cbower

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 162 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Balancing sites #247060

    cbower
    Member

    Well the way I do most mythical and the like early is all about splitting and positioning and maybe some spells. Honestly if you want to make it difficult the random damage spells make the most difference. Through splits, positioning, and spells you can negate some of the impact of mass bless and so on. Wizard Towers are dangerous early because you take damage every turn you try to set it up. Low level units get eaten alive by prismatic spire. So it makes it less profitable to take your time. I think random damage spells like this will have and impact.

    Pandemonium and Choas Rift are huge spells. That would make site not workable without a disjuncting it or serious units. This is basically going to remove these sites for most every game.

    To @ezysquire, I have seen alot of games where I go deep into opponents territory mid to late game and they have not cleared their mythical sites. Some of these sites are already off players radars for the most part. I am in a game right now with a very decent player who waited 50+ turns to start doing mythical sites. He had waited until he was producing t4 units. He knows what he is dong but he is not clearing specialist. The average player does not snowball at the same pace, and they wait until they are able to produce units that can take the fight. @ezysquire you are NOT an average player, you do level and snowball. From what I can tell in our game you play the clearing game at a high level, and are frustratingly patient in you attacks. Seriously just make a mistake already :P. These changes are good for the average player. They will hurt you, myself, and others. We will have to adjust to a more production based game. The point is to give people who do not clear at a high level but do understand the game well, a chance to play. Currently unless it is a FFA with plenty of time left alone, these player do not get a chance to play because they get rolled over by another’s snowball.

    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #246561

    cbower
    Member

    I am for wa14 as long as we can mod it that way. I was not able use an start spell to reduce max hp by percentage, I needed to use a integer value. I have posted the question to the modding community. I like Wa11a but I am assuming that death march regular still cost 40cp as was in wa05, if that is the case it would be nice to further distinguish the two spells. In most cases the regular would probably just replace the scout. Maybe the scout includes increased vision or something. Since death march is not an always research spell. You need to be lucky enough to get scout in your book, and then get death march in your book. So adding another spell in the chain is actually a larger hindrance then just making it cost 340 research unless you make it an always research spell.

    Though I have to say I think I prefer Wa07 the most.


    cbower
    Member

    Guys last time I looked at instant spells I didn’t see a way to reduce max hp by 50%. Death March was to reduced health by 50% not max HP. I ended up having to put an integer value. Could you let me know how to reduce max HP by 50% as discussed.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 1 month ago by  cbower.

    cbower
    Member

    For the Ice Queens, I guess that could work as an unelegant work-around, but who gets the spell, does simply everyone get it at start? Make sure that you can also only target your own ice queens with it

    Yes, I made it a starting skill for avatar and it only targets the players units. I am certainly open to a more elegant solution, but that is the best I could figure for it.

    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #246026

    cbower
    Member

    Put me down as against tho06 and th07. th05 is fine


    cbower
    Member

    Ne09a For – seems fine

    Ne09b against – I don’t think we need to
    So08 against – It’s not a big change but Sorcerer is one of the weaker leaders to begin with imo
    Ro06a against – I don’t think rogues heroes need healing
    Ne06d – Very much for – mind control units should not be able to be ghouls
    Ne06e For – makes sense to me, it seems like an oversight for it to begin with
    Ne10 For – very powerful start abilities
    Ne11 For – very powerful start abilities
    Ne12 Against – it just goes too far in my opinion. They really need necro heroes


    cbower
    Member

    I think individually alot of the Rogue Leader changes are good. However I don’t fully understand why we are pushing buffing the Rogue leader so much. The Rogue hero is pretty useful at every stage of the game. Rogue has early mind control and sneaking. Late game rogue can be quite strong in melee. The Worst Hero for me is the Dreadnaught hero. Early on they have some nice abilities, but get passed level 7 and there really isn’t anything worth taking. Maybe add a stack ability to give weapons kit to infantry and pikeman, or something. Necro even with the debuff is still quite insane comparably.

    This is just my ranking of heroes, but this the way I see it.

    Tier 1
    Necro
    AD

    Tier 2
    Theo
    Rogue
    Warlord
    Sorcerer

    Tier 3
    Dreadnaught

    New priority change:
    AD09
    OK

    Ne06
    OK
    Ne09
    OK
    Ro09
    Against. This is pretty big ability, in most AI Battles I watch the AI will open itself up for flanks, and then take advantage of it the next round. Without adding to other leaders I would say I am against.
    Ro11 (Leader buff)
    OK.
    Ro13 (Leader buff minor)
    Sure
    Ro15 (Leader-mind Control debuff)
    OK
    Changes almost approved for v1.2:
    AD07
    ok

    Ro12 (Leader Buff)
    ok

    Ro05 (Leader buff)
    Against. Not sure why Rogue Leader needs healing aura. Plus everything else.

