How would you patch this game?
 

Simple, if you were allowed to make a new patch, what would it be like? I would make the following:

-Fix Atlantian Scout description. I know it says "no description available" for the R'lyehan kind, so I'd change that to the standard slave description.

-Raise Royal Guard and Centaur Warrior cost by 7 gold a man

-Fix the bugged Lord of Fertility and Mother Earth (her name escapes me at the moment, you know, the fat tree that tramples people) site, and fix the LoF's graphics.

- Make Crystal and Garnet amazons appear more often

- Make number of events dependant on the number of provinces you own

- This might sound crazy, but I would make all javelins armor piercing, and have -2 damage

- tack 5 more water gems onto the cost for calms

- change Centaur Cataphract hp to 17, after all, they've abandoned the savagery that gave them power

-Jotun Woodsmen are now 40 gold a man, like Jotun Hirdmen

-Jotun Hirdmen have +1 morale

That's everything I want to change about this game that I can think of right now. Do any of you have any ideas?

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

The first thing I would do is gather a heap of data about which pretenders, spells, items and troops are used by players all the time, and which ones are never used.

Then I'd enhance or nerf as necessary to create greater diversity in the usage of these game elements.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

I'd add an icon for the astrology skill.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I thought about this for a while and it seems like this would tend to homogenize the game rather than diversify. Think about it, take all the elements, cut down what you percieve as powerful and lift up what you percieve as weak. What is the end result? Things are all the same. Does this seem like a situation that would be diverse?

I understand you stress diversity of "usage" but what exactly is it in your experience that has lead you to the conclusion that there is a lack of diversity of usage and have you compared notes with a variety of other players on this to find commonality? I just don't understand why you would want to have the above course followed in the pursuit of "diversity".

Honestly curious.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It's rather ironic that homogeneity is the ultimate result of trying to forcibly promote diversity. I'm sure there's a moral in this somewhere. As the saying goes, "You are unique, just like everyone else."

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Some of the more shrill elements of the populace would have you believe that anything which catches on as popular, I.E., "Flavor-of-the Week", is automatically overpowered, and as such, they scream for a nerf. This is generally around the time our flavor of the week becomes "whine du jour". They neglect the fact that people are sheep, and will follow whoever currently appears to be the leader. The approach Zap here would advocate trades the flavor-of-the-week for "All Options Suck". Sure, this is certainly balanced, but "Everything is equally useless" is not a very entertaining form of play! What's the point in trying to think of anything new to combine, when everything either is, or will be, made equally useless?

However, he does nonetheless have a point that certain things are basically never used. Many of these things fall into non-use because of either their cost relative to other things that serve the same role, or simply because they don't fill any niche that isn't already filled better or more cheaply by something else. Others go undiscovered until they explode into the whine-du-jour: The Vampire Queen, believe it or not, was once unpopular and viewed as a weak chassis commonly ignored in favor of beefier ones. Obviously, this thinking has been greatly revised since then. So perhaps these "useless" options are simply diamonds in the rough, waiting to be discovered (and whined about). Then again, maybe they're just worthless rocks.

This is can be seen as either good or bad. On one hand, they're clearly "useless", so to speak, and nobody uses them. As such, they're a waste of space. On the other hand, the existence of useless options does give the game a bit of flavor: If everything was equally useful(or useless), then a blind baboon could play the game, which doesn't tend to lend it much depth. The fact that there are traps and pitfalls to be avoided makes things interesting. Besides, it's humorously sadistic in many ways: On one hand, a grossly inferior option serves as a sadistic trap for the unwary. On the other hand, the same option serves as an avenue to humiliate one's opponents by beating them with it. If everything was equally valid, where would the fun be?

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

I consider the thread topic insulting. Just my opinion.

Besides, nearly everything mentioned works just as well if you said "How would you MOD this game?". And MODding have already been put into the game at players request.

And while I think the most used and least used is worth looking at, I understand that the wonderful balance of this game is NOT from equalizing things. The extreme of that route would be Chess. The balance of this game is closer to the National Football League

[ June 17, 2004, 13:32: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">With all due respect to Mark, who I met a few times back in the day... I'm not sure I completely believe his explanation. I've heard that question answered other ways from other people. Balance testing MP games is not easy. It's got to be even harder when you are a two-man company trying to deal with the expectations of gamers used to dealing with larger companies. Frankly I'm astounded that there aren't more glaring problems in this game. Obviously this is a testament to their skill... although I'm betting Dominions I had a LOT more problems.

