.And elves being enemy with archons and humans getting penality or bonus with giants or fey folk lorewise doesn’t make any sense.

    I would leave this system to modders.

    #10177

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Gameplay-wise, it’s a question of how strong the bonus is. It should still be possible to make unusual alliances, and in most games alliances are probably going to be made mostly by convenience anyway, race would just make it that little bit easier or harder. Plus, there’s always the option to just simply conquer the location. Any racial diplomatic bonuses or penalties with neutral buildings is another strategic consideration that needs to be considered, that helps to reinforce the fluff of which races you would expect to be allied with which neutrals.

    Trying to ally with an archon settlement as an elven leader in the example you gave, and humans beat you to it due to their bonus? Well, tough, that was a possibility you should have been aware of when you started courting the archon settlement. Maybe you should have acted to prevent the human leader from being able to complete the archon’s quests in the first place. Better yet, if you’re looking to absorb the archon settlement into your empire, you shouldn’t be letting the human leader get close enough to it to receive those quests in the first place. After all, arrangements with neutrals are by settlement rather than by faction, so if you’re looking to add one to your empire, you’d better be ready to defend it!

    Really, it’s not much different to how it’s easier for an elf player to buy out a halfling settlement than it is for a human player, and no-one complained about that. Some neutral settlements are going to be more or less well inclined towards you due to racial bias. Deal with it.

    Sometimes, not everything in a strategy game is perfectly fair. Even chess has a player who goes first and a player who goes second.

    As to your lore objections:

    Elves and Archons: Elves and archons, lorewise, have a spotty record. They’ve fought together against common enemies, yes, but the biggest conflict behind the scenes in Age of Wonders 1 was between the archons – who wanted to give the Blessed Continent to humans and expected the elves to stand aside – and the elves, who refused to stand aside as expected. Every other conflict in AoW1 was, directly or indirectly, a result of that conflict.

    We don’t have much information on what caused the archons to become undead, but what we have been told is that it’s an abomination that shouldn’t have been. Now, what could cause the former shining paragons of virtue to become undead monstrosities? Well, there are many possibilities, but one is that they were so fanatical about pursuing their goal that they fell into an ‘ends justify the means’ mentality, committing enough evil while pursuing their goal that they fell from their state of grace and were cursed to become undead. If that is the explanation… then the archons that became undead are going to be those archons that bear an especially strong grudge against the elves, not the archons that informed Merlin and Julia that they were relinquishing their claim at the end of Shadow Magic (we’ve been told that the living archons went into the Shadow World with the syrons with Meandor and other wizards pursuing the Shadow Demons). Thus, they’re going to have a harder time making nice with elves than, say, humans.

    Now, the above explanation may not be the one Triumph is actually going with, and if the explanation is one that does not push them to disharmony with the elves, then it would not be appropriate for elf-archon relations to be at a penalty. But if my theory is correct, then an elf-archon diplomacy penalty is definitely justified.

    Humans and Giants: Again, we don’t know enough history (yet) to know just what this relationship might be… but we do know that there are human/giant crossbreeds. This means it’s possible that giants might be more willing to make nice with humans because that will give them opportunities to make passes at them. It’s also possible that these considerations never entered their minds.

    Humans and Fey: It’s been a while since I’ve come across it, but there are indications ingame that humans distrust fey in general, while fey don’t like mortals entering their sacred sites. One example is Life 3, where Mab’s condition for working with Nekron is maintaining the sanctity of a fey grove there. Now, I may be wrong there, but that’s my memory of it.

    All that said, if I am wrong on a few of the lore points, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Triumph knows their lore, and can make decisions based on what the lore is. I don’t think you can deny, though, that there are some combinations that obviously should be easier to make alliances with than others. Draconians and dragons – found in the same city in AoW2. Elves and fey – also found in the same cities in both games. Humans and archons – which were a special exception to the alignment rules in AoW1, and storywise the archons continued to fly the banner of support for humans in AoW2. And that’s something that should be represented in game mechanics.

    #10181

    Thats just to big a post drax 😛

    Im not opposed to “slight” favor differences. Though i almost disagree with positive AND negative favor differences, then we have just too much of a change.

    I can imagine that draconians could skip the initial “how do you do were good guys” missions for dragons, and humans would have an additional “how do you do, we promise we arnt like those other humans” mission at the start. I think that would be enough to shake things up. Any more than that and it becomes silly – 1 or 2 quests extra is fine – perhaps the end “boss” quest being different depending on the race.

    Other than that i think it should be left to the map makers to decide.

