Dissapointed [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

johan osterman

January 27th, 2004, 03:02 PM

Blessing and similar spells that do not target just the commanders could very well have been cast on other blessable troops in the vicinity. I am a little sceptical to claims that the AI has cast nonstackable spells that only targets the caster and has no fail chance repeatedly on itself. I attribute the cases reported to having troops nearby that can be affected by spells, so for example body ethreal has an area of 1 and so can be cast on nearby bodyguards, so that reported incident is most likely not a case of casting a nonstackable spell repeatedly on itself. As for not casting offensive spells on fleeing troops this is most likely stems from not being in range or that the AI calculates that the chance of hitting friendliess is to high. Most people otherwise seems to believe that the AI's friendly fire avoidance is not strict enough. The spellcasting AI will never be human smart, and if it were magic would become even more dominating in the game.

Your other complaint is probably caused by the battle replay bug. Unfortunately sometimes the battle replays does not match the battle. This might happen more if you participate in an MP game where the game is hosted on another platform. This bug has not been localised.

Edit: Also in the 2.07 patch the spell AI will drop the estimated worth of some protective enchanments. As it stands it will also value protective enchanments less and less as turns go by.

[ January 27, 2004, 13:16: Message edited by: johan osterman ]

IKerensky

January 27th, 2004, 03:40 PM

I am sure many people have posted this suggestion but...

Why not add a spellbook management for the mages , something simple like:

Switching on/off spell he could cast.

Some other spell order can be usefull:

Order him to cast 1 spell continiously. ( so we can give him this as the 5th order ).

This is very bad when you lose undead spellcaster because thet doesnt cast raise undead but go to spell protection or decay http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Anyway I would greatly like the possibility to "tweak" the mage spellbook so we can have him serving in the purpose we want without having to hold his hand too much.

sachmo

January 27th, 2004, 04:02 PM

On the other side of the coin, I'll bet there are some who would complain if the spellcasters did not case protection spells at the start of the battle. Maybe a defensive or offensive switch?

Nagot Gick Fel

January 27th, 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by IKerensky:
Why not add a spellbook management for the mages , something simple like:

Switching on/off spell he could cast.I just had a funny experience. I had 3 Serpent Priests stacked on the same tile in a rear corner, and one of them (my prophet) decided to cast Berserkers on the group instead of the Fanaticism he was scripted for. The 3 quickened SPs outran their bodyguards (I had mistakenly deployed those in the opposite corner), and gave chase to a few flying militia until they reached the opposite rear area. They were mopped up there by more routing enemy troops. Luckily for me the entire enemy army was routed before my Last priest died, as my army was now leaderless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif These 3 priests were my only casualties BTW.

diamondspider

January 27th, 2004, 04:48 PM

I love the idea of a "don't cast" list.

Much easier than fussing with the AI which tends to be very time consuming (in the little bit that I've done).

The spell queue is nice and another option would just be to expand it to 10 spells although that would be more clicking in some cases when there are a few spells I just don't want casted.

A bit deeper on this topic, I actually REALLY like not managing the tactics of my troops. In Total War you have to manage your troops and while it is very fun sometimes, it can also get really tedious. You can let the AI do it, but you get such better results doing it by hand that you really have to unless you have a 10 to 1 advantage.

The downside to how Dominions does it though is, indeed, that when the AI does something absurd it can be very frustrating.

[ January 27, 2004, 14:51: Message edited by: diamondspider ]

tinkthank

January 27th, 2004, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
I am a little sceptical to claims that the AI has cast nonstackable spells that only targets the caster and has no fail chance repeatedly on itself. I attribute the cases reported to having troops nearby that can be affected by spells, so for example body ethreal has an area of 1 and so can be cast on nearby bodyguards, so that reported incident is most likely not a case of casting a nonstackable spell repeatedly on itself. Well I was just playing the demo -- try it out and see if I am wrong. I don't think so.
Anyhow, I am not the first person to "complain" about this. Other people say it about "barkskin". In any case, even if there was a chance that some neighboring troop could get a bit of that "body etheral" area effect 1, that is IMHO not a good choice for the AI in most of the situations I saw.

Are you happy with it? Would you like it to stay as it is in the full Version? If you were on the programming team would you think my "complaint" was uncalled for?

Raz 24

January 27th, 2004, 05:00 PM

I have the full Version and I have never had this problem with the AI casting multiple non-stacking boost magic. I think my game is blessed , because it never behaves bad http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Arralen

January 27th, 2004, 05:16 PM

1) There's already patch 2.06, and 2.07 is in the works, as one could have guessed from johans article.

2) johan is on the design team http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

3) I've never seen the AI cast the same, unstackable spells with target "caster" more than once. Unless the commanders are scripted to do this. Keep in mind, though, that some spells do stack with themselves or each other.

4) ".. in the 2.07 patch the spell AI will drop the estimated worth of some protective enchanments. As it stands it will also value protective enchanments less and less as turns go by. .. think this will take care of most problems. Even if for some reason the AI doesn't recognize an enchantment already done, it wouldn't cast the spell again after some (5 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) combat rounds.

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Arralen:
3) I've never seen the AI cast the same, unstackable spells with target "caster" more than once. Unless the commanders are scripted to do this. Keep in mind, though, that some spells do stack with themselves or each other.I have had the AI cast Body Ethereal on my (quickened) pretender six consecutive times in the same battle. That's all my pretender cast for 3 complete combat rounds. Body Ethereal does not stack, nor did I script it.

