ephafn

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Update 1.701+ Patch Notes – Updated 6/10/2015 #233981

    ephafn
    Member

    Fun fact: Due to a bug in how the XP system was coded, it’s sometimes more efficient to get your hero to take potshots at the unit and have your T1 unit finish it off!

    While I did mention something related to that fact (more XP from shooting a crossbow than one-shotting a tier 1 unit for heroes), I pretty much assumed that it was common knowledge. I guess being the game designer (and thus thinking of the right behavior) skews the perception of the game a little 😛 .

    I tried fixing it, but it messed everything up. Heroes started leveling super slowly (in a test game I got my starting heroes to level 2 around turn 6/7) while T1s started leveling really fast. So I had to undo the changes and put it back to being broken, because that’s what the game is balanced around :)

    I really hope that there will be another round of beta, since changing that behavior would make the game better (well, I can only guess, but still). Yes you will need much rebalancing, but I expect such rebalancing will pretty much only require changing the XP amounts required for medals and levels, for which users should be able to help during the beta cycle.

    in reply to: Update 1.701+ Patch Notes – Updated 6/10/2015 #233487

    ephafn
    Member

    Gives Repair Machine to base Engineers, and put their upkeep ability to Gold medal, but buffed up (let say 4 hp per turn). Since that makes them better than before, maybe make them either more expensive or squishier.

    I think that would be too much ephafn. Lack of easy healing is the one of only things which stops Dread being the strongest class (the other being slow movement), so I need to be careful about giving them more access to it.

    No problem, that was just an idea that popped into my mind.

    The last update might have some minor tweaks, but short an actual real problem, I don’t see any more big changes. I guess it’s possible I’ll do the “Settlers from the Storehouse” thing, but to be honest, I’m not sure what purpose it will serve, it feels more like a change for the sake of a change.

    From my point of view (SP + coop PBEM), the point of that change would be to slow down the fastest way to city-spam (Builder Hall -> Settlers) since you will either have to build an extra building (Builder Hall -> Store House -> Settlers) or do with less production (Store House -> Settlers). But in either case it would also favor play-styles that are taking longer term strategies, since both Store House and Settlers have long term benefits while Builder Hall has much more short term benefits.

    Hum… Before righting this paragraph I was in favor of the change. But now I’m ambivalent…

    [On an unrelated note that is never going to get implemented, I would like to see population costs come back as the rushing cost. Something like 10 to 20 pop per hammer instead of 50 gold per turn. But that would make the early game more sluggish since this is the point of the game where gold is aplenty (from clearing and gold piles) and population is not (want to get the first city upgrade ASAP).]

    Also, about Heptatopia, would it be possible to require 5 cities instead of 7 towns? That would fit the description better, and you should still have the translation for Pentatopia, since it was the previous name, correct?

    in reply to: Update 1.701+ Patch Notes – Updated 6/10/2015 #233263

    ephafn
    Member

    Just tossing a suggestion in case Repair Machine is to be nerfed to once per battle:

    Gives Repair Machine to base Engineers, and put their upkeep ability to Gold medal, but buffed up (let say 4 hp per turn). Since that makes them better than before, maybe make them either more expensive or squishier.

    Then the Master Guild Builders will be left for non-Dreadnought classes who want to heal a few machines (Trebuchets).

    (Note: I have zero idea whether that change would be balanced or not.)

    in reply to: Update 1.701+ Patch Notes – Updated 6/10/2015 #232887

    ephafn
    Member

    The change to EXP farming is great! But there are still two aspects to annoy me: you get more total exp by dealing weak attacks with a high tier unit (a tier 4 could get 45 xp from a tier 1, while a tier 1 would be limited to 15 xp, including the kill xp), and sometimes you get less exp from killing a unit than simply injuring it (the most common case being killing a tier 1 unit with hero using a crossbow, getting 5 xp instead of 6 xp).

    Using the current framework, my suggestions would be:
    1- Instead of using “number of times a unit can be attacked and yield xp”, replace it with “total xp which can be yielded by the unit”. So a tier 1 unit would yield a total of 10 xp, which obviously would be depleted much faster by higher tier units.

