I've logged about 80 hours now or so on "legendary heroes" and I find it too easy.. yah, know get yourself a cave/maul bear into your army with a collar/spell and you are semi-unstoppable..
In all my hours of playing.. I have yet to even build one army in my cities or need one..? in fact cities seem a waste! (purposeless), be attacked by the AI (one time)? and when I take my armies against the AI I just crush e'm anyway.. this game reminds me of "age of wonders" which was also a easy game.. cept it wasn't ALWAYS easy..
I've tried turning up the settings on my single player games.. but I still find it too easy.. I think maybe the problem is the monsters help me level up/equipment up so easily and or get that "cave bear" that I become unstoppable so I'm thinking of removing monsters which will make me have to go to war for experience etc.
Am I the only that finds the game easy.. the AI incompetent or what? Is there something I'm missing..? I'm running games on insane now and while there's a few monsters I can't beat with no losses "yet" a large percentage I could do within 20 to 50 turnsI've only beaten one game so far and that was the scenario which just go so boorrrrring (cause too easy) in my expert/insane games I haven't even bothered to beat it.. cause it was "too easy" I would like to try building armies for my heroes..? but seems pointless cause I haven't needed it so far.. at least turning off the monsters I believe that will change it
Post your save the penultimate turn from victory on insane/insane. Then we'll know you're not a troll.
You're being ignorant. Games are not art pieces for the sole enjoyment of the creators. They are a business for which the livelihood of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of people depend on to do well. Data mining forums for common complaints and analyzing why those complaints exists allow companies to update products to be more enjoyable to a wider audience as well as design better games in the future.
If a person picked up a game, played it for a limited time, and found it so boring that they were emotionally driven to go to the company's website and complain about it then obviously their opinion is worth while to listen to. All the praise in the world from fans won't help a developer make their next game better.
It is obvious that Fallen Enchantress is very much a Civilization 4 clone. Not that such is necessarily bad if done well and cloning mechanics done in a very polished way can produce a game far superior to the original. It was my huge enjoyment of both Civ 4 and Fall from Heaven 2 which got me to pick up Fallen Enchantress. As a stand alone game, it is okay, but I feel that FfH2 captured more of my time and enjoyment.
You're being naive.
There is constructive criticism, and then there is chest thumping/dick waving.
The only difference is that the OP did it in a passive-aggressive manner.
You're just being a jerk. Your argument is shaky. And something tells me you are quite ignorant of the game business, as you throw the ignorance label out at others.
"People don't know what they want until you show it to them." -Steve Jobs
Customers are often idiots, and do not know what they want - until they see it in front of them. Don't overestimate the value of feedback. Microsoft is going to make truckloads of money on the XboxOne by ignoring a significant amount of customer feedback.
Jobs is far from the best person to go to when you're making an argument for quality products. What Jobs has always been was a master of branding and marketing. You can sell anyone anything if you can create a good enough advertising campaign around it (why demos of terrible games like Colonial Marines don't happen and highlight reels of things that basically aren't even in the game get created), but if you're trying to create a quality product you have to pay attention to what people like. Games aren't status symbols to show off to people on the street they're an entertainment and art form. As far as the XBoxOne is concerned, we aren't there yet. Poor decisions in console hardware have shown to have very negative impacts such as the Cell processing decision by Sony. Maybe Microsoft will make a lot of money, but maybe they will turn off a huge portion of their potential userbase. That is an assumption which cannot be concluded upon.
And they'd make truckloads more if they *didn't* ignore a significant amount of potential customers. This statement completely goes against the point you're trying to make.
And it makes me cringe when I hear somebody saying "companies are more successful when they ignore their loyal customers/consumers." Like it or not, we're all consumers. Don't you want companies you buy products from to treat you with an ounce of respect, listen to their consumer base, and give you something you actually do want? Do you know comments like the one you made sound like somebody suffering from self-defeating personality disorder? Because it's that exact anti-consumer mentality that helped get us to the pitiful state of affairs we have in business tactics today.
Why are you so sure?
If they listened to certain customer feedback (moms for example), young boys might be better blocked from playing Call Of Duty. Profit loss. Used games might cut into their profit even more if they listen to some, and make online passes a no-no.