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arralen:
3) I've never seen the AI cast the same, unstackable spells with target "caster" more than once. Unless the commanders are scripted to do this. Keep in mind, though, that some spells do stack with themselves or each other.I have had the AI cast Body Ethereal on my (quickened) pretender six consecutive times in the same battle. That's all my pretender cast for 3 complete combat rounds. Body Ethereal does not stack, nor did I script it. <hr /></blockquote>Send the trn file to support@illwinter.com so we can take a look at it. Explain what is wrong so we have clue what to look for.

I have never seen anything like it, but there are some reports here that it has happened. No one has sent us any bugged files though, so it is hard to do anything about it.

Lord_Devi

January 27th, 2004, 06:04 PM

I agree completely with the magic system actually. It's the ONLY thing in the game that actually angers me a bit. I've had that exact same problem. "Fire Shield, Fire Shield, Fire Shield, Fire Shield" I mean he only needs one ;P

I think this game only really needs two things to make it as eternal as the other classics (i.e. SEIV), and that's increased modability(but this is already in the works =), and an improved magic combat sytsem.

I'm afraid the excuse of "it's only a suggestion" or, "it's a chaotic battle, he'll do what he thinks is best" just don't cut it. It is NOT a suggestion when I tell my caster to not kill my own men. I should definatly be able to take more control over them - the AI just isn't capable of using it's magic to it's full potential. The old problem of the caster casting summoning spells when it already has a HUGE army comes to mind...

Plus, equally important - or even more so really, is that it makes it funner! =) I mean, giving the players more opportunities to play with the massive amounts of spells just increases gameplay 10 fold I think. Spells are fun, it could be really entertaining trying to find secret combinations of spells etc.

That list of 5 spells just doesn't cut it IMO. Esp how he doesn't even listen to you http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
I am a little sceptical to claims that the AI has cast nonstackable spells that only targets the caster and has no fail chance repeatedly on itself. I attribute the cases reported to having troops nearby that can be affected by spells, so for example body ethreal has an area of 1 and so can be cast on nearby bodyguards, so that reported incident is most likely not a case of casting a nonstackable spell repeatedly on itself.Johan, you really shouldn't so readily dismiss reports by players of odd AI behavior. My pretender was alone, no bodyguards or other casters within range 5. And the AI DID cast a caster-only spell repeatedly (Body Ethereal), to the tune of six times. The only reason it stopped at six was the battle ended. I wouldn't remember the event so well if it hadn't been such outrageous behavior on the AI's part.

I really resent the attitude that because you don't understand why the AI did something stupid, that we who are doing the reporting must be wrong somehow. Enough people have been reporting this type of problem that I would expect you to sit up and pay attention. Not make excuses and cavalierly dismiss our reports. It's beneath you.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Strages Sanctus

January 27th, 2004, 06:14 PM

MY biggest issue really is that the ai will cast offensive spells that damage the caster, even when other options are available that would not harm the caster, and have a better damge/area/fatigue ratio...

This really only becomes an issue if you have a rainbow mage with lots of options available and deep evocation research...

Magma eruption was definitely the worst choice for the Ai to cast... the troops being targetted were militia so not heavily armored.

IMHO the routine should consider:
Note this is only for a caster that has meleers attacking them.

--Number of targets hurting me
--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
--Armor of troops attacking me
--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.
-- how much will thi spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.

Of course the overall system is obviously very complex indeed and any kind of AI programming is a herculean task by any means. By tackling the at least the issue of offensive spell choices could be made more efficient.

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Send the trn file to support@illwinter.com so we can take a look at it. Explain what is wrong so we have clue what to look for.

I have never seen anything like it, but there are some reports here that it has happened. No one has sent us any bugged files though, so it is hard to do anything about it. Thanks for listening. Alas, however much I'd love to do so, so that this bug can be squashed, I don't have a trn file from that game. It happened over a week ago, and I wasn't keeping turn-by-turn saves. Hopefully someone else will have kept their file(s) and can show you similar behavior.

I do understand that you cannot fix what you cannot replicate. I've been a programmer for almost 30 years and I can sympathize.

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Strages Sanctus:
how much will thid spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.Under no circumstances should the AI be permitted to cast a spell that will incapacitate the caster when the caster is engaged in melee combat. It shouldn't even permit it when there are enemies that can reach the caster in the enemy's next turn (regardless of bodyguards).

johan osterman

January 27th, 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
...
I really resent the attitude that because you don't understand why the AI did something stupid, that we who are doing the reporting must be wrong somehow. Enough people have been reporting this type of problem that I would expect you to sit up and pay attention. Not make excuses and cavalierly dismiss our reports. It's beneath you.

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
I am sorry, I haven't seen this reported behaviour myself. It's just that quite often people reports 'bugs' that are caused by factors that are not readily apparent, such as their commanders being out of range for their combat spells or Ermorian priest not succesfully beating the MR of all undead troops and thus casting blessings repeatedly etc. Since the systems involved are a little opaque many behaviours might be caused by 'legal'mechanisms that players are not aware of. In the case of repeated casting of non stackable spells mosts of the mechanisms ahs been around since dom 1 times and I haven't myself seen this behavoiur during the 5 or so years I have been playing various Versions of dom1/dom2. But as Kristoffer said, if there is an apparently buggy behaviour send the trn file to support@illwinter.com.

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Strages Sanctus:

--Number of targets hurting me
--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
--Armor of troops attacking me
--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.
-- how much will thi spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.

The AI does consider these things with the possible exception of AOE. Which of the above do you believe the AI must rate as more or less important a factor and in what cases?

The placement of AOE>1 is randomized and thus difficult to calculate regarding risk to your self.

