In regards to flying units:
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Well a 'fly' ability that raises the defense % versus melee attack on defense makes senses IMHO.
It sound like 'steadfast' but on cth instead of resistances...
This would be used for large flying creatures that can take of kickly.
When they are attacking the defender has the time to retaliate, but when defending they would be harder to hit since they can take off and flee quickly.
For smallers creature like bats this wouldn't apply since in all cases they are already hard to hit in all cases because of their small size.
Typicaly a creature that would use this ability would be the gryphon (but with lower defense than current defenses). Perharps for some drakes we can say that they would be too slow to take off, so they wouldn't have this ability.
With this ability, large flying units would be more vulnerable to archers than to mele units (which seems logical). I this this would be a valuable addition since it would add diversity and make the gryphons a less boring unit.
Of course 'magical' would have precedence..
It wouldn't be hard for me to implement it.
It sound like 'steadfast' but on cth instead of resistances...
This would be used for large flying creatures that can take of kickly.
When they are attacking the defender has the time to retaliate, but when defending they would be harder to hit since they can take off and flee quickly.
For smallers creature like bats this wouldn't apply since in all cases they are already hard to hit in all cases because of their small size.
Typicaly a creature that would use this ability would be the gryphon (but with lower defense than current defenses). Perharps for some drakes we can say that they would be too slow to take off, so they wouldn't have this ability.
With this ability, large flying units would be more vulnerable to archers than to mele units (which seems logical). I this this would be a valuable addition since it would add diversity and make the gryphons a less boring unit.
Of course 'magical' would have precedence..
It wouldn't be hard for me to implement it.
Then the ability name should perhaps be changed to something like "high flyer", otherwise it would be confising to see that gryphons are "flyers" while bats are not.Noyga wrote:For smallers creature like bats this wouldn't apply since in all cases they are already hard to hit in all cases because of their small size.
I have propably never heard the word evasion, so it doesnät sound good to me. For french people it might...Noyga wrote:What about 'evasion' ?
If bats shouldn't get this ability, because of their small size, why don't they have better defense values in the first place? Is it because they arenät considered very bright or what? They are not that stupid bats if they can capture a village anyway. (They are controlled by a necromancer aren't they...)
Well the gryphon defense would be lowered, so it would only be comparable to the bat defense while defending versus melee. Therefore, bats would have better defense at the first place, so they wouldn't need the ability.deserter wrote:If bats shouldn't get this ability, because of their small size, why don't they have better defense values in the first place? Is it because they arenät considered very bright or what? They are not that stupid bats if they can capture a village anyway. (They are controlled by a necromancer aren't they...)
-
Eleazar
- Retired Terrain Art Director
- Posts: 2481
- Joined: July 16th, 2004, 1:47 am
- Location: US Midwest
- Contact:
"Evasion" or "Evasive" is a good English term if we intend to allow this ability to non-flying units. It has to do with dodging or getting out of the way. I could imagine it being also given to some weak, small or ghostly units.
Feel free to PM me if you start a new terrain oriented thread. It's easy for me to miss them among all the other art threads.
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity
-> What i might be working on
Attempting Lucidity
I have doubts about large creatures taking off quickly in Wesnoth (and in reality too) altogether, and they land after their movement. Everyone would need a take-off sprint or time-consuming flapping.This would be used for large flying creatures that can take of kickly.
I think fighting a flying creature would be like fighting cavalry. When attacked in melee, they all try to get a small jump/sprint to charge/lounge at you, trick is in not letting them get their take-off sprint (which could happen after a round of fighting). As Flyers have better defenses than cavalry, i think this is already well represented.
For when they get this take-off sprint (one hex?), i think they, by all means, should have skirmisher in their movement. They would land after movement, and there they could be ZoC'ed. Of course, this would make harder to block them with ZoC, which may be a problem.
Cuyo Quiz,where madness meets me 
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Turn on, tune in, fall out.
"I know that, but every single person nags about how negative turin is; it should be in the FPI thread "Turin should give positive comments" =)"-Neorice,23 Sep 2004
Yeah, I actually agree that a creature like a Gryphon probably shouldn't get this bonus as it would be too big to just suddenly take off...
Bats and my Falcon Shifter unit could possibly have it though - as well as any small bird units (if there are any).
I think the Gryphon is a pretty big target compared to other flyers, so perhaps his defense should be dropped some to be closer to that of drakes. (Say 40%? He could still have 50 or 60% in mountains.)