    #10183

    Brother JO
    Member

    Bro, first of all most of your lore objections come from AoW1, which is long long time before AoW2 and even longer time before AoW3. Most of the hatreds and conflicts of that age are forgotten.

    * Dwarfs were allied with giants in AoW1, but they weren’t in AoW2, so that pretty much means old alliance is forgotten.

    *Archons had special relationship with human race in AoW1. But they had race penality in AoW2, while their mission is protect the humans it’s for sure that something went terribly wrong before AoW2 and so their relations took damage.Whatever happened, humans become wary of archons.So why in the world they should be happy with archons when they become undead?? Humans will get even more suspicious and wary because they’re now non-human and undead.

    *Giants and humans have nothing to ally with each other. Some giants maybe lustful and some are maybe mercerenary but those represent only minority, not majority.

    *High Elves are not the same with Wood Elves, some of the fey folk were allied with wood elves in AoW1. But in AoW2 only fairy dragon and treeman were allied with Wood Elves in the end.Most of the fairy folk allied with halflings which are not included in AoW3, yet. Now, we have high elves, not wood elves and since high elves don’t represent forces of light now fey folk propably just left them.Another reason might be that fey folk didn’t want dark elves who became high elves.

    *For humans and fey, Symon wants to have some words with you 😛 While fey folk doesn’t like every human,neither humans like fey folk; Symon is living evidence that fey folk do not hate every human. We’re propably going to see little Symon, marching with his halfling army in future DLC or expansion 😀

    In the short terms: Most of the alliances are not logical lorewise.

    Gameplay-wise, it’s a question of how strong the bonus is. It should still be possible to make unusual alliances, and in most games alliances are probably going to be made mostly by convenience anyway, race would just make it that little bit easier or harder. Plus, there’s always the option to just simply conquer the location. Any racial diplomatic bonuses or penalties with neutral buildings is another strategic consideration that needs to be considered, that helps to reinforce the fluff of which races you would expect to be allied with which neutrals.
    Trying to ally with an archon settlement as an elven leader in the example you gave, and humans beat you to it due to their bonus? Well, tough, that was a possibility you should have been aware of when you started courting the archon settlement. Maybe you should have acted to prevent the human leader from being able to complete the archon’s quests in the first place. Better yet, if you’re looking to absorb the archon settlement into your empire, you shouldn’t be letting the human leader get close enough to it to receive those quests in the first place. After all, arrangements with neutrals are by settlement rather than by faction, so if you’re looking to add one to your empire, you’d better be ready to defend it!

    Really, it’s not much different to how it’s easier for an elf player to buy out a halfling settlement than it is for a human player, and no-one complained about that. Some neutral settlements are going to be more or less well inclined towards you due to racial bias. Deal with it.

    Bro, In AoW1 and AoW2 there were three sides: good,evil,neutral

    You’re Wood Elf? Ok, you can join up with halflings archons dwarfs
    You’re orc? Then here goes undeads, darkelves, S demons, goblins…

    But in AoW3 everybody is neutral(ish) and nobody trusts each other, dwarfs don’t trust elves nearly as much as they don’t trust goblins. This is the same with other races too. AoW3 is more about creating your own combo.You pick the races and factions you want to have absorbed into your empire.You chose them they’re not pre-chosen.

    But in AoW1 and AoW2 they were pre-chosen. If you’re playing Dark Elves , sorry bro but you have no chance to have good relationship with Archons. (Except AoW1, I had +130 relationship with Highmen as frostlings in athendore map, from saving highmen cities from being migrated, too bad that didn’t worked with Astras and Valkyries).And this system chooses your allied faction. You do not chose faction in this system, it’s pre-chosen just like AoW1, AoW2. And that prevents doing empire combos which will be bad in this game.

    P.S. Bro thats goddamn big wall of text!

    #10188

    Bro, tier2 dwarven muskeeters hit 40 damage with each shot(as much as their hp,as I could see from unit sheet) and 3x(40-13)=81 this means 3 shot is enough for them to kill a dragon.Let’s say shooter were attacking from too far or they did glancing shot. Well even then 2 dwarven muskeeter would be more than enough to deal with an obsidian dragon.

    Ok, so what? In SM, the crossbow default was 14 attack, eight damage, and the second tier dragons had 25/26 hit points vs. 35 for the Golden/Black. So two full strikes from a set of two crossbowmen would kill a second tier dragon, (32 damage), and four and a half would kill a Golden/Black. Also, you have to remember that the Musketeers only fire every other round, so their average damage per round is twenty (assuming a straight shot with no range penalties, that is unlikely at first).