    Ha05
    OK. Yes very much in favor of bringing the Sheriff back

    New proposed changes:
    AD15
    Need to look at the mod editor a bit more before I can comment on this one.

    Other Changes;

    Ro08
    Very much against. Too much.
    Ro10
    OK
    Ro06
    Against
    Th05
    Against
    Th06
    Against
    Th04
    Against
    Th04a
    Ok
    So06
    Against
    So07
    Against
    AD03
    Against
    GC06
    OK

    in reply to: Fixing the "no city" economy #245169

    cbower
    Member

    Turns out undead will desert without gold, which is good I think. It means simply increasing the morale penalty should be effective against all classes. Thanks for the information. Personally I think I would lean towards just increasing the morale penalty, 20% chance to desert since that’s each turn. Alsdo the modification looks super simple thanks to WanderingScholar looking it up.

    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #244683

    cbower
    Member

    @cbower, could you check possibility of adding properties on units on converting? Temporary properties (to the end of battles) are possible, but not on strategic map.

    Sounds like we are running into the same walls. I couldn’t figure out a way to make it persist. That is where I got stuck. Then I thought about ways to work with unit properties on the strategic map but each approach ended up a dead end for various reasons.
    There is one way that might work, but seems exceedingly painful to do. You could add hidden requisites to the units set assigned as defenders. But you would have to create duplicate copies of units for every defender, then change every defender set for every site. That being done you could use that requisite with a default player property to achieve the effect. As you can imagine it would take some time, and that is even if it actually works.

    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #244323

    cbower
    Member

    Nice! If you can I would like to see how you have done it. Maybe I just had the wrong approach. You can email me at cbower@advws.net.

    update

    I’ve managed to place Volunteer through Seduce, so I think higher upkeep is pretty possible.
    Bad news are that I can’t place any kind of time limit for temporary effect on these seduced units, i.e if unit was seduced it will cost more maintenance to the end of game.

    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #244321

    cbower
    Member

    @jollyjoker I am interested to see what you come up with, and it doesn’t hurt to have options. Still I think it would be better to work with the others here. I think there is a lot of value in pushing towards one mod. Joker would you have any issue with your changes being considered proposal’s to the existing mod. People could vote on them and some would make it into the PBEM mod. Then if your willing you could release your code changes to Zaskow to pull in.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  cbower.
    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #244259

    cbower
    Member

    I am in the middle of some gameplay testing now. I am in a handful of balance mod games, so I can provide some gameplay feedback when that is done. Also let me know you need functional testing. I can take a list of changes and note the scenarios tried, and the results.

    in reply to: PBEM balance mod #244247

    cbower
    Member

    @zaskow @hiliadan I would like to help, as it seems like a fair amount of work here. However I do think it is best to keep the changes in one mod and I am not sure there is a good way to collaborate with the tools given. Perhaps if you were going to not be making changes for a couple of days, you could assign some work to me pass me the acp file and then I could pass it back. Or maybe I could do some testing. I am in a few games, xp does seem a bit slower. Melee classes handle the changes the best, though I don’t see this as a bad thing. I am going to be on vacation from may 10-17th, but if there is a way that I can help please let me know. I’ll give my email to Hiliadan.

    in reply to: Preparation of next PBEM tournament #243909

    cbower
    Member

    Do you mean you had 0 gold and negative income and you could still continue? Then it’s an abuse that needs to be fixed too. Units should desert. But I guess undead don’t desert because they do not get to very low morale?

    Yes. I agree they should desert or have some major penalty, however the penalty as it stands just isn’t enough.

    in reply to: Preparation of next PBEM tournament #243885

    cbower
    Member

    When I get home I can check the exact numbers, But game speed will effect the city growth rate and the research cost of skills. Yes starting resources effects your base income. You know I used to think that you needed income to support a large unit base, I have come to realize, sadly you do not. I played an entire game with negative income as a necro. The only only impact was -200 empire happiness and -100 unit morale. It had almost no affect on me. It got me thinking about trying this as a convert class. Letting completely loose on ghouling created a truly devastating army. I never needed to worry about producing units at all. As A rogue you could build some early bards and really go to town. The idea that destroying a necromancer’s economy to destroy his ability to fight back turns out to be a fallacy. Not sure if the same is true for other classes, but I think it’s probably close. In the end you need to be able to be able to turn them back your opponent and start putting together a better army.

    I have run some games on the settings and I think it does help production and production classes. We could always put together some 1v1 or 2v2 games on the proposed settings and see what people think.

    in reply to: Balance based on hard data from the PBEM tournament #243842

    cbower
    Member

    What do you mean by “it has more to do with the game itself”?

