Joppsta

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tooltip for Movement Cost #211322

    Joppsta
    Member

    Point taken, although I think the OP (and I for that matter) were thinking it would show the move cost for the highest costing unit selected. If that’s quite costly to implement then it’s not worth it. Personally I’m usually more interested in this when I have a single unit selected anyway.

    You could filter it so the lowest movement range is what is displayed.

    in reply to: Building Bridges #206424

    Joppsta
    Member

    Being able to build bridges or some better way to travel units across bodies of water in the later game would be appreciated.

    in reply to: Necro and Happiness (Master of Puppets) #206329

    Joppsta
    Member

    Feel rather stupid, I believe Fallen Angels do get affected by lich aura. Not sure why I had issues with it.

    Still, reanimators aren’t affected. Any inherently undead unit doesn’t get this buff, which to me doesn’t make sense.

    in reply to: [Suggestion]Multiplayer and Auto Battles #205938

    Joppsta
    Member

    Well other similar games to this have had an option whereby you could conduct an auto-battle and if the results were not to your liking you could choose to replay it as manual. You had to commit to the fight before you could see the results so it wasn’t possible to cancel a fight if you didn’t like the outcome.

    The main goal of such a feature would be to save time in MP fighting the independents but still allow manual combat if something went terribly wrong. Several of the HoMM games did this and I always thought it was an extremely useful time saving feature.

    I would love it see it as an available option to cut down on the monotony of endless manual battles. 90% of the time auto battle does a decent job but once it a while it does something moronic and at times game changing. In order to avoid those 10% problems you have to fight every fight. This would allow you to auto all but those 10%.

    This guy gets it.

    The objective is to allow a game to be enjoyable, not to “cheat” as it is branded above by someone else. The point is to save manual battling endlessly in the meaningless stupid battles.

    in reply to: [Suggestion]Multiplayer and Auto Battles #205882

    Joppsta
    Member

    The AI for your troops in an autobattle is exactly the same as the AI for the enemy troops, and is the same as the AI for the independents in a manual battle. If they improved the AI to stop you from losing units in an autobattle, the improvements would probably result in the enemy AI being smart enough to kill those units anyway.

    I think the game is more balanced when you risk losing units fighting independents. Manually fighting battles to avoid losing units lets the player expand too quickly, which isn’t good for balance.

    As I stated, I would like this as an option, not mandatory. The problem is that when I play with friends we all play the manual battles because we know how fucked up the auto results can be, this is the crux of the point.

    It’s not that I want an “I win” button, it’s simply that I want the option of being able to skip over meaningless battles because that one key unit with 10hp could die because of RNG.

    Well….neither is there place for removing all the risk of engaging in battle, if you can just reverse it if you dont like the results. Cause that would make the “strategy” in “strategy game” obsolete.

    The strategy part is the choice of playing the battle to make it a clear victory. I’m not asking for this option to be mandatory, I just would like it as an option as it would save myself and my friends hours of our lives in the early game.

    in reply to: Change Request: Outcome Prediction #205504

    Joppsta
    Member

    @joppsta I may have misread your post yesterday but I thought your suggestion was based on a misunderstanding. Like I said I might have misunderstood it.

    This thread isn’t advocating any change to the existing auto battle code. Rather the problem is with the algorithm that works out whether you’re likely to win or not. That algorithm is ONLY used to determine what text to display in the battle summary screen. When you press the auto battle button the game simulates the battle in full using the same AI it would normally use against a human for both it’s forces and yours.

    The issue is that the probability to win text is often wildly off vs the result of the simulated battle.

    In my reading of your post I got the impression you beloved there was no full simulation, and that the game used the algorithm to decide to kill 50% of your troops just because it came out at “evenly matched”.

    Like I said, if I was wrong on that then I apologise.

    Not sure what you mean by “beloved there was no full simulation” but to clarify I hate the current AB system due to the fact it punishes you for trying to be courteous to other players when playing MP. In my ideal world I’d be able to see what the end result will be and then be able to decide if I MB or take the result the RNG spits out.

    This would make MP much more playable for me.

    in reply to: Welcome to the Empty World #205452

    Joppsta
    Member

    I find it hard to believe that they would program their game to be hard to change in the future, although I’m not a programmer so I wouldn’t know the ins and outs of it.

    You would think they’d have built it with these things in mind down the road though with thinking along the lines of:

    “What if we need to tweak these settings, let’s make it so we only have to play with these variables instead of rewriting the lot”

    Either way, I’m the kind of player that likes a lot of sites in my game. So more is better for me. I can understand the appeal of less, to make it more strategic/important to secure the sites or something along those lines.

    in reply to: Alternative Hero recruiting mechanic #205449

    Joppsta
    Member

    This idea had emerged to me dutring reading of you-know-what (“Song of Ice and Fire” ofcourse). Much like there are major and minor lords in those books I thought it would be nice if neutral/independent cities in AoW would have their own heroes (like Lords of their lands). And to aquire new hero you would not simply recruit for gold but also could befriend/conquer them in their cities.

    Ofcourse this not necessery need to remove those heroes that asking to join you for gold, or it could remove them but it’s just matter to discuss. So what do you people think of this idea?

    Having race/class specific heroes that you can unlock by completing quests for your race/class combo would add another layer of RPG to the mix that could be fun.

    A bit of a tangent off of your idea.

    in reply to: Necro and Happiness (Master of Puppets) #205446

    Joppsta
    Member

    Oh, and Fallen Angels aren’t Undead. They’re just ordinarily living.

    …and thus, able to be turned into Ghouls, and then benefit from Master of Puppets, actually.

