Enhancement I would like to see

[Endoperez]

This has been suggested before, multiple times, and if something is going to happen it probably would already have. Besides, if the spellcasting AI was perfect the game would be more biased towards spellcasters. They are pretty powerful as it is, and can wreak havoc even as they are ATM.

I leave it to the devs to decide if they want to add this, but I don't think they will and would not become depressed just because my mages are not under my full control.

[NTJedi]

I leave it to the devs to decide if they want to add this, but I don't think they will and would not become depressed just because my mages are not under my full control.

You are most likely correct.
This is a good idea... yet the programming and beta-testing involved makes this more of a feature request for Dom_3. The biggest improvement the game needs is improving the AI for computer opponents.

[Schmoe]

NTJedi said:

This is a good idea... yet the programming and beta-testing involved makes this more of a feature request for Dom_3. The biggest improvement the game needs is improving the AI for computer opponents.

Hmm, I guess it depends on how much code re-use they would be able to use when implementing it. If it requires only a little new code, then I"m not sure it would take a lot of testing. If it requires a significant chunk of new code, then you're probably right.

As for the AI improvements, I wouldn't hold my breath. I've taken a few AI courses, and it's very challenging code with a lot of potential for things to go wrong. Talk about heavy beta testing requirements! But I'm happy with the AI as is, because the wonderful MP completely replaces the need for competent AI, and I enjoy "sandboxing" against the existing AI.

[Vicious Love]

I really can't imagine this solution being all that code-intensive, nor can I see just adding four or five slots to the queue becoming a programming nightmare.
Methinks the devs are just loathe to give life to a new breed of SC.
Which is not to say I don't support the suggestion, personally.

[Huzurdaddi]

I've read a lot of the threads about suggestions for improvements, and I honestly don't remember this particular enhancement being mentioned.

I've asked for it. I'm usually a bit upset when I ask for it, since my impetus is usually losing a big battle due to this feature not being implemented.

Anyway it would clearly be a good feature and it has the bonus of being pretty simple to implement ( at least I would wager that it would be simple ).

As for the person that said that instead of doing this they should work on AI, that's silly. They are entirely different tasks in terms of scope. Improvince the AI would take a considerable amount of time, while this would take much less, perhaps just one day.

Oh and if this is even done, please nerf False Horror at the same time, thanks!

[Endoperez]

to Schmoe: Well, this "repeated cast"-order has mostly been mentioned in discussions about AI improvements, but it might not have been in the general improvement threads... However, if someone mentioned new orders continuous casting came up.
It was also on this hilarious "picture of DomIII order screen" TunaFish made with simple graphics program and some copy-pasting...

to Gandalf: Well, I thought to mention modding commands that were requested many times but about which the devs didn't say too much, and then released them as a surprise for most people in the forums. The Ways of the Illwinter are Many, and they just might be working on something we have already forgotten we asked about... BTW, should I bump "The Wishlist"?

[Gandalf Parker]

Endoperez said:
to Gandalf: Well, I thought to mention modding commands that were requested many times but about which the devs didn't say too much, and then released them as a surprise for most people in the forums. The Ways of the Illwinter are Many, and they just might be working on something we have already forgotten we asked about... BTW, should I bump "The Wishlist"?

Modding commands seem to be a favorite of JohanK which rather surprises me since its kindof in the area of a programmer creating ways for the Users to "invade" his territory. I wouldnt be too put-out by his lack of commentary. He is the programmer and Kristoffer is the teacher. Most programmers I know tend to answer things in forums rarely and even then with half-a-sentence. You might have to use the search to find Illwinters answer on things but its often there. It just gets buried under waves of commentary which do nothing to change the original answer.

As to the "wishlist" I would love to see it bumped. Someone (I forget who) was maintaining it. It would be very helpful to everyone if someone would edit it into a short-list with links to the threads of discussions. An unbiased please-and-thankyou list which would make the devs WANT to check it. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon43.gif[/img]

[Huzurdaddi]

Bump ... Bump ... Bump.

As a developer I happen to love this idea. Low implementaion cost, high impact to game play. What's not to like!

[Gandalf Parker]

Endoperez said:
This has been suggested before, multiple times, and if something is going to happen it probably would already have.

I wouldnt say that. MANY things have been suggested that have gone on some level of a to-do list. The patches have included about one-change-a-day which isnt bad for someone not doing it fulltime (that wouldnt be bad for alot of fulltimers). So I wouldnt write-off something that hasnt shown up as never showing up IMHO. As long as you dont try to put it in a "this is the single most important thing they can do" Category then you probably wont be disappointed. JohanK and KristofferO both appear to have obvious preferences as to what gets worked on first.

[Schmoe]

Endoperez said:
This has been suggested before, multiple times, and if something is going to happen it probably would already have. Besides, if the spellcasting AI was perfect the game would be more biased towards spellcasters. They are pretty powerful as it is, and can wreak havoc even as they are ATM.

I've read a lot of the threads about suggestions for improvements, and I honestly don't remember this particular enhancement being mentioned.

Obviously, it is up to the developers to decide what they like and what they don't. I'm not arguing that, and I'm not even suggesting they should like one thing over another. They've said in the past they don't like AI coding, as it is tedious for little reward, and I'm fine with that. I simply thought that this might be something that requires little work on their part that could add a lot to the game. I leave it to developers to decide if it's something that is worth their time to add.

From what I understand, your argument is "Don't prevent the mages from casting worthless crap, as otherwise they will be too effective." On the one hand, I can see that this will make battlefield magic more effective. On the other hand, I'm not sure it was the intention of the game that you only get as many uses out of certain spells as you are able to specifically script, because at the moment that is exactly the situation. Leave a fire/death mage unscripted and see how many times he casts Banefire. Not many, I'll bet. Now, why should you research Banefire? Is it so that you can force 2-5 castings through scripting and then throw the rest to the wind, or is it so that you can actually have mages use the spell throughout the combat?

Looked at from another angle, what is so crucial about having *5* guaranteed spells and the rest random? Maybe mages are too powerful already and there should only be 3 script slots available. Maybe there should be 6. Maybe the decision of 5 script slots was actually fairly arbitrary or completely unrelated to game balance. My opinion is that it was one of the latter two choices.

Anyway, I'm not actually ranting and raving against you, I'm just using your response as a platform to further explain my opinions. Hope you're not offended by that.