The facts are that even with a large testing staff, certian imbalances are inevitably going to happen. We've seen this happen in every single Online game since the beginning of time. Monks in Everquest (sucked, then too powerful, then nerfed 10 times, etc)... Huntresses in Warcraft 3, anyone remember those? Every game played Online is going to be an evolving work. I have no doubt that in time most of the weaker pretender chassis will be improved. Unfortunately the nature of the beast is that overpowered, unbalancing problems have to be dealt with first. Fixing the Lord of the Gates is going to have to wait. Giving me a reason to play Golden Age as a MP race can wait. Hopefully these and other "bad" choices will be fixed in time.

However, I refuse to believe that Golden Age Arcoscephale is crappy to trick bad players into using it. This race was the first I latched onto with this game, and in time I came to realize that it pretty much stunk. Hopefully it's dealt with at some point, because I love the concept... but I find it very hard to believe that it was intentionaly made bad to reward players for not playing it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Reminds me of the PC folks in the media deciding what might offend certian people. I'm sure our devs have better things to worry about than how a thread is worded in their forums.

[ June 17, 2004, 13:30: Message edited by: Blitz ]

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Odd that you find Golden Era Arco so bad. I like playing them quite a bit. My only 'beef' with it is that you can't play Golem Cult with them.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's a rather cavalier attitude you have towards the developers. Just remember about honey and vinegar and all that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

I'm certainly glad that certain people are not the ones who patch the game. And until such time as the people who are insulting put out a mod of their 'balance' to try see public reaction (as opposed to their own mind which always says they are right) you don't have a leg to stand on. For the others who would patch the game while still retaining their human courtesy, thank you for your input and I hope to see a mod of your own idea of "balance" whenever you complete it.

[ June 17, 2004, 13:46: Message edited by: Zen ]

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

In the best Monty tradition, I would do four things:

1. Add item modding (perhaps just disabling, maybe change cost)
2. Add castle modding (ditto)
3. Enable mods on text servers
4. Tell people to mods instead of complaining.
5. Make a mod reducing the cost of light infantry to 1/10 of the current cost. Then get seriously beaten by the AI.

I would like to invite everyone to find at least 2 internal inconstencies in the above proposal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's nothing wrong with his graphics.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They already are.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

My most wanted features were already added (or restored from DomI) into the game 2 patches ago:

-Consistency in battle reports between systems
-Speed replay
-Renaming

The above 3 IMO deserve much more apreciation that they got at the time: good ridance to a very nasty bug that was very confusing for new players in MP, a reduction in time wasted & great posibilities for personalization/RP that can also help reduce MM when assigning orders.

Most of the stuff I see in this forum lately that 'must (!) be fixed' seems to me pretty subjective, sometimes even simplistic or biased.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's nothing wrong with his graphics.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Agreed. Anyone who gets upset by 4 pixels on the screen shouldn't be playing a game with murder, sacrificing virgins, deicide, and plagues. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No, they aren't. Not as long as there is a cap of 3 events per turn. With high unrest and luck / misfortune, you can be getting 3 events almost every turn before turn 10. Then, with 20 times as many provinces, you still get ... 3. Every turn. Regardless of whether you have 50 provinces, 100, or (on Faerun or other huge maps) 200.

It's like saying that the number of babies born is dependant on the population. Except that no more than 3 babies will be born in one year, regardless of whether there is 200 people or 2 million.

(Editting done to fix quote blocks.)

[ June 17, 2004, 15:21: Message edited by: Cainehill ]

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm no fan of nerfing/needless patching/whining, but how is this topic any more insulting (in substance) than a wish list?

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Reminds me of the PC folks in the media deciding what might offend certian people. I'm sure our devs have better things to worry about than how a thread is worded in their forums. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmmm isnt that beside the point? Thats like saying I shouldnt make a comment that spitting on a redneck is a bad idea, because a redneck shouldnt beat someone up for it. Saying something might be taken badly is a point all by itself.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm no fan of nerfing/needless patching/whining, but how is this topic any more insulting (in substance) than a wish list? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actualy the wishlist was originally called something like "whats wrong with the game" and I made the same comment there. It got changed to wishlist (which the Devs now read)

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think that this is a major exaggeration, since I typically only see 2 events a turn with turmoil 3 and luck 3 with over 20 provinces.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think that this is a major exaggeration, since I typically only see 2 events a turn with turmoil 3 and luck 3 with over 20 provinces. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In which case 40 provinces with those settings should see ... 4 events a turn, wouldn't you agree? And 80 provinces should see ... 8. But they don't, they never do. Thus, events are not actually based on empire size except for very small empires.