    And either of:
    2- When killing a unit, the unit doing the killing would get both the killing xp and the damage xp. So a hero using a crossbow to kill a tier 1 unit would get 2*3xp + 5xp = 11xp for doing so.
    2′- When killing a unit, the unit also receives all the “xp for being damaged” that was left by the dead unit (from the first suggestion). So the total amount of xp given by any unit will always be the same, no matter the number of strikes to kill it. Obviously the total “xp for being damaged” should be reduced accordingly.

    Hopefully those suggestions can be implemented without redoing the full xp system.


    ephafn
    Member

    One possibility for the Public Baths would be something similar to the Necro Embalmer Guild: +5 HP for every living units produced in the town. Grand Temples could get a +1 medal to units summoned in domain buff.

    in reply to: Racial Balance Discussion #220304

    ephafn
    Member

    Getting Martial Art would be weird. If you want them to be able to attack at close-range, then why not allow Cleavers to be used even when engaged (like the spit attacks)?

    in reply to: Racial Balance Discussion #220064

    ephafn
    Member

    A bunch of random brainstormed suggestions for the Brew Brother: (I don’t guarantee quality):
    – Serve Coffee: Resets cooldowns of the target and increases its morale. Only cooldowns that are not reset by Reload are counted (so Sprint, Heal, Wing Beat, and similar stuff).
    – Serve Coffee, mark II: Like Invigorate, but only restore half of the AP/moves of the target, which can be any race instead of just Tigran.
    – Serve Coffee, mark III: Haste the target for the current turn (double movement + ignore attacks of opportunity).
    – Light the Ovens: Fire attack to all neighbor hexes. Like the Ice Queen special, but weaker and without the special effects (except maybe Incinerate).
    – Cook Meal: Reset the Nourishing Meal ability so that it can be used again.

    in reply to: Research Overspill #219512

    ephafn
    Member

    I really don’t understand the arguments against the research overflow. Especially since any source of RP except for the basic income per turn has overflow.

    Unlike the lack of overflow for production, which creates interesting gameplay where you are encouraged to build troops according to your current production instead of always making your preferred ones, I don’t see the lack of RP overflow as bringing any benefit to the game.

    What is the gameplay impact (so not including balance aspects such as slower overall research) of the mechanic?
    – Encourage with fiddling with producing research to shave a single turn of research.
    – Encourage delaying cheap technologies if your research output is larger than their cost, until you get an overflow of RP through an happiness event, scrolls, or clearing a site.
    – Make producing research pointless if not at very specific RP threshold (and unlike building a Siege Workshop, the bonus is only for the turn, so no long-term considerations).
    – Encourage players to research not the best technology, but the most efficient one RP-wise.
    – Encourage players to research low-cost techs first, to avoid late game waste in researching them (if they don’t want to wait for overflow sources).

    Does any of these consequences actually make the game better? I can see an argument to be made for the last one since encouraging the research of low-level techs is not something I’m against, but the current spellbook mechanics already does that to some extent.

    in reply to: Update v1.602+ Patch Notes – Updated 15/9/2015 #218782

    ephafn
    Member

    Tombles wrote:

    Corpus Furia now does 15 blight damage (was 10 physical)

    I think the point of that change is to remove friendly fire to your own troops, but I can be wrong here as I never tried that spell yet. Against a necromancer, it can be useful to deprive the necro from being able to raise the corpses, which is useful in its own right.

    in reply to: DN Diversity #216926

    ephafn
    Member

    I don’t have strong opinions either way for the machines, but the musket deserve some diversity.

    Some assorted ideas (not that sure about the races, those could be moved around):
    Orc Musketeers: Instead of Shoot Musket + Reload, get Shoot Arquebus. The Arquebus would usable only once, but be slightly stronger (+5 damage or so). If that makes the unit too weak, add War Cry to it to make it a more usable melee unit after shooting its single ranged shot.

    Dwarf Musketeers: Replace the Musket by a Forge Musket, that deals half-physical/half-fire damage.

