Launch, Reception and first update plans

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 Launch, Reception and first update plans

Tagged: ,

This topic contains 137 replies, has 89 voices, and was last updated by  Garresh 5 years, 5 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 138 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #64590

    Zash
    Member

    Hi,
    nice game, playing it with joy.

    On your upcoming fixes pls let at least one ai level stay neutral, you wrote that you want to make squire more easy, but so far i know squire is the only ai in the moment who has no bonus or malus, knight has 125% bonus so far i know, if you make squire more easy than no ai would be neutral; and i like to play against ai’s that are neutral.
    Perhaps set squire to 75% income and knight to 100%, the next to 125% …

    +1 btw to the dispel city enchantments only if the enemy can see the city (no fog of war)
    Im playing the campain in the moment and im using no overland spells except the summonings in the moment, because its useless to cast a city enchantment or global spell because they will get dispelled in a few turns.

    #64626

    Tombles
    Keymaster

    1. Flying units don’t really fly, they sit on the ground in combat so all can attack them which lessens their utility. What was the design choice behind this change?

    2. Wall climbing. Now everyone can do it it lessens the need for siege engines so I don’t even bother now. Why was this design choice made?

    3. Mountains. Now passable by all. I read your reasoning on this and politely disagree, this game is a challenge and needs to be tough, not diluted for the console generation.

    4. Surrounding cities. Not much point in surrounding a city if you attack from one side only. I respectfully disagree with your design choice as it limits tactical options and makes the game too easy.

    1 and 3 were both done for about the same reason: Having such a hard distinction between units (i.e. Units that can move over mountains vs those that never can. Units that can hit everyone in melee, and go everywhere vs units who cannot) leads to a lot of balance issues and exploits that are very hard to fix. For example, imagine Dwarves are the only race that can easily move over mountains, that means anyone who doesn’t play as dwarf is at a huge disadvantage, since they have to rely on fliers or get their own dwarf city. Dwarf players can just hide any army in the middle of the mountains, immune to attack, while other players cannot. It’s a similar story with fliers, you had issues with clever players moving fliers to locations that nonfliers couldn’t reach and forcing a stalemate, when realistically there was no way they could ever win the fight.

    Now, each time I mention one of these issues, you will come up with a solution, and that’s fine, but the solutions would have changed the game in ways we didn’t want. A very nice solution I read, for example, was to have 2 layers in tactical combat, an air layer and a ground layer. Fliers would only be immune to attack from ground troops while in the air layer (unless the ground troops were ranged). It’s a nice idea, and with a lot of work, and effort, it would make for a nice game, but it would be a very different game from what you have now.

    With wall climbing, only “Infantry” type units have it (and spiders I guess). So while it is common, you need to remember that a lot of important troops do not have it (like cavalry or support). Also, wallclimbing is quite weak, at least compared to flying, floating and passwall. A wall climbing unit is forced to end it’s turn on the wall without being able to attack. While it’s stood on the wall, it’s defense and resistance are lowered, so it’s very vulnerable to attack. With wallclimbing we wanted to have a “bad” way for normal units to get over walls, so that early game sieges weren’t so dependent on lugging siege engines round everywhere.

    With the surrounding cities, that I’m afraid is just economics. 3D stuff is much more expensive to make than 2D stuff, things which were relatively cheap to make in 2D (like all the different maps pieces needed to properly represent what a city wall would look like from various directions) would be far more expensive to make in 3D. We simply didn’t have the time to do it. We also had the problem that it looked stupid. Have a battle on a fortress, now imagine the fortress is full of little houses and buildings, that’s what it kind of looked like, it was horrid.

    #64633

    apopov
    Member

    @tombles

    Units that can move over mountains vs those that never can.

    I think you guys could have saved yourself a lot of complaints if you just called the passable mountains “hills” and left it at that.

    #64638

    Shiara384
    Member

    But they look nothing like hills, they look like actual mountains, so that makes no sense?