Which leads to the conclusion several people have posted, which is that Order is much more valuable than Luck, because Order's benefit scales with the size of the empire (as does Growth & Productivity especially), and Luck does not.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

And, to have something on topic regarding what I'd do to patch the game...

I'd put out an immediate 2.12.1 patch that did nothing but restore the Skratti and Great Warlock pretenders that went AWOL with the 2.11 patch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey it was at least 6 pixels long. Remember he thinks he is a god! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I still miss the rotating cube... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Hmmm, and also the ability to alchemize astral pearls into research points.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I still miss the rotating cube... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Hmmm, and also the ability to alchemize astral pearls into research points. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">How about the unit-counts switched from swords back to color bars? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've never said I believed that. I'm fully aware that there are many different strategies one can opt to pursue in Dominions II. However, it's also the case that many options available for the creation of a pretender do not seem to fill any niche involved in the formulation of any known or conjectural strategy, or are outclassed in practically all ways by something else of comparable or lesser cost(see: POD vs. Lord of the Gates). These options are, in essence, crap. Whether this is something that should be patched or modded, or just something that exists to serve as a warning to others, is another matter.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's nothing wrong with GA Arco as an MP race. I've played them and was rather satisfied with the results. There are a few nagging issues of everything about them being capitol only, but they're far from unplayably bad.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Perhaps you're just not getting them: I rather liked them, myself. In fact, my initial opinion was rather like yours: A cursory glance suggested they sucked. Then somebody asked me for my advice about them, forcing me to actually evaluate them critically. As I looked over their actual strengths in greater depth, I realized, "Hey, you know, these guys really suit me. I'm gonna play 'em!". And so I did.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, *I* like them. Maybe you're just not finding their niche. There are certainly worse, crummier themes out there, some of which are awful enough to have gathered attention lately.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

I would like the bug where sneaking disease spreaders get 283482 experience fixed.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There's nothing wrong with his graphics.

Quote:

- Make number of events dependant on the number of provinces you own

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They already are. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There are currently two Lords of Fertility, one naked and one not. "There can only be one"

Heh, now we have three topics going

1. This thread is/isn't insulting and should be about modding instead.

2. The world against Norfleet/why there must be crap units/themes/pretenders

3. The original topic.

In response to #1, I didn't mean it in any malicious way, if the Moderators want to change the topic name, go ahead. Personally, I think you're too sensitive. BTW, I would make a mod if I knew anything about mod-making and, what would it be, computer science? I just graduated from Middle School, so don't expect much genius computer-wise from me.

In response to #2, I'm a firm believer in "different but equal" (and this is for game balancing, not segregation) way of making a game. This might not be true for the devs, and I'm not trying to force my ways on them, but I don't think any unit should be blatantly better than another. Man's longbowmen pack a significantly better punch than the shortbowmen most other nations get, but they're also more expensive to balance it out. Crossbows take out heavy armor, but they're balanced by being slow to reload and expensive in resources. All are different, but to say that one is better than another is an iffy statement at best.

To add to #3, I would make searching magic Messages go to the province instead of commander. Right now, it feels like "you have found 2 magic sites in Cun Aral, zoom in to C'tis?"

I would also give the Infernal forces series - I know this applies to Frost Fiends, but I haven't looked into the others - more bang for the buck. Right now, summoning a single demon is more economical than a horde, and time shouldn't be the only thing saved in such an advanced spell.

I'll try to be more diplomatic the next time around.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In general, I'd say that it's interesting to retain a trade-off even after the more powerful spell is researched.

PvK

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That still exists? I thought that was quashed a patch or two ago...

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The original question was how would *I* patch the game, if the choice was up to me. To answer this personal question, I drew on my personal experience of only employing a small subset of the available game elements myself, with very little reference to what other people do.

That said, in my only post-2.12 game, I find myself almost surrounded by Vampire Queens, an event which I think speaks for itself.

If you nerf/enhance to address balance issues, you don't make everything the same. They are still different in the way they act - some items produce gems, some enhance attack factor, some give supply etc. There's plenty of diversity there that is lost if the items are not used. If items are so weak that they are rarely or never used, then they may as well not be in the game, and to my mind that's a problem worth fixing.