Other money-losing ventures might have been undertaken - simply because customers asked for it.
My statement fully supports my point.
And it makes me cringe when I hear somebody saying "companies are more successful when they ignore their loyal customers/consumers."
Never said that. You're using the strawman technique to put an argument in my mouth I didn't make.
I am offering the point that SOME customer feedback is useless - even from loyal, longtime fans. A company must learn discretion in what customer feedback is truly useful. This hardly suggests a company should not actively seek customer feedback, and listen to it well.
Example: When LH was announced, I thought the impale/cleave ideas were silly. I formed the impression that combat was going in a silly direction - I gave feedback to this effect. Turns out I was wrong, it's pretty good the way they envisioned it. If they canceled b/c fans didn't like it (Many voiced their opinions against it), something good might have been aborted.
There's a reason Hollywood stars keep a healthy distance from their fans.
Suggesting a connection to a psychological disorder is just silly. Stick to reason if you want to have a discussion.
I think taming animals right from start is pretty OP. So I play without that. Also play with the premade leaders. i have been playing as Gilden and I find that they have a strong armies. i make leader a warrior usually get a Mage hero of another race to not get the casting cost debuff Gilden has. For above post I would suggest play without taming animals.
better yet for DEVS why not remove XP gain from taming animals? I mean you getting a new unit plus Xp? Seems a bit much.
If you like a challenge and can't help but load a game if you are unlucky, stay away from Beastlord.
Taming is bad for your mental health.
Or they play the game expoitively and then complain.
I would agree that Stardock's AI isn't always as amazing as Brad thinks it is, and that it would be good of them to have a team of people working on AI instead of just one person, because as good as that one person may be at a game or at gaming in general it's just not enough to counter all players.
Having a hard time even seeing the train tracks from over here....
I started a game last night with taming in it, and yeah it's massively OP early game.
Do not get taming
Do not use save/load
Play with premade characters
If it's not enough, then create difficulties by yourself:
no mage heroes
no heavy armor
e.t.c.
last game i was facerolled by the kraxis on expert/expert.I think for me it's good difficulty now.
I keep getting shitstomped on Expert/Expert, so your experience is not the same as mine.
Don't assume that it is.
Until that cave bear resists Tame and wrecks your entire army. Might as well start over at that point.
"Too easy?" - in my practise this is just one part of a problem. In some situations its easy to win, but in other situations it is easy to lose. There is not much options for continuous struggle where is is not obvious who will win. But this is the problem of almost every strategy game.
Amen to what webusver said!
I think without question my observation that "the towns are weak" is pretty much true.. it's interesting but the towns/civ part of the game doesn't scale like the monsters do..
I like FE a lot.. it's very unique.. it just could use a lot more options for hardness.. "strategy" is usually what I find fun in a game.. but I need a AI to challenge me.. or it seems like "what's the point?"
I also think it's a bit buggy.. when I last played I tried to be "Armenian" but I found the shards bonus's not working on things like initiative.. which didn't make sense.. cause it worked for other things
Not a whole lot of constructive criticism in this thread. Mostly pretty vague. I do agree that Tame is overpowered as is. Tame needs to be nerfed. And Wealthy (again).
Another thing that would make the game harder is putting a cap on how many Pioneers each AI player can have at any given time. Make the cap 4 or 5. In my last game that I played on Insane (started on 1.1), late game, every AI city was surrounded by armies of Pioneers. I thought that was supposed to be fixed already. The AI players have plenty of money, so I can't think they're doing it to save on wages. I was able to level up several champions just killing Pioneers. They even send them into my territory en masse, like "Here, have some free XP." Maybe if the AI players built more combat units, they'd have a better chance.
Reasons Tame is overpowered:1. You can get bears, who Maul, and Maul is overpowered, especially when you have Lucky and Commander bonuses.2. You get wageless units. Lots of them. For not much mana cost.3. Acquiring many of these wageless units inflates your power level significantly, which makes other factions that could probably trounce you not want to attack you. Even though I was playing on Insane, nobody declared war on me until I started declaring war on people.4. You still get the XP for the win. I honestly don't disagree with this, but with all the other stuff, it is a contributor to Tame's power.