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 06:32 PM

Lest J & KO think that I'm being highly critical of their work, I'd like to take a moment to thank them for what I know is the monumental task they've done in creating what is arguably the best AI of any strategy game I've played (HttR has a very good AI as well, perhaps even better, but it's a different style of game and an argument can be made that it's not as complex a game as Dom 2). Sure, the AI in Dom 2 needs some work. It has its quirks. But if it wasn't already a very good AI, we wouldn't all be so fond of this game as we are. And you cannot please everyone, no matter how hard you try. If IW had the manpower and money that some other dev shops do, one can only wonder what truly incredible things they could accomplish. (As long as some idiots like Atari didn't buy them out and then kill their projects.)

Some of us also appreciate that every minute you spend reading (and replying to) our postings here is time we've taken away from your being able to enhance the game. Or having a personal life.

Once again, thank you for giving us such a fine game.

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Strages Sanctus:

--Number of targets hurting me
--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
--Armor of troops attacking me
--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.
-- how much will thi spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.

The AI does consider these things with the possible exception of AOE. Which of the above do you believe the AI must rate as more or less important a factor and in what cases?

The placement of AOE>1 is randomized and thus difficult to calculate regarding risk to your self. <hr /></blockquote>In order ...

--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
(if the target is immune, there is no point to casting the spell)

--how much will this spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.
(if the caster is in imminent danger, making the situation more dire is a bad idea)

--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
(only consider hurting self if you can destroy appreciable numbers of foes, I'll leave it to others to argue over what's 'appreciable')

--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
(never cause more than, say, 1/4 remaining damage to friendlies unless you are assured of victory by wiping out the opposition. no one enjoys pyrrhic victories)

--Number of targets hurting me
(if you are being hit by six enemies, casting a spell that only hurts one of them, and won't even kill that one, is silly)

--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
(see earlier comments)

--Armor of troops attacking me
--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.

Coffeedragon

January 27th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Lord_Devi:
I should definatly be able to take more control over them - the AI just isn't capable of using it's magic to it's full potential. More control would be bad for SP, I believe -it would make computer opponents even weaker.

Even improvements on the spellcasting AI would not be without setback entirely -I think Magic vs. Might in Dom2 is already a little bit too much on the side of Magic.

Strages Sanctus

January 27th, 2004, 07:02 PM

First let me say: Great work so far guys; AI programming is the holy grail of gaming.
Let me add, there is always room for improvement http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Most important to least important:

1. Are my targets immune to this damage type? (if yes ignore this spell)

2. Do I have any spells I can cast that my targets are especially vulnerable to? (examine these first)

3. Do I have any AOE spells I am immune/resistant to but my enemies are succeptible to? (this should be chosen over AOE spells that I am not immune/resistant to)

4. How many IMMEDATE threats can potentially be eliminated with this casting.
4.1. Area of the spell
4.2. Damage potential
4.3. Armor penetration potential
(focus on damage/AOE for light armor enemies)

5.Consider fatigue impact. By this I mean you can come up with a fatigue to damage potential ratio.... The most efficient spell should be used.
Discount any spell that will make me go unconcious.

6. Will friendlies be hurt?

This is where things start getting recursive; and very difficult to weight. I don't envy your task at all http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

7. Will the potential number of surviving enemies attacking me be capable of killing me next round?
7.1 Can I remove myself from danger without fleeing the battle? (hard to calculate I guess)
7.2 Can I protect myself from the ensuing potential damage?

8. Can I cast 2 spells a turn? Can I augment my abilities before considering which offensive spell to cast?

Thanks for reading, considering and communicating with your customers.

[ January 27, 2004, 17:06: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ]

IKerensky

January 27th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Johan, did idea of a spellbook list went into developpers ?

What was the pros/cons against it ?

I think it could probably solve 9 out of 10 problems with the current casting as you can easily switch you caster spell selection considering the opposition expected and avoid many of the IA mistake....

Any luck of it making way into Dom III ?

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 07:08 PM

>Originally posted by Arryn:
>In order ...

>--Are the troops I am about to target immune to this type of spell damage?
(if the target is immune, there is no point to casting the spell)

The AI does not use spells that the enemies are immune to. Anyhting suggesting otherwise might be a bug and should be reported.

>--how much will this spell fatigue me? will I go unconcious if I cast this spell.
(if the caster is in imminent danger, making the situation more dire is a bad idea)

The AI casts less exhaustive spells if nearly unconscious, but it follows your script, unless there is strong reason not to (immune enemies, out of range etc). The issue of following scripts is a difficult one. Players dislike when the AI overrides scripting, but also dislike when the AI follows their orders and cast spells that inevitably will damage friends.

>--Will it hurt me if I am in the AOE of the spell?
(only consider hurting self if you can destroy appreciable numbers of foes, I'll leave it to others to argue over what's 'appreciable')

Not sure to what extent this is calculated.

>--How many friendlies will be hurt by this spell?
(never cause more than, say, 1/4 remaining damage to friendlies unless you are assured of victory by wiping out the opposition. no one enjoys pyrrhic victories)

In one spell? What is assured victory?

>--Number of targets hurting me
(if you are being hit by six enemies, casting a spell that only hurts one of them, and won't even kill that one, is silly)
>--How many of the attacking enemey troops will I hit with this spell.
(see earlier comments)
>--Armor of troops attacking me
>--Is the spell I am about to use more efficient at damaging or penetrating armor.

The AI sums up the probable dmg dealt to the enemies and this includes dmg, penetration, targets, distance etc. Targets close by are more likely to be targeted as they ar percieved as possible threats.

I rephrase my question. Which of the above do you believe the AI doesn't give enough importance.
Every possible spell is given a 'preference factor' when a mage is about to cast a spell (this is what takes time during battle replays if you have done a great deal of research). The spell and target with the highest 'preference factor' is cast.
So which of the criteria is not given enough influence on the 'preference factor' of a spell. What kind of spells are cast too much or too little and under what circumstances?