I know Norfleet goes on about how this line of argument is "whining" and whatnot, but really it's about expanding the tactical options available to players, not simply about labelling things as overpowered or underpowered.

It's about making a great game better, and the principle (seeking balance) was not invented by me, but has been around for a lot longer than this particular great game. Honestly, I'm surprised it draws so much negative comment.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

only thing i would wish is a disband option.
because if you get one of the random events which gives you xx weak militias or zealots.
because the front can be some provinces away and only thing surely to assasinate them is letting them attack strong fliers or something like this otherwise they will just rout and be in some of your neighbor provinces .
they are just useless but cost you some upkeep.
i think it is considered as a good event so if you have "bad" luck with high luck scale and get these suckers every few turns you have quite an upkeep for them and they are ABSOLUTELY useless .

or is there already a easy way how to get rid of them in the turn you get them ?

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm getting a little bored of this propaganda Norfleet. Now that the Vampire Queen has been rightfully nerfed, it's still impossible for you to admit (even to yourself?) that you were either incorrect in your assesment of the pretender's relitive strength, or simply bsing us all in a futile attempt to hide the obvious imbalance that you enjoyed abusing so much. You are very likely the Last defender of the old VQ, even Gandalf and Zen have given up and finally conceded that changes had to be made.

If you are correct about your theory, then it will only be a matter of time before the next huge outcry against a "perfectly legitimate" strategy starts. The reality is that while there may be some occasional discussion about certian issues... there simply will not be a debate about anything currently in the game that rivals the VQ outcry. This is obviously because nothing else in the game is as hopelessly broken as that pretender god was. I would wager that clam of pearls would most likely be next on most ***** lists, but I seriously doubt that there will be anywhere near the fuss over that than there was over your flying, regenerating, erthreal, vampire-summoning, lifedraining lich.

I remember you posting about how your strategies would work just as well with a Ghost King, and you argued that his cheaper paths and better defensive stats made him almost as attractive for munchkin Ermor. By your own arguments, this is hardly a crippling blow for your strategy, and I'm sure you will have just as much success without your hopelessly broken immortal SC. Unfortunately, this most likely won't be the case. The fact is, you probably knew better than anyone how overpowered that unit was, being arguably the game's foremost expert on abusing her. It's unfortunate that now that the fight is lost that we must continue to read the sour-grapes Posts arguing a point even you yourself do not believe.

[ June 17, 2004, 13:34: Message edited by: Blitz ]

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Blitz,

Norfleet's comments are not propaganda; he simply has a very forceful way of expressing his opinions.

The fact is, there IS a lot of whining on this forum. Norfleet may have a broader view than most as to what quantifies it, but even to the rather strict interpretation, it happens here. I don't think Norfleet's ways of dealing with it are particularly useful, but he generally can stay within reasonable bounds.

Norfleet is also more correct than he sounds when he talks about game balance. Reading his post, he sounded a lot like Mark Rosewater in one of his columns about designing Magic: the Gathering; specifically, the one entitled, "Why do we make bad cards?" One of the main arguments that Mr. Rosewater puts forward is that recognizing what is good and what is not-so-good in a game is part of learning the game, and without less-than-optimal game parts, there's nothing to separate good players from bad players. There's also the fact that if you don't have bad cards, you can't have good cards. The article isn't totally applicable to Dominions, but in the main holds true.

To take a Dominions example, why is the Prince of Death better than the Lord of the Gates, in general? If you can give a good answer for that, you're a better player than someone who can't give a good answer.

Now, I also believe that there could be better balance between the Pretenders. A good illustration of this is in my PoD vs. VQ thread. I, a not-so-good player, tried to compare the VQ post-patch vs. the PoD, and felt that the PoD was clearly superior. Better players than I (specifically, PvK and Zen) pointed out that I was comparing apples and oranges, and that the Pretenders served different functions. This is another place where you can see the difference in play skill.

What I feel Norfleet is missing is the rich variety of strategies available in Dominions, and so a clear hierarchy is not necessary. Now, if Norfleet believes there is one best strategy to win Dominions, then his comments make perfect sense. Changing all of the Pretenders to be more balanced devalues the choice of Pretender. However, with all of the different options available to Dominions players, a single 'best' strategy would be hard to quantify.

Anyway, just my take on the situation.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Gak, I hope I'm not the one being accused of being "insulting" ! In all my Posts to this thread, I've used the term "great game" to refer to Dominions every time, and spoke only of improving it, not fixing something that's broken.