    #64640

    loyal viggo
    Member

    @tombles – thank you very much for taking the time to read and respond to my questions, that is very refreshing and inspires my confidence.

    All of this does make sense, although as you note there will always be counter-arguments, and so I wish you and the team much luck in future patches/dlc/AoW games.

    Loyal Viggo

    #64644

    marceror
    Member

    Sounds like some good changes, but will this patch be save game compatible? If not I will want to hold off on installing until I finish the Elven campaign.

    #64646

    apopov
    Member

    Distinction between the two is subjective. To many people who live in mountainous regions for examples, anything that doesn’t have a snow cap is just high hill. I moved to mid Ontario, people here are calling every bump on the map a “mountain”

    #64648

    Shiara384
    Member

    Huh, I live in a mountainous region, (well, a valley, Knoxville TN is surrounded by mountains.) But..I don’t call mountains hills, Maybe i’m just wierd.

    #64656

    Riaktion
    Member

    I have to say the more I play the less i like that troups say full strength when injured. I’m not sure how you can fix this at this point in the game but fundamentally the problem I have is that if you focus your attack on a troupe win/loss can come down to (very easily) a boolean luck factor of x damage or x+1 damage since the retalitory strike the next turn is crippling if they live and completely null if they die. I think this explains my comment earlier about combat being brutal because of the all or nothing approach and this seems not only counter intetuitive but very narrow in how you play the game. Basically when in tactical combat you are just as well off as ignoring any troup that you cannot kill that turn if there is another group that you can kill.<br>

    Yeah visually this doesn’t make sense does it? However what about the units that are 1 character, rather than a group of troops? Do you think they should reduce damage that those guys output as they take HP damage too? What are your thoughts?

    For me.. I share your discomfort of the visual representation in the current system, but I suppose it retains the mechanics of the older AoW games where units are represented as just 1 peasant or 1 knight or whatever (not a stack like HoMM games) and they wouldn’t reduce in strength as they took damage.

    As some units are now shown as a formation of troops in AoW 3 rather than single people, this gives the battles the awesome sight of actual armies clashing which I much prefer over the older visual style which could just look like a band of 6 people fighting over an entire city.

    Sadly the side effect is what you guys are pointing out.. how does 1 archer still do as much damage as 5? But if it was represented as 1 single archer from the start like the older games, we wouldn’t be asking this question I’m guessing.

    I suppose it is about going with the rules of the game rather than how the visual style chooses to represent a unit’s health points. I think I like the compromise at the moment… but if they did implement the change you’re suggesting… I wouldn’t be against it if it was balanced properly. It would certainly mean we could retain the new visual style which I really love.

    Perhaps if they added a check box in the options which when ticked would only kill troops in a formation when all of that units health is gone? At which point all the troops in that formation die at once, might be a better alternative than changing the way the game works without further balancing, and it would remove the perception of 1 soldier seemingly being as strong as a full unit. Thoughts?

    #64666

    Shiara384
    Member

    While I don’t think it needs to have its damaged weakened, I can understand your point. Now, I throw out a counter-arguement

    One of the big pluses of having such a visual system, is that for units with large numbers, You can tell when their about to be dead and will need to be replaced. To me thats big. The numbers act as their HP (Yes, there is an HP bar, but for some people like me, its hard to notice when your so busy fighting.)

    #64688

    Riaktion
    Member

    While I don’t think it needs to have its damaged weakened, I can understand your point. Now, I throw out a counter-arguement

    One of the big pluses of having such a visual system, is that for units with large numbers, You can tell when their about to be dead and will need to be replaced. To me thats big. The numbers act as their HP (Yes, there is an HP bar, but for some people like me, its hard to notice when your so busy fighting.)

    No I agree, I’m happy for it to stay the way it is and I like the compromise Triumph have done between visual style, representing HP points and keeping the units viable even on low health. So I’m with you and want it to stay the same.