Strages Sanctus

January 27th, 2004, 07:17 PM

The biggest issue then as far as my experiences go is that the mages can and do hurt themselves more than their attackers are, in the process of eliminating their attackers.

The next issue would be they favour defense over offense (which is being dealt with in next patch). You should always aim to eliminate your enemies, thus making defense unecessary.

Quickness should always be the first thing cast if available and not scripted already.

IMHO the player spell tools should NOT be made more powerful without making the AI smarter too. This would unbalance SP games immensely and favour magic too much. Improving the weightings of the AI routines would be enough.

SIDE NOTE: Why don't archers have a hold and fire routine available? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ January 27, 2004, 17:18: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ]

Psitticine

January 27th, 2004, 07:19 PM

The only "problem spell" I seem to encounter is Breath of Winter. My Water Mages often freeze out their bodyguards and other nearby units by casting it when their script isn't right for the occasion.

I think a check should be made for that sort of situation: abort a defensive spell if other friendly units are too close.

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Strages Sanctus:

SIDE NOTE: Why don't archers have a hold and fire routine available? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It was boring to make, but it is likely to appear in the 2.07 patch.

Strages Sanctus

January 27th, 2004, 07:25 PM

Three cheers for K.O and co. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Psitticine:
The only "problem spell" I seem to encounter is Breath of Winter. My Water Mages often freeze out their bodyguards and other nearby units by casting it when their script isn't right for the occasion.

I think a check should be made for that sort of situation: abort a defensive spell if other friendly units are too close. Breath of Winter is a problematic spell as it is both defensive and passivly offensive (Soul Vortex is another). AOE makes it even more difficult as it can be rather large and random. Script mages and place them prudently.

Other option: Should BoW be a spell never or rarely cast unless scripted?

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Strages Sanctus:

SIDE NOTE: Why don't archers have a hold and fire routine available? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It was boring to make, but it is likely to appear in the 2.07 patch. <hr /></blockquote>THANK YOU!!!

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
Other option: Should BoW be a spell never or rarely cast unless scripted? Precisely. I have never seen a single example of the AI casting this spell when it would do any good and many times when it will be harmful.

As Strages Sanctus mentioned, Quickness should be the very first spell the AI tries to cast, when going down its list of available spells, unless the spell is already in effect or scripted.

January 27th, 2004, 07:39 PM

The AI should only cast Breath of Winter if scripted. Put a little note beside the spell description if you need to. A player can script his pretender to cast it, if it's important for it to be cast.

This of course will limit the Death 9 reanimation for no-upkeep units, but it will also save anyone near a mage with 2+ in Water.

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:

As Strages Sanctus mentioned, Quickness should be the very first spell the AI tries to cast, when going down its list of available spells, unless the spell is already in effect or scripted. It is. Not 100% but rather likely. OTOH if there is a flying elephant on the battle field you would probably prefer Souls Slay to quickness that first round of battle.

Also, if you consider Frozen Heart 30 Fat. If you cast quickness you will get one less casting of the Frozen heart before falling unconscious. Lvl 1 and to some extent lvl 2 mages are rarely helped by quickness.

Psitticine

January 27th, 2004, 07:57 PM

I agree with Zen and Arryn: BoW should only be cast when scripted. I can't recall ever getting an enemy with it and have lost track of how many friendlies have been frozen over.

I wouldn't want Quickness cast all the time though. There are too many times when I would want something else first, such as establish a Communion to ease the fatigue load.

Strages Sanctus

January 27th, 2004, 07:58 PM

Hmm the flying elephant type dealie is a good point.

Also I was definitely thinking of higher powered mages when I said that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif .

This just goes to show how complex the task is. Things which seem clear cut aren't always so.

Edit: Also I am talking about non-scripted mages. They should give Quickness a very heavy bias over anything but imminent destruction aVersion, making quickness a moot point.

I would definitely imagine that setting up communion would be a very complex AI consideration and that it would not value that as an option very highly.

[ January 27, 2004, 18:01: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ]

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Psitticine:
I agree with Zen and Arryn: BoW should only be cast when scripted. I can't recall ever getting an enemy with it and have lost track of how many friendlies have been frozen over.
Blue Version of Dragon - BoW - attack rear.
Niefeljarl - Quickness - BoW - attack
Bog Mummy - likewise with Soul Vortex and/or BoW

Works very good!

Arryn

January 27th, 2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Psitticine:
I agree with Zen and Arryn: BoW should only be cast when scripted. I can't recall ever getting an enemy with it and have lost track of how many friendlies have been frozen over.
Blue Version of Dragon - BoW - attack rear.
Niefeljarl - Quickness - BoW - attack
Bog Mummy - likewise with Soul Vortex and/or BoW

Works very good! <hr /></blockquote>Okay, you've a good point. Now consider the same situation with mixed water-based and blood-based magics. Methinks the summoned devils won't much like the BoW effects.

As others have suggested, perhaps modifying the cast list with checkboxes so that you can limit what spells the AI has to choose from might make most people happy. I can imagine this may be a fair amount of coding work, but I think it'll solve a lot of issues people have been griping about.

January 27th, 2004, 08:21 PM

Yes, but as you can see it is very specific in what you want to do http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Don't forget Ice Devil

Quickness > BoW > Attack and other various spells.

The BoW spell should only be cast if the unit is melee combat friendly and only right before it charges into combat.

If this is too complex to script, turn it off. I'd rather have to take special consideration for every Combatant Caster than have to with every 2+ Water mage A.) Spread out and ignore any bodyguards (if any) B.) Fatigue out the caster so he is less likely to cast BoW.