And in the original post, my suggestion was to gather data on over-used and under-used game elements, i.e. determine the balance issues by surveying the playing community.

In other words, my "own idea of balance" as you put it, would not enter into the procedure.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I'm fairly sure you're safe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A nice thought, but just like history, it's impossible to be objective here. What data are you gathering? Just the selection of the criteria you'll follow would be made according to your own ideas of what balance is and how to achieve it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'm not trying to josh you so much as to show how impossible that is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

In the interest of promoting such endeavors, what would you suggest would be a proper method of gathering such data?

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What I had in mind was a survey, in which each spell, troop, item and pretender was listed, and beside each one there are 6 responses to the question "How often do you make one of these", being

1) Never
2) Rarely
3) Sometimes
4) Often
5) Very often
6) N/A

The "N/A" would apply to things like Abyssian troops types if you never play Abysia.

I think that if enough people took the time to complete such a survey (and it would be time-consuming, unfortunately) then a fairly objective answer could be obtained.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

As has been said before, though, popularity is not a particularly good measure of efficiency. It would be an interesting survey, but I'd trust explanatory arguments why something is good or bad, rather than what people say they use.

Even so, not everything should be balanced, both for thematic and sense-making reasons, and also because especially since the steps needed to achieve each thing are frequently complex and different for each nation, each pretender, each situation, and each play style.

PvK

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sure, but we've all seen how discussions like that proceed. Agreement is hard to reach, and the discussion tends to descend into a subjective and abusive flamefest. Witness the Vampire Queen debate.

I think my approach would at least lead to a result that could be accepted by the playing community as a whole.

Also, I think any action taken as a result of the survey should usually be in the form of a cost adjustment, rather than any change to functionality, and should be at the complete discretion of the devs. In other words, the survey would simply be a tool to help the devs assess the balance issues.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I think if you're only tweaking costs, there's not much danger of destroying thematic elements. Furthermore, if the tweaks mean that elements get used where previously they were not, then the themes that those elements were supposed to promote will actually see the light of day. In other words, I think that balance promotes themes rather than the opposite.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A) An added cost of 1 or 2 blood slaves is easily worth worth being able to use one mage instead of seven or eight.

B) The number of demons you get from a level 9 blood summonings has a "+" after number of effects. Get a mage with one more skill in blood than required (shouldn't be an arduous task that late in the game) and *BAM* you're more economical than the low level spell.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The problem with that logic is that many elements would be "rarely" used, not because that there's anything WRONG with them, but because they're highly situational, and the situation that they'd be best suited for rarely comes up. Other items are rarely made because they're limited in number, or even singular: I rarely make a Sword of Injustice, for instance, not because I think it's a bad weapon, but because it's unique, and situational. It's not of much use to me if I lack unholy priests and undead, and even if I had them, I can make only one of these items. I also would "rarely" cast Burden of Time or Utterdark, not because these are bad spells, but because, once again, they are very situational AND expensive: You have to be both a dead nation(Ermor/CW) and sitting on a pile of a few hundred death gems to make casting these not a suicide move. And I have "never" cast Astral Corruption, not because it sucks, but because it's tailored for a situation I have yet to find myself in. The popularity of something is no measure of its value.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's quite true, and a factor that would have to be taken into account by whoever (read: devs) that was trying to interpret the survey results.

This survey would not be a surgical instrument by any means, but it may be a guide that highlights areas of overuse or disuse.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Well, I'm fairly sure you're safe, Zapmeister, Zen's wrath was probably directed at me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Well Yossar, I suppose you'd be right. It's only bad if you casted with the bare minimum of skill. But how much skill do you need for it to match the economy of the level 3 spell?

I'm using these numbers, which are from memory:

1 frost fiend/6 slaves for the basic spell.

base of 6 frost fiends/50 slaves for force spell.

Every level above min gives 1 extra fiend
_________________________________________________
Each fiend costs (slaves/fiends) 8.33 slaves using force at 5 blood skill.

Each fiend costs 7.14 slaves using force at 6 skill.

Each fiend costs 6.25 slaves using force at 7 skill

Each fiend costs 5.55 slaves using force at 8

You start getting more economical at 8 skill, make of it what you will...