    But I do understand the other point of view, however I’d prefer they added an option to change the visual representation of damage for those that don’t like it, rather than changing the mechanics of the game and how damage is dealt, hence my suggestion and I wonder what the peeps that don’t like the visual mismatch think 🙂

    #64717

    Shiara384
    Member

    For people who CAN pay attention to the health bars, I can understand, but for those few like me, who tend to be too sucked into the moment, we would rely on the unit visualization to see their HP points.

    #64748

    @ Elric, I sold my family, they were taking up too much time. Now I have the extra cash and time for AoW.

    #64771

    zolop
    Member

    Please do add a feature for direct connect in offline mode.

    I was not informed prior to purchase that even in offline mode I couldn’t play with people I know using direct connect.

    If your server goes down i can not play with multiplayer even though it was Stated in the game page it has multiplayer. I have had trouble connected to the TRiumph master server for multiplayer games. I have tried everything on the trouble shooting guide and tried more not listed (made application files “Run as Administrator”, etc) and it still does not work.

    EDITED out.

    I wish the AOW 3 devs good luck, but Direct Connect SHOULD have been the first feature to add after this release, as people are still having problems. Illegal copies of the game will be edited to take that restriction (login server) out so the point of putting it in the first place without direct connection is irrelevant. Instead direct connect should have been kept in offline mode for Triuphs customers that are having issues and permanent issues because of ISPs/Country restrictions. Instead people that buy the game now have to deal with this situation otherwise the game having a simple direct connect option… REally developers take time to think about this.

    #64895

    elric
    Member

    @BBB Ha ha! Nomads have it made 🙂

    I’m surprised with how many ‘suggestions and changes’ threads and posts there are. To all the people making these threads I would advise you to play for more time and consider that the developers have made these design choices for a reason and they have worked on it for 3.5 years. Lets not be hasty in judging their merit.

    Bugs and obvious fixes are another matter but the fundamental design choices were clearly made with a lot of forethought and testing. I personally find it interesting and a refreshing change. The action has been sped up and tactics have become more complex.

    #64909

    Shiara384
    Member

    But elric. People want their changes and they refuse to see otherwise, and they see anyone as telling them otherwise as either having no idea what their talking about, “Fan boy rage.” or, just refuse to listen to reason.

    THey want what they want, because their so entitled (especially if they vehemently deny it, its just proving it MORE.) because every other dev gives them what they want, so they demand more and more and more. We have no choice, we have to cater to them or They’ll never stop! /sarcasm.

    3.5 years people, Three point Five years, the devs know the reasons behind their decisions and the inherint coding in the game better then do you. And if you insist otherwise, I want written proof, in the form of credentials, otherwise your word is about as important as a spec of dust floating in the air.

    Edit: Stop. just STOP!. All of you people demanding the devs change stuff, there is a DIFFERENCE, between constructive criticism and incessant whining. You are doing the latter. I can point to several people who have more coherent and understandable thoughts about this (And their not even beta-testers).

    #65006

    Epaminondas
    Member

    1 and 3 were both done for about the same reason: Having such a hard distinction between units (i.e. Units that can move over mountains vs those that never can. Units that can hit everyone in melee, and go everywhere vs units who cannot) leads to a lot of balance issues and exploits that are very hard to fix. For example, imagine Dwarves are the only race that can easily move over mountains, that means anyone who doesn’t play as dwarf is at a huge disadvantage, since they have to rely on fliers or get their own dwarf city. Dwarf players can just hide any army in the middle of the mountains, immune to attack, while other players cannot. It’s a similar story with fliers, you had issues with clever players moving fliers to locations that nonfliers couldn’t reach and forcing a stalemate, when realistically there was no way they could ever win the fight.

    Would it be possible to make inaccessible mountains as an option in the RMG? That would keep everyone happy.

    #65030

    I just had a thought.

    These occur rarely so pay attention! :p.

    What if reduced up/figures in unit affected NOT damage but defence?

