.com.unity Forums - Mod Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Scenarios, Maps and Mods (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=146)

- - Mod: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6 (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=43949)

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

In order to compensate for the loss of blood stones, would it be appropriate to lower the cost of Mechanical Men, perhaps to 10 gems per cast? It's always been sorta balanced around having well-nigh infinite earth gems, which frankly is no longer true.

I've also been thinking about Ulm, and I wanted to throw out an idea for your consideration. Maybe up just Guardians' MR? They're already the elite anti-blessed troops...and their commander is MR 10(unlike the other non-caster Ulm commanders, Spy notwithstanding). If nothing else, a change just to MR 10 or 11 will make their squad less likely to be targeted.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

Agree with guardians mr buff.

I like the sound of boosting mechanical men and clockwork horrors, but I think they have their place still currently.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

QM: Can you do somthing about ghost wolves? Costs ridiculous fatigue for the effect.... and is ai cast far too often.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrispedersen (Post 713038)

QM: Can you do somthing about ghost wolves? Costs ridiculous fatigue for the effect.... and is ai cast far too often.

It gets cast when the mage is out of range to cast anything else, they definitely prefer lightning bolt or other directly offensive spells when in range.

And considering spamming them is a really good anti-thug measure, it probably is appropriately fatigue-costed.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho (Post 712827)

I have a suggestion about buffs. Not a balance thing, but something that could improve battle scripting. Reduce range on some buff spells, so caster will cast them on the squad that you intended the spell for and therefore put the caster close by.

Example: I had an army with two groups of centaurs that I placed on flanks with attack rear and a bunch of archers in the middle. I had two pans intended to cast haste on the two centaur groups. But, since haste has a range of ten and there were much more archers, pans chose to buff them, which is completely illogical. If the range for the spell had been five or less, I could have positioned them to cast on centaurs.

Is it possible to create new buff spells based on existing ones? If so, then one solution to the problems of long range causing unintended units to be targetted is to have standard and short range versions of certain buff spells. As that way the short range one could be used in scripts to aid targetting, and the long range ones could still be used by the AI when scripts run out.

Of course if buff spells can't be copied, then this post can just be ignored :)

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calahan (Post 713124)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho (Post 712827)

This should be completely possible. Actually I like that more than the idea I was going to suggest.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdonj (Post 713158)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calahan (Post 713124)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho (Post 712827)

This should be completely possible. Actually I like that more than the idea I was going to suggest.

No. Just no.

Not that it's a bad idea, it would just have unseen consequenses. Writing a new spell for each buff with range would make CBM eat many precious golden spell slots, limiting the amount that other mods can add.

Since CBM is basically the new vanilla, all mods basically have to be compactible with it, so there really isn't any workaround. Please, don't take my precious spell-slots! I need them!

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

I agree with burnsaber, we need those slots for other mods. I also don´t like the idea of having multiple spells doing almost the same thing, it would disturb my sense of immersion.

I think the idea of reduced range is worth testing though, but don´t put in CBM until tested in a separate mod.

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

What about giving "defensive" buffs, and the ones that really need to go on specific things have low range, but "offensive" buffs keep the range they have?

Re: Conceptual Balance Mod 1.6

I never meant for all buff spells to have short range. This is something that will have to be decided on a spell by spell basis. It should be done only in cases where such reduction in range increases the spell's performance and outweighs the negative effect of a shorter range.