    So lets say a typical battle between two musketeers and an obsidian dragon (assuming it doesn’t have some kind of physical protection or projectile avoidance or whatever). So there are no obstacles, and the dwarves are attacking, they get to shoot first (by creeping up right), both do full damage, lets say (40/1.5 – 12) or 15 each. Then the Obsidian dragon closes the distance, and kills one of the musketeers in two strikes(I’m assuming that it has a physical and magic damage component). lets also assume the dwarf counters (do archers have counters?) with four damage (Its physical attack of 10 reacting with a reasonably high defense value) It could use its breath, but since we don’t know what it does, I’ll ignore it. Also, no cause fear.

    Next turn, the surviving musketeer can either use their weak melee against the dragon (and suffer the counter attacks, probably killing it) or defend. The next turn, the Obsidian Dragon either kills the dwarf, or almost kills it (I don’t know how much of a benefit defend is). It has somewhere around 38 damage and a dead dwarf, or thirty four damage and and a mostly dead dwarf. In the later case, the dwarf gets to fire point blank, lets say full 28 damage. Then the Dragon has 62 damage, and then gets to kill the dwarf.

    So overall, I’d say that even the best luck on the musketeers side and good playing should have the Obsidian dragon win. 3 would kill the obsidian Dragon most of the time: but we should remember that this is the equivalent of roughly four crossbowmen (since stacks are smaller), and that four crossbowmen getting the jump on a frost or ice dragon in SM would usually win.

    #10189

    Brother JO
    Member

    Ok, so what? In SM, the crossbow default was 14 attack, eight damage, and the second tier dragons had 25/26 hit points vs. 35 for the Golden/Black. So two full strikes from a set of two crossbowmen would kill a second tier dragon, (32 damage), and four and a half would kill a Golden/Black. Also, you have to remember that the Musketeers only fire every other round, so their average damage per round is twenty (assuming a straight shot with no range penalties, that is unlikely at first).

    Wait… Don’t muskeeters attack 3 times like normal archers??? I though muskeeters only attacked 1 time in gamescom video because they moved to red hex(which means one shot/one strike for attacker). Also are you sure muskeeters has to wait 1 round to attack? What I heard from Lennart when he was speaking that cannons needed to wait one round to attack but with engineer’s special ability they were able to attack other round too.

    Well, if dwarf muskeeters only attack once and has to wait 1 round to shoot again then it’s more ok(ish)

    #10193

    Tomipapa
    Member

    Wait… Don’t muskeeters attack 3 times like normal archers??? I though muskeeters only attacked 1 time in gamescom video because they moved to red hex(which means one shot/one strike for attacker). Also are you sure muskeeters has to wait 1 round to attack?

    Yes, they can fire only once in every other turn. In the first gamescom video(not the gamestar presentation with Lennart) at 9:19 the guy said something like this “the musketeers are still on coldown they can be fire once in every other turn aswell…”

    #10210

    Hey Devs, do you guys mind weighing in and telling us who’s right about the Obsidian Dragon/Dwarf Musketeer conflict? Is a fight between a half stack of dwarf musketeers and an Obsidian Dragon roughly equal, once taking into account sneakiness, obstacles and whatever, to the half stack of crossbowmen vs a Red or Ice Dragon in SM?

    #10232

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Give me a lot to reply on, and of course there’ll be a lto to reply.

    On your lore objections:

    As an overall observation: “It’s AoW1, and thus the distant past that’s not relevant to the current day” is not a magic wand you can just use to wash away all arguments against your position. It’s still part of the games background lore – in fact, given that even some of the devs had forgotten a lot of the thinking behind AoW2 while AoW1 is the basis of the story, AoW1 lore may even be more important. It’s what set the story, and shows, in broad strokes, what’s going on.

    On dwarves and giants: Just because giants weren’t in the dwarf lineup in AoW2 doesn’t mean that the relationship has been totally wiped away and nobody remembers any more. Even if giants and dwarves are no longer sharing cities, the memories would remain. More importantly, the fact that they held such a strong relationship in the past shows that they are fundamentally compatible in ways that would encourage rekindling of that relationship in the future.

    On archons and humans: That’s game mechanics. In AoW1, your alignment and relations was based on your race, and thus it was possible to have exceptions to the general rule such as ‘archons and humans like each other despite the alignment difference’. In Age of Wonders 2, alignment is determined by the most populous alignment in your empire, and the mechanics don’t distinguish between majority human and majority, say, draconian. There was simply no way in the mechanics to provide for a broad ‘okay, they’re Pure Good and Neutral, but humans and archons still like one another’. More importantly than game mechanics, though, in the story there are regular indications that the archons still value humanity over others – it’s just that most archons aren’t willing to go to war with the elves over it any more. In fact, if you pay attention to the lore, it would make no sense for the archons not to favour humans, since the archons themselves are ascended humans.