    So, reducing hp makes the unit less effective, but not to the extent that weakening units is the only realistic option. You can weaken a unit so it is easier to destroy, but still poses a significant threat.

    Caveat: I like the system as it is, just throwing this out there for debate.

    #65160

    meeber
    Member

    Hmm, jump in and out of watching the fight? Because some fights can drag on.

    In MP i can imagine people trolling and just sitting there thinking “haha lets see how long we can keep them waiting outside looking at cities”.

    being able to jump back in and watch the fight ensures they will not do this (fear of getting caught as probability of it is way too high)

    That is why you should only play with friends.

    #65182

    elric
    Member

    I think the main complaint people have is with regard to the damage stat. A squad of 10 darters doing the same damage as 1 is counter-intuitive. Reducing other stats feels like a poor compromise and is probably more confusing. Of course, if people read the pop-up which indicates the damage the selected unit will deal, this wouldn’t be a problem.

    It is interesting that nobody complained about it in the previous games when a soldier with 1 hp could do full damage. Even in DnD, the health stat is not linked with any other stat. Also, nobody has a problem that when you ‘heal’ a unit you are basically resurrecting them. 🙂

    I don’t have a problem with the current visual representation of units. I would personally have preferred the older, single unit representation but it’s not a big deal.

    #65200

    Shiara384
    Member

    Elric, its more of a case of. And this is fact

    “They changed it. Now it sucks!” It offends their Nostalgia.

    #65221

    Terozo
    Member

    For disjunction: I think it would be best if the AI (and players for that matter) would only be able to disjunct city enchantments if they currently have line of sight on that city. It doesn’t make sense to me that my paid absolution is getting dispelled from a city when the opponent shouldn’t even know about the enchantment, let alone the city itself (yes I know they cheat :P ).

    This would make invisible scouts more interesting in mp as well. (“How can he disjunct my city enchantment if he’s nowhere around?”) Afaik you need to see the city to cast the spell on it, so why not the same for disjunct?

    Also I’d like to see which city it is in the disjunct screen when there are 5 of the same city buff/debuff. For instance: right now I’m disjuncting 1 of 5 <insert enchantment name> but if I want to disjunct a city buff on the city I’m about to attack, I don’t want an 80% chance of dispelling the wrong city.

    I love the back and forth of throwing enchantments/disjuncts, but right now if you play against an AI you can expect to spend most of your casting points on keeping your cities enchanted which isn’t the most interesting gameplay. If you can only dispel what you can see (world enchantments are everywhere so should always be dispellable) it would make city sieges more interesting. Does the attacker disjunct first or does he go in with a surprise sneakattack (or both if he has invisibility?). But the defender should be able to have and keep defensive and economical enchantments up without some sorcerer on the other side of the map deciding to dispel cuz he has nothing better to do.

    Love the game so far, good work!

    +1 to this.

    Also, not sure if someone has mentioned this already but implementing an ‘auto-move’ option similar to AoW:SMs, where hitting next unit to select a unit with a planned move will automatically move them towards their destination. This kind of works when you hit the end turn button however I’ve found that stationary groups can be skipped entirely if I’m not careful. While this is a minor issue, it can get rather fiddly with several cities all producing units to rally points.

    #65342

    Shiara384
    Member

    I’m noticing how no one has responded to Tombles largest post about why things were done the way they were.

    #65544

    Lennard u r the best no doubt,but I really miss the Undead,Dark elves and halfling races 🙁

    #65590

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I’m noticing how no one has responded to Tombles largest post about why things were done the way they were.