How can Tame be fixed? (several options, but don't implement all of them):1. Increase the mana cost and add a casting time of 1. Adding the casting time prevents getting extremely powerful creatures (like the Hoarder Spider) early on.2. It wouldn't make sense to pay bears and spiders, but maybe put a mana maintenance on the creatures you tame.3. I think this has been partially fixed already in 1.2, with the change to how power levels are determined. I haven't started a new game on 1.2 yet to find out.4. Reduced XP for taming beasts. Or at least don't give XP to the tamed beast.5. Change it so it can only be cast once per combat. Even with a 10 turn cooldown, I can tame all the beasts in any army. It's a boring process, but I can do it.
I don't see the problem with Tame as is. This is not a multiplayer game is it? So, there is an easy mode, for people who want to play that way, followed by a custom sov, then down the list of premades. I haven't played them all, but I am sure there are a few weak ones in there.
It was kind of like that in Gal Civ, but a little less pronounced. In the hands of a decent player who could tailor their playstyle to the race being used, there were one or two races that could run away with the game even on an unlucky map.
You shouldn't call the game easy because you abuse a mechanic, just don't use it and try a different sov; easy.
Then there would be no point in playing the game. TC is where most of the fun is in this game at least to me.
LH being to easy is kind of like a bug. IT is an issue that needs to be corrected. IT is not bragging at all. I'm sure the DEVS wanted to make a challanging game not a carebear game.
I think this is well said.
I think the game tends to steamroll too easily one way or the other.
I can take out an enemy's primary army and then take over 2-3 villages before you can blink. Or i can lose my entire main army to a lucky monster hoard and find myself extremely far behind.
There isn't a lot of inbetween.
I would agree that it is too easy to take villages, even high level ones.
I think the defender units should get the best weapons AND armor for your tech level, that would make them significantly more durable. Also, the power level should scale with the level of a village. A 5th level city should require a heavy heavy investment to take out.
You could also introduce the armory and fortify upgrades to villages as well as outposts. The fact that my army is stronger in an outpost than a fortress is very strange.
I think the big problem is that the AI mobs no longer attack cities, at least not with regularity, they do occasionally attack resources.
They used to wander in from all over the map and take out my cities in FE. What's one feature the AI does but human don't (it's why we win)? Keep garrisons in the cities. I know in one FE game 3 demons sacked my 3rd city and I couldn't get anyone back there in time to help. The AI meanwhile garrisons troops that could handle that situation.
Make AI mobs a lot more aggressive to settlements again, and make the cooldown on Call of the Titans actually work. I dealt with the epic quest in about 3 turns to get through the 2nd gate even though the point I had to keep going to was over a huge lake that would have required a significant detour, I just kept Calling over the lake. The only reason it took 3 turns was because of the combats and because you can't call onto a tile inside the red zones.
Human players against the AI don't keep garrisons and with a 10 turn cool down on Call actually working it would be harder to defend. Now, we would all just spend lots of time clearing the mobs instead of doing more settling, or settling near red zones or at choke points when we hadn't cleared the area behind yet.
That would at least slow us down a bit.
The AI seems to be worse in LH than in FE. My insane games feel a bit "easier" than before. The HP and defense of the regular stacks aren't up to par with what it used to be. (double HP only goes so far) I remember facing 100+ defense stacks from Gilden with tons of HP (600+), in LH I have yet to see something like that. The only "scary" stack I've seen has been a tarth mage one with double strike, and that has happened once. But I see some improvements with unique traits and what not, so I hope for more, and possible some specialization when AI is done teching (make it pick Attack, Defense, Accuracy etc. and not "town attributes", maybe even a researchable AI "hp" tech?)
Also, OP said nothing about how he wins (he said he doesn't need cities), so yes going for Master Quest is way too easy and doesn't scale well with difficulty at all when you know how to do it. The "hard" way in this game is playing city/army style without abusing OP skills too much The difficulty is essentially useless if you do a "hero" game, since the AI won't chase after your hero, so you can just keep killing some cities here and there while leveling up a combo able to do Master Quest and not "play" the AI at all.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