Bats and my Falcon Shifter unit could possibly have it though - as well as any small bird units (if there are any).
I think the Gryphon is a pretty big target compared to other flyers, so perhaps his defense should be dropped some to be closer to that of drakes. (Say 40%? He could still have 50 or 60% in mountains.)
Firstly let me say that I don't think we should make any changes to flying units just to make things 'more realistic' or 'make sense'.
If we make changes to flying units it should be for gameplay reasons. However, if we make changes to flying units for such gameplay reasons, we should try to make them in a way that 'makes sense' and is 'realistic'.
I think there is currently a problem with some flying units, especially gryphons. The problem is that gryphons don't have enough strategy associated with them. With 50% defense, and consistent resistances it is quite possible for even the best strategy to fail against them -- and it's also possible for the player with gryphons to see them die quickly.
There are very few units you can get that are very powerful against gryphons. Gryphons are also so powerful that they must be priced rather high.
I think it would be interesting if we made it so gryphons had more strengths and weaknesses. I think a way of doing this that 'makes sense' and would also work well for gameplay reasons is to make them particularly weak against archers in particular, and ranged attacks in general.
My proposition in the case of gryphons would be to give them 60% defense against melee attacks, but only 30% defense against ranged attacks. This could be done by use of a 'flying' ability which either gives at least 60% defense vs melee attacks, or it could be a 'negative ability' which gives no more than 30% defense against ranged attacks.
I think the gameplay would be rather interesting: gryphon riders would be a feared and powerful unit, but with a serious vulnerability. They would have to be very careful to avoid powerful ranged units, and would have to use their speed advantage very carefully to ensure they aren't slaughtered.
The basic rationale for all of this is that generally I think 'middle road' units that don't have many strengths or weaknesses aren't nearly as interesting as units that are powerful but have a serious weakness.
David
If we make changes to flying units it should be for gameplay reasons. However, if we make changes to flying units for such gameplay reasons, we should try to make them in a way that 'makes sense' and is 'realistic'.
I think there is currently a problem with some flying units, especially gryphons. The problem is that gryphons don't have enough strategy associated with them. With 50% defense, and consistent resistances it is quite possible for even the best strategy to fail against them -- and it's also possible for the player with gryphons to see them die quickly.
There are very few units you can get that are very powerful against gryphons. Gryphons are also so powerful that they must be priced rather high.
I think it would be interesting if we made it so gryphons had more strengths and weaknesses. I think a way of doing this that 'makes sense' and would also work well for gameplay reasons is to make them particularly weak against archers in particular, and ranged attacks in general.
My proposition in the case of gryphons would be to give them 60% defense against melee attacks, but only 30% defense against ranged attacks. This could be done by use of a 'flying' ability which either gives at least 60% defense vs melee attacks, or it could be a 'negative ability' which gives no more than 30% defense against ranged attacks.
I think the gameplay would be rather interesting: gryphon riders would be a feared and powerful unit, but with a serious vulnerability. They would have to be very careful to avoid powerful ranged units, and would have to use their speed advantage very carefully to ensure they aren't slaughtered.
The basic rationale for all of this is that generally I think 'middle road' units that don't have many strengths or weaknesses aren't nearly as interesting as units that are powerful but have a serious weakness.
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
First time poster here, but there are a couple of things that jumped to mind.
First, if we assume (with the obvious problems of water, etc) that flying units land between turns, then maybe then melee attackers should just be limited to one attack - they can run in, swing once, and -then- the flier takes off. This would, of course, also carry the corresponding penalty of the defending unit only getting one counterattack. I think this is a more interesting strategic element than just "Sorry, you can't hit it with melee"
Second, the other thing is that they shouldn't be "immune" to melee. It should just not be possible to attack them with it. If they get to attack back, then by all rational thought, they have come down enough to be in swiping distance. An alternative might be to givem them First Strike, instead, to show that they are 'swooping down' even on defense. Or, in a much more complicated move, allow the defending player to choose whether his flier wants to swoop down and fight, or whether he just wants to be immune.
This leads me to a third point though - currently, in the game as it stands, it's impossible to "hold" a square and be impregnable against certain units. Sure, that Walking Dead attacking that dwarf in the mountains isn't doing a lot of damage even if it hits, which is unlikely, but there's still the -chance- that damage can be done. Making it impossible for a unit with 1HP to die to any other unit in the game on a "bad" RNG roll seems to me like a pretty severe departure from the way the game works currently, and a bad idea, in my mind. There's also a rational problem here - if that Gryphon is circling at a height of 30 feet or whatever, to keep the knight from skewering it on his lance, what, exactly, is preventing that knight from just merrily galloping under the beast and sticking his lance into the mage in the second rank? After all, the Gryphon isn't blocking him in any way.