    It was a nice post clarifying things. My only problem has been the flyer thing anyway, but I only wanted to know the reason: as a HoMM player I’m used to the current system with fliers and have no problem with it as such. Having played some more, I also think it’s wise.
    Same for mountains: can’t see the problem. There are 2 kinds of mountains, period. Maybe they should call the passable mountains Hills or something.
    That units retain their fighting strength, even while they “fall”? People, get real, the eyes are playing tricks on you. No one ever complained in games where it’s the other way round: STACKS, represented by ONE creature (HoMM) not changing optically, even though their performance drastically decreases when creatures of the stack die. It’s a compromise in order to be able to display all units in a good size (Eador hat problems in that regard, for example). Everyone ever playing HoMM KNOWS, that changing this would increase the strength of GIANT creatures that come in single portions, and DECREASE the strength of all formational units, because they would be attritioned into uselessness QUITE soon. The 8x4HP squads would be next to useless after the first exchange, which would mean the whole game would have to be rebalanced FUNDAMENTALLY.

    #65649

    Pluxx
    Member

    AI Global Spell Disjunction Spamming is limited

    Does Disjunction have any additional requirements, besides needing enough MP/CP? It would make sense to me if the player casting Disjunction needs to have their leader (or possibly any random hero) in the domain where the enchantment is active – either anywhere in the enemy’s territory for a global enchantment, or in a specific city’s domain for a city enchantment.

    Adding the domain requirement (on top of the limitations already planned) would mean enemy AI, and more importantly enemy human players, would have to take some risks by exposing their leader (or a random hero) to the enemy, put more effort in getting rid of beneficial enchantments, and perhaps decide it’s not worth it to disjunct that extra 10g city income.

    #65659

    I’m noticing how no one has responded to Tombles largest post about why things were done the way they were.

    All I want is a slider to allow us to increase the number of stormy-mountains at this point for random maps. That would be nice.

    #65674

    Tombles
    Keymaster

    Does Disjunction have any additional requirements, besides needing enough MP/CP? It would make sense to me if the player casting Disjunction needs to have their leader (or possibly any random hero) in the domain where the enchantment is active – either anywhere in the enemy’s territory for a global enchantment, or in a specific city’s domain for a city enchantment.

    The conditions are:

    1) You must be at war (Disjunction is considered a hostile act, so it counts as a declaration of war when you do it)
    2) For a Global spell, there are no further conditions
    3) For a City affecting spell, you must have explored the hex the city is on. You don’t need actual vision on the hex.

    There is quite a big problem with the whole “You must have vision/you mist have a unit here” to dispel. You end up needing to have a sort of spotter for the whole duration of the spell. If it would take me 3 turns to dispel a city enchantment, I’d need to get a unit with vision on the city, and maintain vision for 3 turns, and then dispel. Sort of like how you fire off a nuke in Starcraft, if the spotter dies the spell ends up canceled. For a human, it’s possiblew to do this, but teaching the AI to do it would be very hard to achieve. I think even for a human, most people would consider it too much hassle to bother…

    #65755

    Pluxx
    Member

    You end up needing to have a sort of spotter for the whole duration of the spell. If it would take me 3 turns to dispel a city enchantment, I’d need to get a unit with vision on the city, and maintain vision for 3 turns, and then dispel. Sort of like how you fire off a nuke in Starcraft, if the spotter dies the spell ends up canceled. For a human, it’s possiblew to do this, but teaching the AI to do it would be very hard to achieve. I think even for a human, most people would consider it too much hassle to bother…

    Having it be a hassle was kind of the point. 😀 It would hopefully discourage human players from bothering to disjunct ‘trivial’ enchantments, and only put the effort in to get rid of more impactful spells, or only mass-disjunct things when they’re actively invading an enemy’s territory.

    About the spotter, you could save the be-inside-the-domain bit for the turn when Disjunction is cast, so you wouldn’t need someone to sit there for however many turns it takes to prepare. I can see how that might still be difficult to teach the AI though, but it can’t hurt to suggest it. 🙂

    #65764

    Hert
    Member

    While needing vision for the entire casting period would be the ideal solution, I can understand why it would be hard to implement for the AI.
    Just keep it simple: if the AI/player can see the affected hex he can start the disjunct and even if he loses vision the cast can still go through. It’s a lot simpler to implement and would still be a huge improvement over the current situation.

Viewing 30 posts - 91 through 120 (of 138 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.