    On giants and humans: I commented earlier that the lust may not translate into better relations. Then again, it might. This point really isn’t important either way.

    Elves and fey: Y’know, you can’t have Symon’s special relationship with the halflings as an indications of good human/fey relations while forgetting that the elves themselves are also related to fey. Dark Elves in AoW1 also had fey on their side, and even in AoW2 we never got a good explanation of just what the Incarnates actually were. At the bottom line, they’re still elves, they still hold values much closer to the fey than the other playable races do, and part of the purpose of the Mending was to heal old wounds.

    Symon and halflings: Are you forgetting that Symon was also an exile, and thus not representative of human attitudes as a whole? And that his alliance was with halflings and the fey that the halflings were allied to came as part of that, not directly with the fey? More importantly, though, having a penalty does not mean “this alliance can never happen, EVER!”. Giving one counterexample that may be the exception that proves the rule does not completely wipe away the idea of bonuses and penalties. It just goes to show that unusual alliances cans still happen… which, of course, they CAN. We’re not talking about bans here, just making it a little easier for some than others.

    Overall, having racial relationships is something that adds depth to the game – it brings another layer of strategic consideration to the player, and enhances the connection between the gameplay and the game world’s background when alliances that you would expect would form more easily than others… do form more easily. And this applies between the races too – yes, we don’t have the hard-and-fast alignment system any more, but I think it still makes sense for, say, dwarves to be more eager to make friends with elves and humans (even if they do distrust the elves for having reabsorbed the dark elves) than with goblins or orcs.

    More significantly, the gameplay element – which I think is what we’re really arguing here – of some settlements being easier to negotiate with than others has always been a part of the AoW franchise. If you had a “neutral” settlement of a good race sitting between you and your opponent, and you were evil and your opponent was good, they had the option of buying the settlement out while you had to conquer and, most likely, migrate it. It’s one of the franchise’s salient points that racial relationships have actually mattered, as opposed to say Master of Magic where at worst racial hatreds just meant you had a little less productivity in the affected city.

    We could argue the each of the individual relationships until the cows come home, but none of the original points really matter, and at this point I have to say that I think you’re filibustering. Your real objection is that you think every race should have a perfectly equal chance of getting a particular monster settlement. I think that strategic games are never supposed to be perfectly symmetrical, and that acknowledging that some alliances form more easily than others gives the game more depth, both in terms of the gameplay element of giving the player another variable to consider, and in terms of allowing the game world’s lore to show through the mechanics.

    #10233

    meeber
    Member

    I like the current dragon stats. And hopefully the editor will allow use to create others. I have at least ten more Id like to add from my aow:sm days.

    Ok I also don’t like the way the Gold Dragon’s head looks. It is too demon looking. Make the horns skinnier or something like that.

    As far as the descriptions are concerned I could care less put what ever you want. Just allow us to edit it like in the previous games. I don’t use the official lore since my friends and I create our own maps with our own made up lore just as we did in previous games and worked out great.
    And I know that for some reason that pisses off some of you lore buffs.

    Well devise so far outstanding job keep it up. I have this feeling that both AOW3 and Elder Scrolls Online are going to be the best games of 2014. And since I have played the Elder Scroll beta and it is by far the best MMO that I have played to date (and I have played most of them since Meridian 59.) I can’t wait to play AOW3

    #10249

    Lennart Sas
    Keymaster

    Regarding Musketeers vs Dragons: The Musketeers fire once every two rounds in the build this screen was taken from. Also consider that 40 max damage is a for a pointblank shot.
    Regarding Balance in General: Please don’t over-analyze these stat screens at this point, balance is VERY rough. Hopefully you do get the some general intention behind the units designs. The Obsidian Dragon is more of a stealth fighter. The Golden Dragon is an heavy hitter inspiring your forces.
    Duplicate abilities: We still need to clean up / sort ability lists. The Golden Dragon is affected by its own inspiration ability, listing it twice.

    Regarding Fonts: thanks for the feedback. We’re still playing around with them. This is actually a font we picked for Parchment and Books, for which it looks great. (its one of the Fell types, based on fonts used in early book printing) We wanted to get your feedback how it looks on the blue panels as well. Note the unit panels above are scaled down, making the fonts a little blurry. Also: we’ll be adding some more fantasy touches and subtle textures to the panels here and there too.