    Human Musketeers: Get the Pike Square ability (increased defense against cavalry). Mostly as a way to model the Tercio formation.

    Goblin Musketeers: Get one or two inflict abilities on top of the ability to stagger.

    in reply to: Lost Soul Idea #216696

    ephafn
    Member

    I am not in favor of the proposal, for reasons that have already been well explained by other people in this thread. However, it gave me an idea that should be more appropriate for a tier-1 unit.

    Let call the ability haunting, which would be usable once per battle, and could only be acquired with a medal (either bronze or gold).

    This ability would target a single enemy unit, with a range of touch only. The targeted unit will get hit by a massive debuff (that can be canceled using Break Control or Dispel), with no possibility of resisting. However, as long as the ability doesn’t get dispelled, the unit is alive, and the unit hasn’t fled the battlefield, the Lost Soul is removed from the battlefield. If either of these situations happens, the Lost Soul reappear next to the unit. If every other units on the Lost Soul side is gone, the effect is also canceled.

    In short, the Lost Soul is temporarily sacrificed in exchange of debuffing an unit.

    For the massive debuff, I was thinking of something that would be a combination of Curse and Weaken, like:
    -40% Spirit and Cold vulnerability. -1 Res, -300 Morale.
    Although that may be too good. Another possibility would be to make the sacrifice permanent (aka: the Lost Soul die when using the ability).

    in reply to: Hatchings and Initiates… #215936

    ephafn
    Member

    ST is powerfull ability. IMO too powerfull for the regular. I would rather suggest giving them additional “support” status on champion gouvernance, giving them access to both support upgreades and true seeing.

    ST may be powerful, but the Frostling irregular gets to inflict Freezing on his ranged attack. Since that Freezing effect has 3 less power than ST (8 instead of 11) that means 15% less chance of working. And it is ranged and also deal damage.

    So an Initiate with ST on bronze medal would be very comparable to the Frostling Ice Scaper. Slightly more ranged damage and a slightly more reliable stunning ability, in exchange for having to choose between the damage and the stunning (and the stun will have a cooldown).

    in reply to: Hatchings and Initiates… #215926

    ephafn
    Member

    I have to say that I don’t think changing irregular is needed to improve balance. But I would agree that some of them could need some modifications to make them flavorful. For me, tier 3, supports and irregulars are where the races uniqueness should show up. Infantry, pikes and cavalry is fine with being somewhat more uniform. Thus, all 6 vanilla irregulars all being very similar (so-so at melee + single-shot ranged attack) is boring in my eyes. Comparison between them and the 3 DLC irregulars is pretty striking (3-shot ranged, melee only, and freezing).

    Going through the list:
    Human Civic Guard: quite boring by itself, but the net ability on RG + Volunteer is enough to give them personality.
    Orc Spearman: Orcish strength + shield + sprint. Nothing more needed.
    Goblin Untouchable: Disgusting stench + inflict ability. Probably the most different from the average of the vanilla irregular.
    Dwarf Prospector: Tunneling and Shatter Strike, Demolisher and Wall Crushing on medal. Yeah, pretty boring, but it fits with the Dwarf theme. But I really like the suggestion to make them melee only, and I would also put Wall Crushing on base instead, giving them an interesting role of being the poor man Ram (maybe they could get extra damage only against walls instead of Demolisher).
    High Elf Initiate: evolving. That’s pretty much it. I would give them Stunning Touch at Bronze medal, completing them as the poor man Storm Sisters.
    Draconian Hatchling: evolving. Again, that’s pretty meh. I would emphasize their evolving ability by giving them Fast Learner (+50%) and have them keep their Fire Spit when evolved. To balance it out, they should not be able to become Flyers anymore.


    ephafn
    Member

    Me and my friend live 9 time zones apart from one another, so normal MP is not feasible. Having auto battles is mainly to save time, and allow the game to progress faster when both of us are able to play (mainly during the week-end).

    in reply to: Equal levelling speed for all unit tiers. #214854

    ephafn
    Member

    There’s a big difference between 70 attacks vs 48 attacks.