This really isn't much of an issue except when battles progress a while and the AI gets confused on what to cast, you have a communion or you cluster your mages (to take advantage of spells like Luck/Body Ethereal), but it is a significant disadvantage of the AI as it wastes the fatigue and spell casting time by doing it.

Pocus

January 27th, 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by IKerensky:
Johan, did idea of a spellbook list went into developpers ?

What was the pros/cons against it ?

I think it could probably solve 9 out of 10 problems with the current casting as you can easily switch you caster spell selection considering the opposition expected and avoid many of the IA mistake....

Any luck of it making way into Dom III ? you mean a spellbook for each mage? This would be MM hell.
Just add a final order 'cast spell xxx each round', and most vets here will be happy!

Pocus

January 27th, 2004, 08:51 PM

there is a buggy behavior though, that is rather annoying, and detrimental for scenarios settings too: leaders which are dual fighter/mage has a too strong tendency of fatiguating themselves in casting spells before engaging in melee. For example research some spells, and let an archdevil engage in battle. He will cast up to 90+ fatigue pts before thinking of either fighting, or resting a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kristoffer O

January 27th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
there is a buggy behavior though, that is rather annoying, and detrimental for scenarios settings too: leaders which are dual fighter/mage has a too strong tendency of fatiguating themselves in casting spells before engaging in melee. For example research some spells, and let an archdevil engage in battle. He will cast up to 90+ fatigue pts before thinking of either fighting, or resting a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I believe that it is your fault http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif . IIRC mages will not attack unless told to. If the arch devil is tired and then attacks you are to blame.

PDF

January 27th, 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
...
Just add a final order 'cast spell xxx each round', and most vets here will be happy! If an option could be made to repeat every order X times (hold, attack, fire, cast spell..) it'll be even more cool ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Coffeedragon

January 27th, 2004, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
As others have suggested, perhaps modifying the cast list with checkboxes so that you can limit what spells the AI has to choose from might make most people happy. I can imagine this may be a fair amount of coding work, but I think it'll solve a lot of issues people have been griping about. There is something to this. Currently the only way to prohibit certain spells to your Mages is to avoid that line of Research entirely. This is not ideal.

Coffeedragon

January 27th, 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Pocus:
you mean a spellbook for each mage? This would be MM hell.
I think he meant one spellbook that is the same for *all* Mages. (A yes/no flag for any battlefield spell researched if it should be used by your Mages or not.)

Coffeedragon

January 27th, 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by PDF:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
...
Just add a final order 'cast spell xxx each round', and most vets here will be happy! If an option could be made to repeat every order X times (hold, attack, fire, cast spell..) it'll be even more cool ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Too much control. I actually like that you have to work with limited options.

But there should be an option to globally "gray out" spells that you want your Mages never to use.

Pocus

January 27th, 2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
there is a buggy behavior though, that is rather annoying, and detrimental for scenarios settings too: leaders which are dual fighter/mage has a too strong tendency of fatiguating themselves in casting spells before engaging in melee. For example research some spells, and let an archdevil engage in battle. He will cast up to 90+ fatigue pts before thinking of either fighting, or resting a while http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I believe that it is your fault http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif . IIRC mages will not attack unless told to. If the arch devil is tired and then attacks you are to blame. <hr /></blockquote>mmmh, I was speaking of indeps (so my reference to scenarios), or AI units which are not scripted too. AI should have a max fatigue limit depending on how melee-able is the caster.

edit : a max fatigue level that the AI strives to not pass.

[ January 27, 2004, 21:12: Message edited by: Pocus ]

Kjeld

January 27th, 2004, 11:54 PM

What I would like is the same (with some adaptations of course, like removing spellcasting, obviously, and adding a fire "single round command" on the topmost list) orders screen for units as the one for commanders.

It will use already existing implemented UI/mechanics, and alleviate a lot of problems commonly mentioned.

It will help against firendly fire (you could script your bow troops to fire-fire-fire then hide behind other troops). It will give value and flexibility to dual weapon types troops (light infantry/cavalry/poison spitters), with orders like hold-hold-fire-fire then attack closest.
It will also help "coordinate" flankers (very fast and flying units attacking without support even with hold and attacks) with slower units. Exemple : your huscarls could be set to attack closest, your vans could be hold-hold-attack rearmost, and your valkyries could be set to hold-hold-hold-hold-attack rearmost (just examples, not sure how it would work out in reality http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ).

Aikamun

January 28th, 2004, 12:06 AM

Also, tactics designed to exploit the tactical combat ai should be squashed. One example I read was to attack a large army with a force of only hydras. When the hydras routed(which was planned) they would leave a trail of poison into which the enemy army would run. This evidently results in a VERY positive kill:loss ratio. Maybe, this is part of the reason Pythium is considered overpowered. I would be very disappointed if these types of engine exploits were used in a multi-player game.

Aikamun

January 28th, 2004, 12:14 AM

That is an expensive and slow way. The more prevelant and exploitive way of using the AI is against indeps (for early expansion). Their Archers/xbows/missile units are all set to fire closest. Thus you can leave a single unit with a shield in front of a mass line of archers. Most of the time if you have a decent archer brigade, the lone shield bearing lamb will surive due to the spread of arrowfire, while you incure no losses and most indeps break before they get to your line.

Another is that all normal fighting troops are on attack closest (as far as I can tell, I've never had anyone attack a flank that didn't engage them first). So you can exploit it in that fashion with spells, retreating options, etc.

Side Note: Nearly all Indeps (with the exception of some Amber Tritons, Amazonians) have only normal priests for their morale support. So you can easily use fear to cause routs without worrying about any losses.