Since I think that making enemy units able to move through flying units is probably a headache on many levels, you could loosely simulate this effect by causing "flying" units to have no ZoC - they're up there in the air avoiding damage, so they're not able to inhibit your movement. This would provide a penalty to counterbalance the bonus of being much harder to kill.
The Zone of Control idea brings around a new rationalization, however: In order to control terrain and project their Zone of Control, fliers have to hover/patrol at low altitude in order to keep enemies from just running past/under them.
Which means, if you want to add the "Melee attackers and defenders only get one attack each if the defender is flying" varient for a new strategic element, go ahead, but otherwise, I would suggest no change.
First, if we assume (with the obvious problems of water, etc) that flying units land between turns, then maybe then melee attackers should just be limited to one attack - they can run in, swing once, and -then- the flier takes off. This would, of course, also carry the corresponding penalty of the defending unit only getting one counterattack. I think this is a more interesting strategic element than just "Sorry, you can't hit it with melee"
Second, the other thing is that they shouldn't be "immune" to melee. It should just not be possible to attack them with it. If they get to attack back, then by all rational thought, they have come down enough to be in swiping distance. An alternative might be to givem them First Strike, instead, to show that they are 'swooping down' even on defense. Or, in a much more complicated move, allow the defending player to choose whether his flier wants to swoop down and fight, or whether he just wants to be immune.
This leads me to a third point though - currently, in the game as it stands, it's impossible to "hold" a square and be impregnable against certain units. Sure, that Walking Dead attacking that dwarf in the mountains isn't doing a lot of damage even if it hits, which is unlikely, but there's still the -chance- that damage can be done. Making it impossible for a unit with 1HP to die to any other unit in the game on a "bad" RNG roll seems to me like a pretty severe departure from the way the game works currently, and a bad idea, in my mind. There's also a rational problem here - if that Gryphon is circling at a height of 30 feet or whatever, to keep the knight from skewering it on his lance, what, exactly, is preventing that knight from just merrily galloping under the beast and sticking his lance into the mage in the second rank? After all, the Gryphon isn't blocking him in any way.
Since I think that making enemy units able to move through flying units is probably a headache on many levels, you could loosely simulate this effect by causing "flying" units to have no ZoC - they're up there in the air avoiding damage, so they're not able to inhibit your movement. This would provide a penalty to counterbalance the bonus of being much harder to kill.
The Zone of Control idea brings around a new rationalization, however: In order to control terrain and project their Zone of Control, fliers have to hover/patrol at low altitude in order to keep enemies from just running past/under them.
Which means, if you want to add the "Melee attackers and defenders only get one attack each if the defender is flying" varient for a new strategic element, go ahead, but otherwise, I would suggest no change.
-AHA!!Airk wrote:There's also a rational problem here - if that Gryphon is circling at a height of 30 feet or whatever, to keep the knight from skewering it on his lance, what, exactly, is preventing that knight from just merrily galloping under the beast and sticking his lance into the mage in the second rank? After all, the Gryphon isn't blocking him in any way.
I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle!
Very well done for a first post. And welcome to Wesnoth!
-
Doc Paterson
- Drake Cartographer
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
- Location: Kazakh
- Contact:
Yes. Yes. Exactly.JW wrote:-AHA!!Airk wrote:There's also a rational problem here - if that Gryphon is circling at a height of 30 feet or whatever, to keep the knight from skewering it on his lance, what, exactly, is preventing that knight from just merrily galloping under the beast and sticking his lance into the mage in the second rank? After all, the Gryphon isn't blocking him in any way.
I think this is the missing piece of the puzzle!
Please, let's not continue to heap complicated solutions onto this.....
I really, truly believe that there is no problem whatsoever with the current flying unit game mechanics.
More specifically, it's also my opinion that the gryphon has been perfect since the recent changes (if you accept that it was extremely overpowered before, you'll likely not agree with this). I'd be fine if it gained another weakness (to pierce for example), but I don't think that it'd be very necessary. Making it easy to hit with ranged attacks would be interesting for gameplay purposes, but really does strike me as an unneeded construct, overly complicating and unrealistic (though realism is a minor concern), given the high speeds at which it moves.
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses. -Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses. -Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme