Oh, one more UI quirk- related to the complaint about weapons.  Enchanting spells on creatures falls under the same principle, and if you change giving of weapons to those in your stack, you should change the enchanting also under the same concept I think.

Maybe give armor two stats

One  start to deflect blows outright?

The other stat would reduce damage of any blow- a damage resistance, that would be seperate vs piece/blunt/slash/magic

Things like chainmail could be weak to piercing

Also have a penetration stat- which would be damage through armor- blunt weapons, axes, picks might be best there.

This might have to be a 1.1 idea or later though.

Agreed completely. Something needs to be done about the pathetically low HP. It's ok in the early game, but late game it makes things much more difficult (and not in a good way).

Vote 2xHp

Ya It kinda sucks, Its pointless to build any high units, you can just give a useless unit a good weapon and spam build them like the computer,

Well, thats mainly cause Shortbows are bugged to IGNORE defense and always cause MAX damage.

I can't speak for spells, but the idea of ranged weaponry isn't completely flawed.

I mean, I can see a Greater Recurved Bow have the same stats as a Beta 3C shortbow ... but only if it gives normal attack rolls that roll vs an opponents defense roll (something that has not been happening)

Are there going to be any further changes to combat speed? That system is pretty unpopular with the community.

My (ElementalExpanded) Beta 4 requests

• Access to the XML so we can start seeing how things are done.
• Access to the python scripts so we can start coding.
• Access to a .hkb converter so we can get the model orientation right for Elemental
• Access to a single maya model of a human unit so modders can get proportion and style right
• Periodic release of documentation on the systems (what physics, the documentation on the C API that is exposed) so we have the knowledge to make changes rather than guessing
• A packaged format for individual total conversions. Actually it's not just the total conversion folks that want this, it's everyone who is planning to release mods as a campaign, and for users who want to play "Jimmy's Dragons Extreme Mod" one day and then not have to worry about deleting files/etc the next day when he wants to play "LotR Mod."

1) Since we've hit feature lockdown, I'd really like to have the python scripts included. I understand they are subject to change and we cannot rely on them. As modders they would prove enormously instructive, both in terms of seeing real examples of the API in use and getting a feel for what we can mod and what is possible with the build. This would be an enormous confidence boost with the community.

2) I know the maya request is "out there" and Stardock has every reason not to do it. But I think having access to an example model would prove highly instructive to even experienced modellers in terms of getting the style and proportion right.

3) Documentation release is tough! It requires either dumping stuff or having someone write it and release it, which are both time uses. One of the best documentation efforts I have seen for a game comes from Bioware, who ran two tracks of documentation:

The first one is basic tutorials on how to use the toolsets and some scripting introduction: http://nwn.bioware.com/builders/index.html

The second one, which is really amazing, is where Bioware made complete documentation on many aspects of the games "internals," from how the data is handled to how to manipulate it and work with it. They had someone who was responsible for that part of the program write it. This information was vital in allowing talented users to release highly polished and useful tools for the game: http://nwn.bioware.com/developers/

We ended up data driving nearly everything via XML rather than Python.  After release, we'll migrate executable code from C++ to Python so that actual routines can be rewritten by modders as well.

We found that more users were comfortable with XML than Python for doing "basic stuff" so we migrated that way. 

In terms of what to expect in beta 4 in terms of documentation, etc., the modders will be pretty much on their own at first since we'll be focusing on going gold.  Modders that need hand holding will need to wait until after release.

I'd like to applaud your priorities there. I think it's well-known that Stardock will do right by modders long-term.  I'd certainly like to cheer for continued resource focus on the main game, since that's what's going to create reviewers' impressions and the early word-of-mouth that will so critically determine the size of the community that will create and consume future mods.

All the proposed changes sound great and should do a lot to improve the game.  3B was a big leap forward in my opinion.

Here's some things I'd like to see get fixed for release 4...

I hope the tech trees will get some more love in the form of hover over tool tips.  I'm still a bit in the dark on how some of the technology works, especially for items listed under the "leads to:" option.  I'd like to have a bit more insight into what I'll be getting down the road so I can research appropriately. 

The UI still feels a bit cumbersome in areas and lacks a lot of mouse over tool tip information.  For instance, not being able to tell how much mana my sovereign has is a big issue for me.  I can see a blue bar indicating how far from max they are, but I have no idea how much mana they have and this should be visible via a simple mouse over tool tip. 

Tactical combat should scroll when you touch the edge of the screen, just like it does on the strategic/world map.  Having to click and pull to move the map around in combat is awkward when you're used to just moving to the edge of the screen most of the time.

Spellcasting when on the world map should cause your cursor icon to remain as a wand icon until you have cast a spell.  Right now it is a wand when over the spellbook but changes to the typical cursor when on the map.  You have to really pay attention and see the red/green boxes to know that you are actually still trying to cast a spell.

Once a building is selected and a build location is set, the game should deselect the building.  Right now I find it is too easy to accidentally click twice and end up building two of the selected building inadvertently.  Once I've started building one of them, it shouldn't expect me to want to build another of the same thing automatically.

The AI needs to do a better job of defending their settlements.  Wandering the map and leaving empty settlements behind is not a good idea.  They also should be responding appropriately when I am at war with them and start entering their territory.  That should place them on high alert and cause them to divert forces to defense or a counterstrike.  I came across and stole far too many weakly or completely undefended cities, some of them with highly valuable resources.

The problem is not really with just bows and spells, but stats in general. All units end up being basically glass cannons because you can't make them with high HP, and weapons get high enough in damage to just one-shot them. Even having 20 defense on a 10hp unit (about as high hp as you can get with the +5 hp accessory pack) doesn't matter when the opponent is using 40 damage weapons.

 

 

 

I agree with this, it can turn many battles into who gets the first shot off. Not saying the first turn/strike isn't a good valid advantage, the survivability of a single unit is a little lacking, mid range at least. I tend to judge game combat and statistics by how close they are to what I would see as reality.

I understand the survivability of a peasant with a stick should be a little low, but there needs to be at least some chance involved, that 1-10% chance he will be tying his shoe or tripping over a rock when a fireball gets shot at his head.

A suggestion, add some more attributes for combat to play off of:

Suggestion:

Archer shoots an arrow at a soldier

1. Arrow has a chance to miss all together (precision of archer)

2. Arrow has a chance to be dodged (defense rating of the soldier)

3. Arrow has a chance to be absorbed by the armor/shield (protection rating of the soldier)

4. damage is adjusted (Soldier's armor rating vs damage potential of the weapon)

If the soldier is frozen or otherwise stunned/immobilized then there should be no defensive check.

Precision will not have an effect in melee combat. 

May seem a little more complicated, but I'm fond of complicated game mechanics (check out the combat in dominions 3) they are a great example of how statistics and chance can be used in large scale combat.

On another note... I see .. yet another update...   off to get my beta fix!