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Kjeld:
What I would like is the same (with some adaptations of course, like removing spellcasting, obviously, and adding a fire "single round command" on the topmost list) orders screen for units as the one for commanders.
Not sure if units should really be as flexible as commanders.

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Aikamun:
One example I read was to attack a large army with a force of only hydras. When the hydras routed(which was planned) they would leave a trail of poison into which the enemy army would run. This evidently results in a VERY positive kill:loss ratio. Maybe, this is part of the reason Pythium is considered overpowered. I would be very disappointed if these types of engine exploits were used in a multi-player game.
Engine exploit? Are you sure this wouldn�t work in real life? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I think this is cute Hydra tactics, rather than an exploit. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Zen:
The more prevelant and exploitive way of using the AI is against indeps (for early expansion). Their Archers/xbows/missile units are all set to fire closest. Thus you can leave a single unit with a shield in front of a mass line of archers. Most of the time if you have a decent archer brigade, the lone shield bearing lamb will surive due to the spread of arrowfire, while you incure no losses and most indeps break before they get to your line.

Another is that all normal fighting troops are on attack closest (as far as I can tell, I've never had anyone attack a flank that didn't engage them first). So you can exploit it in that fashion with spells, retreating options, etc.
I haven�t really noticed that yet. But if it is so, perhaps the Indies could be added some tactical scripting?

OG_Gleep

January 28th, 2004, 02:08 AM

The spellbook idea, or any sort of implementation that would allow control of what spells are allowed to be cast would be great.

Also just a chime in on what Jonas said earlier. Every forum I visit is full of people that submit bugs which are really just mistakes or misunderstanding on the their part. In almost all cases I am aware of, in order to fix a bug the developer must be able to replicate it.

Just my 2 cents.

tinkthank

January 28th, 2004, 02:20 AM

This game could be so good, and it really had me intruiged for the 2-3 weeks I have had the demo. It is so intricate and clever. But I think two things are keeping me from buying it (well besides the price). What do you think?

First, they put so much effort into developing this amazing magic system (and item system), but when it comes to battles where they are implemented, the automated AI just ruins it. Sure you can say "cast specific spell" up to five times, and although that is not always a good idea (since you dont know exactly what will be going on), it helps -- but then the computer takes over and you get your super duper pretender casting the same ridiculous (non-stacking!) spells on himself over and over until he drops from fatigue instead of doing anything different. It's a shame, because the magic system just looks so good.

And maybe this is different in the full Version, but I have had a number of bizarre bugs where my commanders will just dissapear. I don't mean die, or get discovered, or unable to retreat to a friendly province -- they are just gone without a message.

I dont see any clues about upcoming patches or even indicating that there are things that need addressing on illwinter.com or here -- that is too bad also. Or is the full Version so different?

PvK

January 28th, 2004, 02:29 AM

Overall, the AI is very impressive, considering the huge amount of complexity in the game!

Suggested improvement for blood mages: Don't be so eager to kill all the blood slaves without a good reason. I have a Mictlani Prophet who is scripted to cast Smite five times. If we have blood slaves, though, he kills off all the slaves during the battle casting things which may be helpful, but I'd rather keep the blood slaves, especially when Smite is available for zero cost.

Similarly, conserving gems should be a factor.

I have seen multi-casting self-defense spells, but only rarely. One cause of stupid spellcasting is when the caster doesn't have many choices (low research). I'd suggest the AI should value resting higher than casting ineffective spells.

I think the body count for fire flies and stone shards is extremely low, and mostly friendly casualties rather than enemies. Missile & spell fire should be a bit less dispersed, and of course, the friendly fire risk needs to be weighed about 100 times more important than it currently is - killing your own men should be very very rare, rather than currently very common.

Probably the spellcasting AI should consider desperation - that is, compare the strength of both sides, and whether the spellcaster himself is currently at risk, and above all, whether the spell would risk own casualties, and then decide whether it makes sense to risk own units, or use gems or blood slaves, or even fatigue. (When the enemy is running away, it's probably a really bad time to massacre blood slaves to fling a badly-aimed magma bolt, etc.)

PvK

johan osterman

January 28th, 2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by tinkthank:
This game could be so good, and it really had me intruiged for the 2-3 weeks I have had the demo. It is so intricate and clever. But I think two things are keeping me from buying it (well besides the price). What do you think?

First, they put so much effort into developing this amazing magic system (and item system), but when it comes to battles where they are implemented, the automated AI just ruins it. Sure you can say "cast specific spell" up to five times, and although that is not always a good idea (since you dont know exactly what will be going on), it helps -- but then the computer takes over and you get your super duper pretender casting the same ridiculous (non-stacking!) spells on himself over and over until he drops from fatigue instead of doing anything different. It's a shame, because the magic system just looks so good.

And maybe this is different in the full Version, but I have had a number of bizarre bugs where my commanders will just dissapear. I don't mean die, or get discovered, or unable to retreat to a friendly province -- they are just gone without a message.

I dont see any clues about upcoming patches or even indicating that there are things that need addressing on illwinter.com or here -- that is too bad also. Or is the full Version so different? As far as I know you are the first person complaining about the computer casting the same non stackable spell on himself over and over again, so I am a little curious what spell he was casting.

On your second part, under what circmustances did this transpire? Was it commanders dissappearing after a battle? Or when they were home researching?

Graeme Dice

January 28th, 2004, 02:43 AM

One thing I would like to see is that if a blood mage has slaves, and is near 100 fatigue, that they would be more likely to cast reinvigoration. This should be made even more likely if the mage is a sabbath master/slave and the slaves/masters have high fatigue levels. Of course, this might make the spell too useful, but as it stands, the mages seem to ignore it if not scripted, and fatigue themselves casting an extra summon imp instead of imp/reinvig/imp/reinvig, etc.

