January 26th, 2013, 12:02
(This post was last modified: January 26th, 2013, 12:09 by Tasunke.)
Posts: 4,421
Threads: 53
Joined: Sep 2011
but, to Clarify ...
I think you could change Volanna to either Agg/Cre or Rai/Exp
and have Averax be Agg/Exp
--------------
current Planar Gate: 300 hammers
my proposed solution
240 hammers, +100% production with Spiritual trait (Os-Gabella), and +100% production with Entropy mana
(I also like the idea of adding 1 or 2 AC to the Planar Gate ... maybe their Ritual should be cheaper??)
------------
also, I think the Malakim should have their Mind mana replaced with Water mana. (a desert dweller will want both Sun and Water)
and, as far as the Kuriotates go, imho they would be better off with Life, Nature, Water (both in terms of utility and lore)
--------------
As far as the upgrades to Centaur Charger go ... I am slightly confused by that situation. Only way a warrior can become a charger is through Warrior -> Swordsman -> Charger
so I don't see how making Centaurs unable to upgrade to charger will actually change anything. Are swordsman still allowed the upgrade for some reason?
January 26th, 2013, 16:32
Posts: 2,390
Threads: 20
Joined: Oct 2011
(January 26th, 2013, 12:02)Tasunke Wrote: I think you could change Volanna to either Agg/Cre or Rai/Exp
Rai/Exp for Volanna sounds good. Aggressive just has too much synergy with Sinister. (Though I still think she overshadows Faeryl.)
Quote:also, I think the Malakim should have their Mind mana replaced with Water mana. (a desert dweller will want both Sun and Water)
I don't like this idea. The Malakim are supposed to live in the desert, not terraform the desert away.
Quote:so I don't see how making Centaurs unable to upgrade to charger will actually change anything. Are swordsman still allowed the upgrade for some reason?
I thought the change was to break the warrior -> centaur charger upgrade path, not the centaur -> centaur charger path.
January 26th, 2013, 16:42
Posts: 240
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2013
Personally I'd like to see the Malakim have more synergy with the desert. Right now the desert is still bad for them to build in, it just isn't completely useless. I would like to see it be useful, or at least similar to Illians where it's slightly worse but has the benefit of being terraformable and stronger defensively.
January 26th, 2013, 19:45
Posts: 4,421
Threads: 53
Joined: Sep 2011
well, tbh, I'd prefer Malakim with +1 food desert rather than +1 commerce. And the ability to build cottages and workshops in the desert.
-1 food on floodplains if possible. (to not make FP too strong at 4F natural)
January 26th, 2013, 19:59
Posts: 4,421
Threads: 53
Joined: Sep 2011
And I like the idea. imho, with +1 food on desert, (assuming certain improvements are made desert buildable, ie at least cottages and workshops), plus the +20% strength in deserts ... Malakim can switch between plains and deserts when necessary.
I mean, I think Malakim should have control over the deserts ... they should LIKE starting in desert because they are able to change it back and forth at will.
January 26th, 2013, 21:27
Posts: 240
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2013
Yeah something like +1 food +1 commerce workers can build improvements on desert would be nice. Right now it just seems weird that the desert dwellers don't want to be in the desert. I don't think they need water built in though - just make deserts decent and they can decide to go for it or not later on.
Another modmod gave scorch as a free spell to the lightbringer, which is a cool idea. I think that modmod also allowed scorch to go through all terrain (grassland->plains->desert), but that isn't as important.
January 27th, 2013, 01:43
(This post was last modified: January 27th, 2013, 01:44 by WarriorKnight.)
Posts: 3,572
Threads: 20
Joined: Jan 2010
(January 25th, 2013, 11:08)gekko64 Wrote: re: temple of the hand, I'm actually not concerned with lore, but mechanics. I think the Illian gameplay should revolve around spreading snow terrain far and wide.
And why do you think Illians gameplay should revolve around that? Is it because Illian's are the winter civ of FfH? That's a lore reason, not a balance reason.
I'll ask it again. Does the Illian civ need to be boosted in some way and if so, why? Because this, and many other recent suggestions, appear to be along the lines of boosting something just because they can be. Balance is difficult to define and near impossible to implement, so I believe the best approach to EitB is a 'if it ain't broken, don't fix it' one.
January 27th, 2013, 03:12
Posts: 10,036
Threads: 82
Joined: May 2012
I agree with the above.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
January 27th, 2013, 06:52
Posts: 75
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2012
it's not really much of a boost though, more of a convenience tweak. Illians already got river commerce on snow back which IS a boost, and nobody complained. the philosophy is the same: civ specific mechanics shouldn't hurt the player for using them. TotH hurt in two ways: no river commerce ( solved already ) and crappy workrate ( not yet ) . even with this tweak in, building it on great terrain is still not a good hammer investment.
note I've also suggested to have the terraform slowly disappear after a city is captured, so you see I don't want a straight buff for them but just a slightly tweaked gameplay 
re: lightbringers: they need to get "no bad results from goody hut exploration" , and possibly being able to gain passive xp like disciples do.
January 27th, 2013, 07:14
(This post was last modified: January 27th, 2013, 07:19 by WarriorKnight.)
Posts: 3,572
Threads: 20
Joined: Jan 2010
(January 27th, 2013, 06:52)gekko64 Wrote: it's not really much of a boost though, more of a convenience tweak. Illians already got river commerce on snow back which IS a boost, and nobody complained.
That's news to me. 'goes and checks in WB'. Nope river commerce still doesn't get counted in ice, although I'll admit that I'm using v8 for EitbPB1 so perhaps it's a feature of v9, although I don't recall seeing that in the change log. Can someone confirm?
If it isn't a feature in v9, then that's at least the second time you've said something incorrect. If your going to say something please make sure that what you say is correct in the first place (that applies to everyone). I'd rather not have to say it again.
(January 27th, 2013, 06:52)gekko64 Wrote: the philosophy is the same: civ specific mechanics shouldn't hurt the player for using them. TotH hurt in two ways: no river commerce ( solved already ) and crappy workrate ( not yet ) . even with this tweak in, building it on great terrain is still not a good hammer investment.
TotH is a tradeoff, yes it has its downsides but there are good things about it too, which I've mentioned before. It's not a must build in every city and nothing is forcing you to build it in the first place. Just because it's a UB doesn't mean it has to be as useful as Warrens.
(January 27th, 2013, 06:52)gekko64 Wrote: note I've also suggested to have the terraform slowly disappear after a city is captured, so you see I don't want a straight buff for them but just a slightly tweaked gameplay
As Sareln has mentioned before, he has a huge bias towards inaction rather than action. Any changes that are made must be done for a good balance reason, and so far you have failed to mention any such reason. I do think what your suggesting has some merit for another mod that builds upon the features of FfH even more, but that's not what we're aiming for here.
|
