I think you misunderstand the second one a little bit. The great wyrm would easily double his damage against medium resistance units.
|
Combat mechanics
|
Oh so, for every hit.
Model no.2 is my preference and if others consent, I'll do it somehow. ----------------- May I have a cheeky and seemingly radical suggestion: to increase internal chance to block from 30% to 40%? The reason is chalked out here: http://realmsbeyond.net/forums/showpost....stcount=22.
Great, I'd love to have that poison model implemented. Any chance you can make it work for normal ranged attacks as well?
I don't know about a fixed +1 bonus to defend. There's a risk that this will throw off people's estimates, and we might have to rebalance many units. Then again, most people just play by feel anyway. I might go for this, I assume it's easy to do.
You may be right, just leave it behind. I will do it for my own personal enjoyment, MoM for me lacks the simple representation of combat powers (weren't you complaining about it in another thread and calling for a predictor?). 10 swords will penetrate 20 shields, who cares (me).
Although I am sure that if I made the change in secret, few would notice. And for you it would be easier to compare/change unit strength, if you knew that 10 shields are a match for 10 swords. Now it is confusing. That's it. Let's move on.
It is a nature move for wolf-rider (And it is the purpose of speed 3):
Move, Attack and move away. In this way damage can be controlled, and can be evenly distributed to many wolf-riders. With 50-turn retreat rule, the wolf-rider can kill some units, and walk-away for an auto-heal, or "Nature's Cure" spell. The proposed "No move after Melee attack" as well as "auto-retreat" is unfair for all speed 3 units, including unit with speed 2+1 (indurance). For tournament, we can set up the following rules, and ask everyone to obey: No move after attack rule ======================== All units with effective speed (i.e. adding/substracting spell effect like endurance, haste, Entangle, ...etc.) less than 2 must not move after attack. Units with effective speed >=3 has no limitation. 50 turn safe-retreat rule ==================================================== ** 50 turn tie can always be used if you are the defender. ** 50 turn safe-retreat (when you are the attacker) can be "safely" used when EACH friendly unit has one of the unchasable reasons vs. EACH of enemy units: 1. The friendly unit can effectively flight (not webbed), and the enemy unit can not attack a flighting unit. 2. The friendly unit has effective speed larger than the enemy unit. 3. The enemy unit has no attack power (e.g. mind storm) 4. The enemy unit has zero to-hit (e.g. vertigo + warp reality) 5. The friendly unit is invisible while the enemy unit can not see invisible unit. [Note: must compare each friendly unit vs. each enemy unit] [Note: Even enemy has some unit can see invisible units, but the compare is still each unit vs. each unit., for example, an invisible Chaos Spawn can safely retreat vs. Ghoul + Gorgons] ** 50 turn safe-retreat can be unsafely used, but all units failing the above said conditions must DIE by manually disbanding them. ** (Invisible chaser rule: slow units die) In addition, if you know the enemy has invisible unit(s), after 50 turn retreat, you need to disband all units with effective speed (speed increased by 'haste' can apply) less than 4. Catwalk Wrote:kyrub, would it be possible to enable poison for normal ranged attacks? Maybe even magical attacks, actually.I don't have to enable anything, ranged attacks with poison should work. Magic ranged don't - and I am happy about it. Poisoned fireball... 0 cost at fortress. Not bad, but very exploitable. I can imagine a lot of forum posts: the AI is stupid, I am sitting in my fortress and I just slaughter the armies with Flame Strike * 20 and they keep coming.
Hey, in most RPG games you can have poisonous magic :P But no biggie to me.
I don't think zero cost at fortress is very exploitable, you can butcher enemies with Flame Strike quite easily already at half cost. And the benefits far outweigh that, it's completely crippling for the AI to defend its fortress without magic.
November 25th, 2010, 09:33
(This post was last modified: November 26th, 2010, 08:08 by Catwalk.)
I think that proposing to depend on in house rules for tournament purposes is admitting failure. My hope is that one day I can play a tournament, where there are no in house rules and I can just play the game to the best of my and the AI’s ability and still have fun and challenge. Until then at least try to minimize the in house rules and try to fix the game for everybody. My experience on zone.com and gamespy was that many people cheat for various reasons (some may be kids for example who are expert players, but no sense of cheating yet or inadequate English language skills, etc.). Also, the interpretation of complex self made rules is ambiguous (as it was the case in our current tournament here) and some players may simply forget in the middle of the game what the in house rules were in a game they started a month earlier. One such person can ruin the entire tournament.
For now, our goal should be to eliminate exploits like the auto-retreat when the battle ends in a "draw" after 50 turns. Here are 2 possible draft approaches. Not sure if it is easy to program: Option 1 Retreating should be allowed on the per unit basis. A unit that stands on the edge of the battle map may retreat with large (say 99%) chance of success if there is no enemy unit standing next to it and it has move left. Other units can retreat with the old 25%, 50% chance. Units retreat in the correct (one of 8) direction on the overall map and the units that retreated may have taken an extra move by doing this and are tired of running and regrouping so these units will not be allowed to move in the next turn. Retreating in directions that would initiate another battle or invalid map square are not allowed. With this option we can eliminate attacker’s auto-retreat exploit. Option 2 Chance of success for retreat is determined on the per unit bases depending on the relative speed of the retreating unit to the fastest enemy unit and their distance at the time of retreat. I am slightly for the first option. |