    The game is built in a way that t1 infantry are not worth building, some archers are not worth building, and t1 pikeman are not worth building, in my opinion. So small tweaks here and there are not going to change my opinion.

    Brew Brothers actually got a serious boost, I propose to increase their cost by at least 5 gold. What do you think?

    Yes I think they should get a bump. In live MP Brew Brother are still going to be pretty fragile, however they will be very good in PBEM. As is they are one of my favorite starting units to get in my main stack.

    in reply to: Preparation of next PBEM tournament #243834

    cbower
    Member

    I thought about it again and I think it’s a actually a good idea to start with Village + weak starting army + normal resource.

    Summary of the proposed settings so far:
    – balance mod for Necro, XP, conversion
    – larger map (between small and medium): 65×73
    – heroes capped to lvl 15
    – Village start
    – weak starting army

    Village and weak army is a definite improvement. Hero cap is fine, even though I am not the biggest fan. I am playing the balance mod right now in a couple places, so far I think it helps. When the settings are finished I do think that we should have Zaskow preset them as default choices in the Balance mod so it is easier to setup games.

    I would also like to suggest game speed settings moved up to fast and starting resources up a notch or two. Even with the changes the games are going to be short, and moving the speed up and starting resources will give production focused classes and strategies more play.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by  cbower.

    cbower
    Member

    we could achieve something close to Ne05 from the google doc. It would take a decent amount of work, so it would be best if we could wait until we are sure.

    in reply to: Balance based on hard data from the PBEM tournament #243761

    cbower
    Member

    Ok, I checked the opinions of everyone so far and here are the changes that get at least 3 approvals and no disagreement. I flagged them as “Priority changes” and highlighted them in yellow in the table.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1flsHncpzAmJa_2xMHZ6Tlp-mf69ej2mYrSGNc4V3_QA/edit?usp=sharing

    I love the idea of putting the sheriff back in the game. I am a big supporter of Ha05. I like many of the ideas for Jesters, Nightwatch and Farmers, however I still wouldn’t really build them in any game. That probably has more to do with just the game itself though, there just isn’t much of a benefit in building them even with upgrades. I could actually see Sheriff’s being used on the other hand. Brew brother changes could be sueful too. RG suggestion are pretty good Ha24a is probably best, Ha24b is probably too much. Also put me down for voting for ha20. I also like ha29. If ha-7 is a 20 gold trading post it’s probably too good, sadly. ha08 is fine. ha02 I am unsure exactly how this will work. I don’t know if damage is rounded or not. Say you at 20 damage normally decreasing 95% of that damage is 19. Saving 1 damage per strike. Now say you take 10 damage (much more likely) 95% of 10 is 9.5, is that 10 damage or 9 damage? If it’s 9 then 15% is almost going to be almost as effective as reducing to 10%. Still I think lowering physically weakness will make the most real difference.

    Summary
    t1 units changes seem fun but will have no impact in my opinion. Sheriff and Brew borther changes could be useful. Economic upgrades could make a difference. I like the UG idea.

    in reply to: New Necro Balance Mod #243372

    cbower
    Member

    @jj I think you can give explosive death to just independent DB. I haven’t tested it, but I saw a place where you can give properties to independent player units. Give a stack ability that grants explosive death to only death bringers to all indy units. Hide the stack ability in unit panel, show the property and your good. So long as it gives the property correct it should work. That way you can still reanimate player death bringers.

    in reply to: Experience Farming revisited and a mod #243339

    cbower
    Member

    Sure I will try to give it a shot here soon. I play 30 turns single player 2-3 times. See what hero levels I can get. I’ll try to bring as much cheese as I can ;).

    in reply to: Experience Farming revisited and a mod #243330

    cbower
    Member

    So in the mod I am working I started thinking that rather then limit xp farming, I am trying to find ways to both increase the ability to defend and to increase the value of produced units. Building powerful heroes is actually fun, which I think is part of the problem with trying to balance it. What is not fun is losing an entire match because you simply fell behind in one aspect of the game. My hope is that by increasing some other aspects of the game for PBEM it will make it less of an issue. It’s just a thought. Though in my mod I am not aiming to truly balance everything, or fix PBEM, I am just putting together some things I that I think could be fun. SO our aim is a bit different.