    I think that most of the disagreements you are getting are due to you not mentioning that fact from the start.
    EXP to gold medal (number of normal strikes)
    tier 1: 70 (70)
    tier 2: 110 (55)
    tier 3: 150 (50)
    tier 4: 200 (50)

    I would guess that most people never realized that the EXP for medals above the first one are not proportional to the tier, unlike the EXP for the Trooper medal.

    But beside that, in my eyes what makes higher tier units level up “faster” is that they don’t die as quickly. But maybe that’s because I avoid killing enemies with higher tier units, since it wastes EXP (you don’t get the normal “strike” EXP when killing an enemy).

    in reply to: Theocrat endgame #214286

    ephafn
    Member

    Maybe instead of repeating in 1358645565465 pages the same opinion how the other side is incompetent, just play grudge match on MP. F.e. Zaskow goes Dread, and any guy who’s thinking matchup is fine goes Theocrat. Losing side will leave discusion.

    The problem with this suggestion is that the claimed balance problem is a late-game one. So the result of such a grudge match would likely be decided in the early- or mid-game, which would make the results meaningless for the discussion.

    in reply to: Theocrat endgame #213963

    ephafn
    Member

    Should you disagree with the above assessment, please post some numbers instead of some random statements about how Theocrat is screwed.

    A suggestion to everyone part of that discussion:

    Those who think that the Theocrat is too weak against the Dreadnaught, please design a stack of 6 units available to a Dread that is hard to counter by a Theocrat as possible. Assuming everything is researched but ultimate spells are not cast (Great Mobilization + Armaggedon). Do not include heroes, but racial and spec units are fine. Try to make the stack as cheap as possible (counting research discounts)

    Those who think that the Theocrat is not too weak, please try to create a stack of 6 units available to a Theocrat that can reliably defeat the Dread stack designed previously using Auto-Combat.

    In both case, assume freshly-recruited units and no mythical sites.

    Then, we could test the two stacks in game to see if there is a problem or not.

    Hopefully that should shed some light toward whether there is an unbalance or not, as I get the feeling that the vast majority of this thread is made of theory-crafting (on both sides).
    Obviously it won’t consider everything, but that should be a good start, no?

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 5 months ago by  President.
    in reply to: Theo Vs. Dread #212972

    ephafn
    Member

    Let’s ask a different question:

    SHOULDN’T have Theo a hard time against Dread the longer the game lasts?

    I don’t think anyone disagree with that statement.

    But it would help the discussion if people on both side of the fence could try to give estimate such as to how big of a territorial (number of towns) advantage the theocrat need to have a 50% chance of defeating a dreadnaught at different points in the game.

    For example, if someone was to say that a theocrat needs twice the amount of cities of a dreadnaught to defeat it (arbitrary number) when both just researched tier 4 units (aka late game), then you could discuss whether that dreadnaught advantage is balanced by a slower early game, or you could discuss if this ratio is correct or not.

    in reply to: Update v1.52 Patch Notes – Updated 9/6/2015 #207607

    ephafn
    Member

    Fixed bug in the random map generator where the starting city ‘Town’ had the wrong domain size.

    Not how I would describe the bug, but I can confirm that it is fixed, thanks 🙂

    in reply to: Theocrat endgame #207284

    ephafn
    Member

    Anyway, I had an idea, which might just work:

    Mark of the heretic/denounce heretic to inflict 20% spirit weakness for the duration.

    There you go, Theocrats reliance on spirit is not so hard countered, but depends on the Theocrat player using what he has well (spell and Evangelists) which allows counterplay (decoy stacks, cannons and general ranged troops, who can still hurt from afar).

    Thoughts?

    Love this idea. Just implement!

    I had to post just for this: this is a truly horrible idea. And I am certain of that statement, even if I only play SP and I almost never reach late-game.

    How can I be so sure? Here is why:
    This change would make Theocrats stronger against units that it is already decent or good against (those with limited or no spirit resistance), while having a reduced impact against units it is weak against (those with strong or complete spirit resistance). Going from 100% spirit resist to 80% spirit resist makes a few points of spirit damage from dual channel units goes through and that’s pretty much it. Those units/spells who use heavy spirit damage are still going to be useless (and thus not worth bringing to the fight/spending turns to use). However, those are still worth bringing/using against non-spirit-resistant targets, who will be made even more vulnerable by the -20% debuff.