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Too bad we can't gather the statistics ingame. If we could, I would arrange a gameseries with auction-style prices: If a unit/pretender is used, the price goes up. Otherwise, the price falls slightly. That'd be a laugh! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The 2nd game would be all-free light infantry ;-)

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Since we've basicly hijacked this thread, I'm going to start a new one on GA: Arco. Se yall there

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">This is a good judge as to what is popular. As others have said, you need a little more to gather 'effectiveness'. A question such as, "How useful is this survey item when you do use it?" might help with situational issues such as the one Norfleet addresses.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, it would be quantified subjectivity, really. When you ask people for their opinion, it can't really be objective. Then there's the question of how to distribute such a survey. If you only have it here, then people who don't show up here won't take it except by WOM.

I think we can work with this, though. Due to other threads going on, I have a few questions I would dearly love to get data on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

1. When sending Text Messages, I'd like a text editor that actually lets you edit your text.

2. I'd like Messages from missed turns to carry over so that the player has some idea of what happened while he's been away.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Everything has its Pros and Cons
In My Humble Opinion....
I have nothing against polls. They gather good info. Good numbers. They are viewed by and are useful to the developers. Those are the good points.

The bad points come when someone words the questions, or the follow-on discussion, in a way which tries to interpret the data for the developers. Im not saying people cant do that if they want but from what Ive seen its often done badly. They gather good numbers. Numbers that speak for themselves. But then they try and wave it in the devs faces. They use words like majorly broke, fix this, obvious errors, has to be nerfed or has to be improved, etc etc.

A large number of Users using or not using something does not automatcially mean any of those. What it means is that alot of Users use or not use that item. I think that is something the devs like to examine. In my opinion (that alone is a good phrase for some people to use more often) In my opinion such numbers mean "this is something the devs might be interested in looking at" but it does NOT mean the game is broke.

Even if I thought it WAS I wouldnt say it was because its been apparent that saying that can knock something completely OFF of the "you might want to look at this" list.

-- (sig line) Seems like there is an emoticon for just about everything except please and thank you.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As was said, that's only the turning point if you only value blood slaves. If your summoner's time has a value, or you prefer to have the fiends sooner rather than later, then the "economy" point is earlier.

PvK

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Well if this is a Wish List, I suppose I could post what I posted in the Last post again -- it is still valid, and has nothing to do with balance fixes:

My Hit List, scaled in order of what-I-think-is-important divided by resources-needed-to-implement-(guessing-only):

1. Rehiring Mercs set to half price by default
2. "Goto Commander" works for reports on finding sneaking commanders and assasins
3. Full battle reports after Storming Castle
4. BugFix: Call of the Wilds forest only
5. "Throw Away" option in "Transfer Item" screen set off somewhat from "put into lab"
6. Icons added ( see this thread)
EDIT: 6a. f12 scrolls through forts; f11 scrolls through hidden/stealthy commanders; f10 switches between prophet and pretender; f9 scrolls through mages with forge bonus
7. Interface: f5-Research lets you define research numbers per number pad (instead of +/- clicking)
8. Strategic AI: Fort-building Algorithm
9. Strategic AI: Troop-building Algorithm
10. Interface: Merc Bids defined per number pad instead of +/- clicking
11. Tactical AI: Communion Master only if Communion Slave not self available
12. Interface: From the "View Commander" (Inventory) screen, give us (a link to) the button "SET BATTLE ORDERS"!!
13. Interface / Tactical AI: In Spell Queue, all spells can be clicked either "disabled", "low priority", or "high priority"

I can add:

14. Keeper of the Tombs: Should be sacred
15. Tien Chi S&A starting spell not "flight"
16. What the heck: Mictlan should get a (*not* top-of-the-line, should be weaker than the others in all aspects BUT sacred) assassin, capital only

EDIT:
17. Elemental Armor description must now read "Gives partial protection from...�" (NOT: "immunity")
18. Stealth values increase with Experience Stars
19. Chance of successfully preaching increases with Experience Stars (NOT: level of preaching, just chance of success)
20. Ermor unholy level 5+ Priests must get the option "Reanimate LICTOR" (it still reads: "reanimate Wight")

[ June 18, 2004, 17:00: Message edited by: tinkthank ]

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">They aren't particularly impressive for level 9 spells though, when compared to what is available in other paths.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

Major Fixes Needed:

1) Attacking Units are Auto-Killed when they are not able to retreat after X-turns. (40 or 50 turns)

---This really should be fixed so that attacking units are auto-retreated into neighboring provinces.

2) AI opponents should not be sending their pretender into the death match events. Also a better prize should be introduced for the death match event... most agree it's not worth sending a commander.

Re: How would you patch this game?
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Check the thread subject. How would YOU solve the latter? And giving numbers for the first would help too...