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by PvK:

Similarly, conserving gems should be a factor.
Agree. The Mages should think twice before they waste my valuable gems.

Originally posted by PvK:

Missile & spell fire should be a bit less dispersed, and of course, the friendly fire risk needs to be weighed about 100 times more important than it currently is - killing your own men should be very very rare, rather than currently very common.
Disagree. Heavy losses due to friendly fire are rare in my games, and in the few cases when they do happen, they are plausible.

velk

January 28th, 2004, 02:45 AM

A cast (no gems) command would be nice also, although the spell list elimination option other people suggested would probably fix that too.

It's a big annoyance for me when I have a weak fire mage with a huge bunch of archers, script him to cast flaming arrows and then a few other spells and during long battles he runs over his script finds he has an inventory full of fire gems and begins gleefully using them all on spells that have little or no impact. Then of course next fight starts, he has none left and the army power is halved immediately.

Targa

January 28th, 2004, 02:46 AM

Well, the concept behind the battles (besides making PbEM games possible) is that you really do have no control over what an army or a commander does while "in the field". Sure, you can tell him ahead of time what you'd like him to do, as well as his troops, but when the chaos ensues, all hell breaks loose and things don't always go as planned. Think of it this way...in a real war, the Commander-in-Chief (U.S. President) doesn't micromanage the commanders and troops on the battlefield.

I do agree with one thing though:
but then the computer takes over and you get your super duper pretender casting the same ridiculous (non-stacking!) spells on himself over and over until he drops from fatigue instead of doing anything different There's nothing more annoying than fielding a powerful spellcaster with your army, only to see him sit way behind the troops casting things like "flame shield", "air shield", "bark skin", etc... on himself rather than casting offensive spells. I once saw a caster cast "flame shield" on himself throughout the entire battle. This could definitely use some work, IMO.

tinkthank

January 28th, 2004, 02:50 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pillin:
Top of my head request would be a way to disable available spells for combat. So that if you dont want your mage to cast the panic spell, you disable that one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS WOULD BE GREAT !
I hate watching my mages cast etheral shield or fire shield when all enemy units are retreating off the field.

 AI: better usage of spells (e.g. not casting Iron Warrios on *yourself* after casting Invulnerability; not casting Barkskin four times in a row; not casting precision-boosting spells on melee friends, etc. etc.)
 - better control over spellcasting (such as dividing spells into offensive, defensive, etc., or even individual ones, and being able to exclude ones you don't want to be cast; or a longer script list, e.g.)to lessen friendly fire and unnecessary protective spell casting
 AI problems. I have seen my pretender cast Body Ethereal six consecutive times, despite having a very nice choice of other spells that it could have cast instead.
 It is ridiculous, I have a pretender that basically goes into battle alone and takes out 250+ armies without breaking a sweat. The only time she has died has been to her casting magma eruption at such a close range she hurts herself, this drops her mistform, which instead of casting again, she casts magma eruption again to kill 3 or 4 useless enemy militia standing next to her. This process basically means she commits suicide when she could instead be casting much better spells.

It actually turned me off the game when this happened and I have been enjoying it immensely.

[ January 20, 2004, 15:43: Message edited by: Strages Sanctus ] Protection does not stack; once Mass Protection has been cast, Barkskin / Protection are pointless unless additional units have been gained by summons, charm / enslavement etc.
I'd be happy if the spell AI would refrain from committing pointless fraticides, such as casting Breath of Winter when surrounded by hordes of non-cold-immune friendlies, or casting Protection on friendlies surrounded by heat-aura folks.

--------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night These are just a few of what some others had written, so I cant be the first one.

I remember "Barksking" "Strength of Gaia" "Blessing" and a few other being cast over and over on myself despite lots of other nice choices.

And my commanders dissapeared after a battle -- watched the battle, waiting for them to die, but no, they survived nicely.

PvK

January 28th, 2004, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Coffeedragon:
... Disagree. Heavy losses due to friendly fire are rare in my games, and in the few cases when they do happen, they are plausible. Please send me your Version of the EXE, then! At first I thought to offer you money for it, but then I thought it would be more persuasive to threaten you with casting a special Version of Vengeance of the Dead, which summons the ghosts of everyone killed by friendly fire - thousands of them, including many great heroes.

Just kidding. Except I really have lost heroes, very many troops, and have seen too many battles where the archers killed more of their own than of the enemy.

It depends, I guess, on how much attention you pay, which units you use, etc., but I've seen way to many cases of friendly fire (mainly from archers rather than spells, though).

PvK

PvK

January 28th, 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by velk:
A cast (no gems) command would be nice also, although the spell list elimination option other people suggested would probably fix that too.

It's a big annoyance for me when I have a weak fire mage with a huge bunch of archers, script him to cast flaming arrows and then a few other spells and during long battles he runs over his script finds he has an inventory full of fire gems and begins gleefully using them all on spells that have little or no impact. Then of course next fight starts, he has none left and the army power is halved immediately. Amen. One tip is to have someone like a scout or non-fire mage carry a gem supply, and only give one to the guy who is supposed to cast Fire Arrows.

Sadly, with blood slaves, I think casters can go kill each other's slaves (? not sure). I guess I could give them to scouts and have the scouts hide out with the blood slaves during battle! (I just need to be sure to use gay or eunich scouts for that... hmm - new random event idea: if ( Leader.IsMale() && Leader.HasBloodSlaves() ) ... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).

PvK

Aikamun

January 28th, 2004, 10:56 AM

Speaking of Breath of Winter, my Pretender just killed his Prophet, mystic, and three battle wounded infantry with this spell. Maybe they should be smart enough to move out of the area of effect.
I will now disperse all casters to avoid killing other casters. They will now be very exposed to rear attacks without their mutual support. I already leave archers unsupported (no troops to their front) to minimize friendly fire. I have much better results with javelins, rather than crossbows.