    (On that note, I would say that the Exalted buff fails for a similar reason of being better or at least as good against non-dreadnoughts than against dreadnoughts. But still like it for pure thematic reasons. And maybe the Exalted needed a buff anyway. Not that I’m competent in that matter.)

    (For a purely theory-crafting point of view, I support the Haywire proposal for shrines, as it is nearly a pure anti-dreadnoughts buff.)

    in reply to: Update v1.52 Patch Notes – Updated 9/6/2015 #207283

    ephafn
    Member

    ephafn wrote:

    The bug where starting with a Town in a random map instead gives you a Metropolis is still there. Am I really the only one who have that bug? It has been present since the last non-beta patch.

    I’ve never heard of this bug before I’m afraid. If you have a save game, then please send it to us!

    savegames@triumphstudios.com

    Done.

    But for sake of completeness, I tried to reproduce the bug on Windows (I normally play on Linux, where I always get the bug), and everything was fine. So that may explain why I was the only one to report it.

    (But that’s a very strange bug to only appears on one OS. The only merely plausible explanation I can think of is some freak case-sensitive filename issue.)

    in reply to: Update v1.52 Patch Notes – Updated 9/6/2015 #206246

    ephafn
    Member

    The bug where starting with a Town in a random map instead gives you a Metropolis is still there. Am I really the only one who have that bug? It has been present since the last non-beta patch.


    ephafn
    Member

    Sent both save files to the savegames@* email address.


    ephafn
    Member

    Just in case, I tested both save files with debug mode disabled. And so far, I haven’t had any problem. So the bug may only be in debug mode.


    ephafn
    Member

    I am having the exact same problem with a new game, started in the current build (16112). Exact same symptoms, and same messages in the debug log.

    Should I send both save files?


    ephafn
    Member

    I just tested with the new build (16112) with the same savefile, and the bug is still there.

    in reply to: Starting units #202358

    ephafn
    Member

    I personally tend to reload a lot in SP to try to get decent starting units.

    While I wouldn’t like a system where you could choose your starting units (too clunky), I would be very happy if the current worse case scenarios were removed. For instance, in the standard start, you always start with 5 random units + 1 cavalry. If those 5 units contains 1 tier 3, good for you. If they only contains infantry and irregular, bad for you. The game should try very hard to make sure that the total gold (+mana) value of your starting units should be as constant as possible. The main way to do it as I see it would be to make the number of random units variable. So if you get a tier 3, you may only get 3 or 4 random units. If you only get infantry + irregular, you may end up with 10 of them to compensate.

    in reply to: Update v1.52 Patch Notes – Updated 9/6/2015 #199861

    ephafn
    Member

    Yeah, the bonus switches on at Lord mode, and for Lords it’s pretty tiny (2hp per turn). Kings get 4, Emperors 8.

    More than what normal units get (6) at Emperor? Does Emperor AI also get bonus healing for their living troops too?

    in reply to: Update v1.52 Patch Notes – Updated 9/6/2015 #199510

    ephafn
    Member

    The annoying: the bug where ask a Town start instead giving you a Metropolis is still there (http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/wrong-starting-settlement-when-selecting-town-starting-town/).

    The neat: the helpful hints on the loading screens.

    in reply to: Prospectors #197945

    ephafn
    Member

    Isn’t the only problem with the prospector not the combat ability (they are strong than all non-orc vanilla irregular), but that they the irregular with the most boring ability, now that civic guards can get throw net? Tunnelling is a pretty good ability, although being on the strategic level only makes it pretty boring (Shatter Strike is pretty much irrelevant).

    Their Gold medal bonus (Wall Crushing) looks pretty neat, until you realize you won’t get enough Gold-Prospector for it to matter, and those with it will easily be killed by town defenders. Making it the Bronze bonus would be cool, but probably overpowered for those with easy access to Bronze irregular (= rogues).

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 41 total)