ephafn

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tombles, question about Necro Tech #197933

    ephafn
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>ephafn wrote:</div>
    (I guess you could make all Farms next to a necro starting town corrupted from the start instead, and that would be fine too.)

    They are(Unless it’s changes since I saw it in the beta before release).

    Just tested, and you are correct. I forgot about that aspect (I guess I was remembering those Farms just outside my domain more.)

    Also, I don’t really understand the argument that having a starting spell is an undue advantage. Instead of thinking about that spell in a vacuum, we should thinking of the spell and the fact that necros are unable to use normal pop-increasing structures as a single concept.

    So, instead of:
    – Necro cannot use normal farms (disadvantage)
    – Necro starts with an extra spell that convert the normal farms (advantage)
    I see it more as:
    – Necro needs to cast a spell (using CP/Mana) to use normal farms (disadvantage)

    in reply to: Tombles, question about Necro Tech #197829

    ephafn
    Member

    So, again, please state the reason WHY Necro should HAVE a skill for free when they definitely do not need one in the sense that they would be hampered without it.

    The way I see it, it is a matter of fairness: would it be fair if (for example) Dreadnoughts were unable to get any mana from mana nodes until they researched a tier 1 tech? And they would still be able to start with mana nodes in their capital area?

    Necromancers can start with Farms in their starting domain (even though I think they are the less likely of the 4 starting sites you can have), so not being able to use them until much later (in the worse case scenario) can be unfair. It makes the slow necro early game even worse than it should be if the skill is guaranteed.

    (I guess you could make all Farms next to a necro starting town corrupted from the start instead, and that would be fine too.)

    in reply to: Too much "cat & mouse" #192842

    ephafn
    Member

    Two aspects that I really dislike that make that whole “cat & mouse” problem worse (at least for me) are:

    1- Missing some units that moved in and out of your visibility range, just because you you weren’t looking at that part of the screen when they moved past you. This is exacerbated by the “domain invasion” messages, since often the units are already gone by the time I check them. At the very least, you should be able to see the trails of enemy armies that moved past you. Better, you should also be able to see what units they were made of.

    2- The rush to engage units or move away from them in the first few seconds of a new turn. The independent and the AI will often move very fast in a new turn, so I get myself ready to slam down on “M” to allow my units to get away or to catch the AI before it moves away. That’s not strategy. That’s not tactics. That’s just playing the interface. If it was up to me, I would give a 10 seconds grace period at the beginning of every turn where attacks would be disallowed, to allow movements to be declared.

    in reply to: Gameplay Suggestion: Compiled Topics Index. #184244

    ephafn
    Member

    ==================================================================
    * [114] Problem: It is not possible to have random AI that does not have duplicate race/class.
    ==================================================================

    Potential Solution:
    – Add an option when setting a game that would make the game only picks random AI amongst leaders with classes and races that have not already been picked (either by the player or by previous random AI). If none of them are left, then that rule is ignored.

    Link to the detailed discussions:

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/suggestion-no-duplicate-raceclass-option-for-random-ai/

    Dev-remark(s):

    – not yet

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by  President.

    ephafn
    Member

    Another reason to have that feature:

    I’m playing a Human game right now with 4 AI, with the goal to have only human cities (converting everything else). At least 1 AI is also Human, and one other is still unknown.
    The thing is, I set the option to only get same-race heroes, but since my 5th (or maybe 6th) one, I only get non-human heroes, which indicates to me that the AIs must have depleted the Human heroes pool. (I also used the “I want someone else” option a few times, which may have made things worse, depending if those heroes are also removed from the pool.)

    in reply to: [Linux, 15739] Very quick "Heap memory error" crash #177993

    ephafn
    Member

    I can confirm that this bug has been fixed. I was able to play for more than one hour before the game crashed (from that other bug I reported).


    ephafn
    Member

    We also had a deployment system, the removal of which was very controversial both in the dev team and from the fans. I personally liked it, as did a few others, but others felt that it slowed combat down too much, and that it would be simpler to just start with armies slightly further away from each other, so you could deploy or attack in your first turn as you desired. There was another issue that the AI was terrible at deploying units well. Eventually, for better or worse, we dropped deployment, and ended up where we are today.

    While a full deployment system would indeed slow the game down, I would really like being able to decide which of my unit gets stuck in the back row. I still haven’t figured out how it is decided (why did the halbardier went in the back while the priest stayed in front?). Even better would be a system where each unit had a “front-row” and “back-row” toggle on the strategic screen (on the unit portrait, next to the medal, possibly), which would be followed when starting combat. That way, you would be able to decide whether your hero goes in front or in back, without having to do the deployment by hand every battle.

    in reply to: [Linux, 15739] Very quick "Heap memory error" crash #177460

    ephafn
    Member

    Thanks, it is good to know a fix is in the work.

    And yeah, it crashes everytime I tried (except the time I tried letting the game run without doing any action).

    in reply to: [Linux, 15739] Very quick "Heap memory error" crash #177388

    ephafn
    Member

    I just tried with the Low Graphics Quality setting, and I have the exact same bug, a crash a few minutes after starting the game.

    I will try to see if it crashes even if I do nothing at all.
    Edit: Starting the game, creating a new random map, clicking Start. After waiting 10 minutes, the game hasn’t crashed yet.

    in reply to: Update v1.5 Patch Notes – UPDATED 7/4/2015 #174915

    ephafn
    Member

    syntax_vi, this patch also has the memory leak fix I mentioned to you. I just realised I forgot to add a patch note for it. Please let me know if it performs any better!

    Does this include the random crash when starting battles that me (and others) had reported? If so, that’s great!


    ephafn
    Member

    Good to know I’m not the only one with that issue. Do you also have a dual GPU?

    As for the memory, I opened the System Monitor last time I played, and the memory use was pretty much a flat line, even up to the crash. So that’s strange.

Viewing 11 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)