    Regarding Racial Perks, like dwelling relation bonusses or racial bonusses on certain terrain: This is always a tricky one. We like them because they add flavor, but we have to be careful that they don’t create one dimensional gameplay and imbalances. There’ll be few and carefully chosen ones. Also consider that in hand made scenarios you can add flavor through quests and scripts.

    #10254

    The Golden Dragon is affected by its own inspiration ability, listing it twice.

    Perhaps renaming the buff something else would solve the issue, at least for now.

    #10261

    Brother JO
    Member

    More significantly, the gameplay element – which I think is what we’re really arguing here – of some settlements being easier to negotiate with than others has always been a part of the AoW franchise. If you had a “neutral” settlement of a good race sitting between you and your opponent, and you were evil and your opponent was good, they had the option of buying the settlement out while you had to conquer and, most likely, migrate it. It’s one of the franchise’s salient points that racial relationships have actually mattered, as opposed to say Master of Magic where at worst racial hatreds just meant you had a little less productivity in the affected city.

    We still have slightly evil,slighty good alignment factor in this game if I’m not wrong and that would be of course considered when negotiating with independents. I’m not against that. I’m against just because of your race you get X bonus on this and X penalty on that one.

    Okay,races mattered in the first game.Because the first game was builded on “race conflicts”.Frostlings are trying to bring winter to lizardman swamps, azrac’s are shooving orcs from steppes etc etc. In second game it was more about Wizards and their clashes for power and land. It was not really about races, though races & alignment played still important role. We could even see in campaign that evil forces joining, good wizards etc.

    BUT in third game, it’s more about your Empire and your emperor.Just because you started with Elves do not mean that your empire is elvish empire. What represents your empire is your deeds and your emperor. You approach goblin settlement and they don’t say:” Welcome Theocrat of blasted elves”, they will say: “Welcome Theocrat of Blablabla Empire”.Because of this I expect the race you select will not be the most important factor in relations.

    We could argue the each of the individual relationships until the cows come home, but none of the original points really matter, and at this point I have to say that I think you’re filibustering. Your real objection is that you think every race should have a perfectly equal chance of getting a particular monster settlement. I think that strategic games are never supposed to be perfectly symmetrical, and that acknowledging that some alliances form more easily than others gives the game more depth, both in terms of the gameplay element of giving the player another variable to consider, and in terms of allowing the game world’s lore to show through the mechanics.

    Yes, I’m saying that each race has to have equal chance of getting particular monster settlement. But I’m NOT saying it should be perfectly symmetrical. I’m saying that because you choose X race at the start, it should not have significant relation bonus or penality while negotiating with factions. Because it’s more of Empire game now,it’s not I picked this race I hate you, I love them game anymore.

    P.S. Stop posting those wall of texts bro :S

    #10266

    NEHZ
    Member

    Race relations could surface in the quests they give: perhaps dragons are less likely to give quests that involve the razing of draconian cities.
    Also, they could treat you worse if you raze draconian cities, while still not giving players that started with draconians a free pass.

    #10269

    Tomipapa
    Member

    And I know that for some reason that pisses off some of you lore buffs.

    Ok for once and for all: No one in this forum want to say what kind of mod can you make or what lore can you use . We dont have the right to do so and its your game anyway. So feel free to create any content you want. I tried hundreds of mods in my life in many games from many creators but i never ever find one which said ” we created this xy mod for the game because the original lore is shit and we wrote a hundred times better”. Because basicly thats what you stated before, AoW lore is bad and even worse AoW has no lore at all and you and your friends can write a better one. And that was disrespectful, pompous and unacceptable. So this was the problem for us “lore buffs” not that you want to change the unit descriptions and create you own content. I hope its clear now.

    #10271

    Brother JO
    Member

    Meeber wrote:
    And I know that for some reason that pisses off some of you lore buffs.

    Ok for once and for all: No one in this forum want to say what kind of mod can you make or what lore can you use . We dont have the right to do so and its your game anyway. So feel free to create any content you want. I tried hundreds of mods in my life in many games from many creators but i never ever find one which said ” we created this xy mod for the game because the original lore is shit and we wrote a hundred times better”. Because basicly thats what you stated before, AoW lore is bad and even worse AoW has no lore at all and you and your friends can write a better one. And that was disrespectful, pompous and unacceptable. So this was the problem for us “lore buffs” not that you want to change the unit descriptions and create you own content. I hope its clear now.

    Bros, don’t resurrect arguments nobody talked about for weeks.Not to mention that, that argument was pointless and wasn’t serving any purpose.

    #10274

    Pointless? :O It was one of the more entertaining discussions we have had 😀

    But the end result will always be: “Each to his own” i guess 😉

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 95 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.