Aikamun

Kristoffer O

January 28th, 2004, 06:00 PM

The AI spends gems to stay conscious (increased skill reduces fatigue). At most other times it is rather restrictive.

Kristoffer O

January 28th, 2004, 06:02 PM

There is no resting. Only unconscious units regain fatigue.

* Edit: Answer to PvK on mages that should rest. *

[ January 28, 2004, 16:03: Message edited by: Kristoffer O ]

Arryn

January 28th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There is no resting. Only unconscious units regain fatigue.Then resting should be added to the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by PvK:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Coffeedragon:
... Disagree. Heavy losses due to friendly fire are rare in my games, and in the few cases when they do happen, they are plausible. Please send me your Version of the EXE, then! At first I thought to offer you money for it, but then I thought it would be more persuasive to threaten you with casting a special Version of Vengeance of the Dead, which summons the ghosts of everyone killed by friendly fire - thousands of them, including many great heroes.
<hr /></blockquote>http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Lol. I know it does happen. I once lost 2 out of 3 Wyverns (my strongest units at that point) to my own Longbows. However, it was my fault! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

If you pay very close attention to the battle setup (as you should), you can mimimize ff losses. I like that the game forces you to do that.

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Aikamun:
I will now disperse all casters to avoid killing other casters. Dispersing Leaders is good policy, and should be (=>realism; area effect spells).

Taqwus

January 28th, 2004, 07:03 PM

Heh. The most eye-rolling friendly fire I've had was once in Dom I where a "friendly" air mage of mine, which had in his script "Thunder Ward / Wrathful Skies", forgot the first part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif !
In Dom II, I once sent a druid to his death single-handedly attacking an enemy stronghold as punishment for casting protection on one of my Abysian warlocks and thus killing him.

Coffeedragon

January 28th, 2004, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There is no resting. Only unconscious units regain fatigue.Then resting should be added to the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>On this I agree. A nap is cheaper than a Gem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

IKerensky

January 28th, 2004, 07:19 PM

BTW forgetting his spelllist is a far too common habit of my abyssia mage.. wich is quite a problem as my army is my mages.... ( 6 of them, with a W9/E4/A4/F1 pretender if you see what I mean http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

As my Prophet start his list by a Divine Blessing ( and BTW always cast Last after even the puniest mage.. strange for my better wizard ... ) that quicken everyone he immediatly alter his listing by casting another divine spell then every mages cast at random from their book....

Seems to be entirely related to the quicken effect and the fact that yo ucan choose only 1 spell by turn and not 2...

Hopefully I can clena the problem by only having evoc and thauma researched... But you understand why I would love to be able to restrain the book of my mages. By round 3 I am out of list... but usually Indies are on the run already...

Master Shake

January 28th, 2004, 08:29 PM

I think the AI command of spell casting works very well. Of course there are battles where I scream at a mage for casting an inapprorpiate spell, but in fact minimizing these can be mastered by unit setup and spell scripting.

My first experiences with spell casting were like those of the original poster watching mages cast a whole series of self-buffs. However, this is easy to avoid if one picks the top spells to cast and scripts them.

Say you have a level 4 fire mage: Flame arrows, phoenix power, falling fires, falling fires, falling fires. The mage will be unconscious before getting through this list, and the battle likely over before he can cast many fire shields.

Also, I treat my mages and gems like my son with cookies - if I want him to eat one cookie, I only give him one.

That said, two options would be really nice:

1. Some sort of option at the end of the 5 spell scripting that ordered continued spell casting without the use of gems.

2. (more complicated and less important) A mater list of spells you don't want any of your mages every casting (e.g., I hate Beserk - it always seems to land of other mages who charge and fight to the death).

NTJedi

January 28th, 2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by diamondspider:
I love the idea of a "don't cast" list.

I definitely agree ! This would be so helpful!

Right now I don't give any of my death mages the death gems because I fear they may cast that Summon Lammashatas spell.

johan osterman

January 28th, 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
There is no resting. Only unconscious units regain fatigue.Then resting should be added to the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr /></blockquote>There is no napping on the battlefields. There was a time in dom 1 beta when units not in combat recovered fatigue, it was removed because it didn't work out very well, it didn't 'stack' in a good way with certain spells and effects.

Arryn

January 28th, 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by johan osterman:
There is no napping on the battlefields. There was a time in dom 1 beta when units not in combat recovered fatigue, it was removed because it didn't work out very well, it didn't 'stack' in a good way with certain spells and effects. I hate to beat on this poor, abused, dying horse but can you go into a bit more detail on this? It doesn't make much sense that having at least some fatigue recovery by idle, yet conscious, mages would fail to work well in the system. An example or two of what you found during testing might help us to understand the issue better and get us to shut up about it all the sooner (so you can deal with other issues). Or some of the brighter players around here might come up with a solution that wasn't thought of the first time around. Hey, it can happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

johan osterman

January 29th, 2004, 12:45 AM

Well it was 4 or 5 years or so ago it was removed, it had to do with fatigue effects from spells heat auras etc. and how they balanced or did not balance with the various fatigue systems, so I do not remember the specifics, meaning you'll have to trust us on this issue. Frankly I at least don't think there is any problem with the current system to begin with and introducing fatigue recovery could result in new unforseen problems as well as the old problems with balancing fatigue effects, and even if you were to convince me, and more importantly Kristoffer, that changing the system again were a good idea your chances of convincing JK to implement this at this stage are less than miniscule. So you'll have to make do with what you have.