    I do think it’s XP farming is a problem in PBEM, and fixing it is a noble pursuit. I am willing to try pretty much anything someone puts out that helps, including Zaskow’s mod, or JJ’s mod.


    cbower
    Member

    Sorry forgot to add the last bit of the summary. Then you add the player property to add a plan upgrade requisite to leaders and heroes and tie your tech. The upgrade requisite is forbidden on the lesser and required on the greater stack ability.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by  cbower.

    cbower
    Member

    @zaskow you should be able to this for units to. I’ll try to get a document out to the Modding forum soon, but here is the summary and the code.(Please excuse my many spelling mistakes on property names). Hope this helps, let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

    Summary:

    Hero upgrades only use unit properties, so we use a group property that holds two stack properties. The group property allows us to hold many properties with one property. In this case we hold both the lesser and greater version of the upgrade. The we use a stack property given even when not leader of stack, and we filter it by a unique requisite for each hero. Under requisite we create a unique one for every hero and give that requisite to each hero. Then we create a isheroname dummy upgrade for each hero, we make it only available to that hero forbidding the other hero upgrades. On unit leaders we choose the associated hero name upgrade as a default upgrade. Now we create a hero upgrade to give the group property one for each hero, which requires their defaulted upgrade.

    Code:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByCtTiSsta4gTVV1Q2NhaUJRTDQ/view?usp=sharing


    cbower
    Member

    So I put together the mod to change the hero upgrade upon researching death bringers. I did not add any new text, more testing is needed, fundamentally though it works. Zaskow’s idea to use a ghoul strike ability is a good one. I just added code to replace that ability with inflict ghoul curse when death bringers is researched.

    The good news, changing, enhancing, removing hero upgrades when technology is researched is viable. So this is an option for other potential fixes. The downside is the implementation is involved, tedious, and time consuming, atleast if you make it viable for heroes. I think if you want to go forward with this concept it makes the most sense to pull it into Zaskow’s mod.

    @zaskow if your interested in pulling in these changes, or modifying hero upgrades with tech, I can send you the code, and a put together a short writeup on how it works.

    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=663362510

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 5 months ago by  cbower.

    cbower
    Member

    I think I could do this. You would need to make all strategic spells a requirement for a skill that would great your necro leaders and hero a free ability that would allow you to raise certain targets from the dead. I would have to look at the targets to be sure. The question is without the tech whats does GRU do by default? Is it just a copy of LRU?

    GRU7 * Make “Lesser Reanimate Undead” a prerequisite of GRU. Move GRU to level 11, for 8 points and make all the T1, T2, T3, and T4 strategic skills of Necromancer necessary to have it active.

    I don’t think we can do exactly what you want but I think we can get close. Linking lesser to greater is fine, and making greater active only on death bringers should be doable same as above. The second part of making it once per combat I am not too sure. What I think would work is adding a property that would allow a ghoul cursed unit to give immune to ghoul curse to all others units on death seems like it would work. Other then that I am not sure. Though I realize that is not exactly what you want, since you could still get multiple ghoul’s per combat, but it would make it significantly harder to work that way.

    IGC11 * Add a new “Lesser Inflict Ghoul Curse” skill with attack strength 9 and able to ghoul only one unit per battle available at level 9 for 7 points, and make it a prerequisite to choose “Inflict Ghoul Curse” moved to level 13 for 8 points (is it possible to remove the Lesser Inflict Ghoul Curse if you choose the main one?). “Inflict Ghoul Curse” needs the tech “Produce Death Bringer” to be researched in order to be active.

    in reply to: Stacking Combat Properties #242665

    cbower
    Member

    Just brainstorming here with you. I know this is not exactly what you want but maybe it will help, perhaps it will get you close enough. If it’s a stacking problem it seems like you could create a set of properties with unique names that all add the same modifier value. Then on the Tactical Unit Effect: Property you can add them as random extra properties. For cleanliness you may want to make all the “extra properties” hidden on the unit panel. The primary property would be just a dummy property that would place the icon, name, and description of the event on the unit panel. I think you would still need to set the world targeted to ignore invalid.

    Downsides:

    You would need to create a rather large set of basically the same properties, so that statistically you are likely to deliver a unique property each turn. I am going to guess the random extra property option will not distinguish between properties given and not given. If it does then this is less of a problem, and you just need a large enough set to cover your turns.

    In the unit panel it will not show number of events stacked or the connection to your property effect. Your description would have to suffice

    in reply to: Suggestion: Conversion limit #242641

    cbower
    Member

    @hiliadan let me know if you want to see the mod put together that way. I’ll update the one I have out there.

    in reply to: Preparation of next PBEM tournament #242640

    cbower
    Member

    In theory I think hero levels caps are a good idea, it’s just I don’t find it as fun. I enjoy hero development, and it’s a little sad to see it come to an end at level 15. Also in all honesty levels after 15 are not that important. You have already gained the powerful abilities, after that you are just tacking on a little here or there. Most hero development after 15 comes form items in my opinion.

    in reply to: Looting ability: how to? #242637

    cbower
    Member

    I couldn’t figure anything out either. Since the looting ability was tied to the player property. That pretty much ended the search for me.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 162 total)