    I don’t recall them being turned into Ghouls as I think the Archlich buff only applies to physically living units not summoned “living” units, which is part of where my frustrations come from.

    EDIT: On this note, perhaps a spell to cast on armies to turn them into Ghouls could be handy? Would make sense for a Necro to have such a spell really.

    in reply to: [Suggestion]Multiplayer and Auto Battles #205445

    Joppsta
    Member

    Well…..that would take the gamble away from the battle. If you know exactly what’s gonna happen, isn’t that going to make the game even more extremely dull?

    Also, there’s the damage ranged to account for…maybe that archer will survive with 1 HP if you get lucky this time. Or AI just keeps him in the back because of reasons.

    Well, play with my friends and tell me how much you like watching manual battles.

    Would you play an 8-player game of AoW3 with manual battles enabled? I certainly wouldn’t, 2-3 players is already bad enough.

    I admit auto-battle has it’s flaws, but it’s the best you can get for a MP game like this. This “Simulating” will take away all the risk, since you can just pick the results if you like them and revert the battle if you don’t.

    The the solutions are:
    1. Play Auto-batttles, and build an extra archer to compensate. Also, never attack sites without a full stack – numerical advantages really help, with auto-combat as well. Keep wounded units outside of battle.
    2. Play Manual Battles, and get some patience.

    1. That’s a no brainer, I never attack with anything less than a full stack. The issue is when you have a full health 6 stack against 3 T1’s and for whatever reason that archer unit dies.

    2. I like playing manual battles when they are actually meaningful and have to be came at in a tactical way.. but fighting against a significantly weaker opponent purely so you don’t lose that one low health unit to AI derp is not very fun IMO. Especially when you multiply that by a few players.

    Sure, a manual like that maybe takes 3-4 minutes to go through but it’s still frustrating.

    The issue isn’t that I don’t want to play MB, the issue is that I don’t want to play meaningless MB that could easily be resolved with the AB but the risk factor is why I go MB.

    If I wanted to play with risk, I’d go play Russian Roulette, there is no place for this kind of RNG in a strategy game.

    in reply to: Change Request: Outcome Prediction #205444

    Joppsta
    Member

    I literally suggested this yesterday, more or less.

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/suggestionmultiplayer-and-auto-battles/

    It would make MP gameplay much more bearable as currently it’s ludicrous the amount of time wasted on stupid shit by my friends, through no fault of their own.

    If I wanted to play something that had risk involved, I’d go play Russian Roulette. As it stands now, auto battles throw up some of the purest smelling bullshit I’ve ever seen in a strategy game.

    in reply to: [Suggestion]Multiplayer and Auto Battles #205048

    Joppsta
    Member

    Well…..that would take the gamble away from the battle. If you know exactly what’s gonna happen, isn’t that going to make the game even more extremely dull?

    Also, there’s the damage ranged to account for…maybe that archer will survive with 1 HP if you get lucky this time. Or AI just keeps him in the back because of reasons.

    Well, play with my friends and tell me how much you like watching manual battles.

    Would you play an 8-player game of AoW3 with manual battles enabled? I certainly wouldn’t, 2-3 players is already bad enough.

    in reply to: Can we get 1 more race with full UG capacity? #205022

    Joppsta
    Member

    I thought it might’ve been suggested before but I may make a thread when I have a minute about it.

    in reply to: Can we get 1 more race with full UG capacity? #204992

    Joppsta
    Member

    I would argue that UG needs a revamp to make it as interesting and as important as the surface world. Unique dungeons found only UG possibly?

    That could work, but there are problems with this solution. Mainly, right now I am not interested in more magical sites (except something like the Heart of the Subterranean), because there are already good ones, and I fear adding a lackluster ones will compete with better existing ones on the RMG. For instance, I get nothing out of the Yeti production upgrade unless I play Necromancer or Frostling; and I don’t want that competing with the old goodies like Bound Soul upgrade or Enchanted Armor upgrade. So the new ones have to be really good to justify crowding out the old ones.

    But if they are really good, then there’s an added problem: It may be boost UG races too much, and they are already a bit ahead now due to economic boosts from tuenneling. So it’s not a simple problem, unless perhaps you make more races UG capable OR give surface races their own boosts.

    I usually play an epic size map with everything site-wise turned to full so maybe the RNG doesn’t affect me so much but I know what you mean. That’s one of the things that’s good about AoW though, the RNG means you have to work with what you get.

    If they add new sites that do other interesting stuff or even maybe have it so sites do different things for different races that would be better. So that way you don’t get screwed by having a Draconian city with, for example, a crystal tree.

    Just a side thought.

    in reply to: Can we get 1 more race with full UG capacity? #204979

    Joppsta
    Member

    I would argue that UG needs a revamp to make it as interesting and as important as the surface world. Unique dungeons found only UG possibly?

    in reply to: The Fundamental Issue with T4 #144579

    Joppsta
    Member

    Alternatively, excess production as gold? So it’s kinda like a rebate in a way.

    Otherwise production being 100% used each turn (or a lower % carried over to compensate for your lack of management) would be fine I think.

    in reply to: Must-Read Strategy Guides? #144576

    Joppsta
    Member

    snip

    Thanks for the reply. Personally after evaluating all the specializations I felt that the only traits worth taking were adepts.

    Playing with the expansion.. Wild Magic adept seems like a no brainer. The Warp Equipment ability combined with the random elementals you can cast really appealed to me, especially considering how powerful they are if you nurse them into their T3 evolution.

    Creation magic also seems pretty necessary. So that only really leaves one slot (for me) to play with.

    I see no advantages in going for a mastery since they all seem relatively lacklustre but maybe I’m not reading into them properly. They all do stuff that seems so… useless?

    – Joppsta

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)