Legend of the Invincibles

[Qalar01]

hello, new guy here on the forums in dire need of aid. not even sure I'm making this post correctly or putting it in the right place... anyways, hope you can help. when I'm trying to kill the 4 seal guardians in inferno, they just run away and disappear, or like the one in Grim Port that just vanish into thin air once beaten. e.g the one in the Fortress of Blackened Dreams, when wearing him down to 1hp he runs away into the interior, but once I go in there, he is nowhere to be found, this is the case with each of them, except the one to the northeast which I have yet to pay a visit to, so I don't know the situation with him/her. have I run into a bug or am I doing something seriously wrong?

[Dugi]

It appears to be a serious bug. Investigating it at the moment.

EDIT: It is indeed a showstopper bug added in the latest version. If I understand it correctly, I have removed a part of code I considered no longer needed but had a side effect that was important. The fix will be uploaded soon. I apologise for the inconvenience.

EDIT #2: Uploaded the fix. It's called version 3.1.7b on the 1.10 and 1.11 servers and version 3.1.8 on the 1.12 server (the reason for this is that the changes I've made recently would break some compatibility with 1.10, so I published them only for 1.12). If you were affected by this bug, update it and then simply leaving the seal guardian's hideout and having the boss flee into the hideout again should make him appear there.

[wuxiangjinxing]

A tiny bug in units/demon_infiltrators.cfg, line 463, race=human

[Qalar01]

worked like a charm thank you for the very fast reply and fix stay awesome. also, I love that guy Abaddon great work, best campaign ever made

[Dugi]

A tiny bug in units/demon_infiltrators.cfg, line 463, race=human

Thanks for reporting, fixed (not uploaded yet).

worked like a charm thank you for the very fast reply and fix stay awesome. also, I love that guy Abaddon great work, best campaign ever made

I'm glad that the fix worked for you. Thanks for approval.

[dabber]

Bug? The description of Redeem(11) says it can AoE level 5 half the time, but I have never gotten a level 5 on AoE. I've certainly given it 20 chances, if not 40 or 50. I never got a level 5 AoE redeem with Redeem(10) either, but that is only 25% chance and I tried it a lot less.

The Ring of Unearthly Existence sets damage type to arcane and provides suck 1. But suck only works with physical damage, so that seems a bit odd. Not wrong, it can still be used if you have something else to change damage type to physical, but still odd.

Minor bug. Half God Efraim and Lethalia show a "Soul-Eater" score, but they don't have Soul Eater.

[beshead0]

Ever since I started playing Battle for Wesnoth about three years ago, I always wondered if there was anyone else who really thought units should go higher than level 3. I'm pretty sure I made an extended Drake faction a couple years ago and then lost it... and then I found this campaign!

I really love the advancements and item system, man.

[Dugi]

@dabber
The formula for redeem's AoE is:
Subtract 4 from the level. If it's not a positive number, don't do any AoE.
Divide the result by 2 and round up.
The result is the minimal level for 100% chance of absorption, anything one level higher has a 50% chance, two levels higher has a 25% chance and 0% otherwise.
So if the level is 11, it's (11-4)/2=3.5, round up is 4, means the chance to absorb level 5 is 50%. No error in that number. It also appears that there is no error preventing the AoE absorption of units where the chance to absorb isn't 100%. Are you sure with your data?

The Ring of Unearthly Existence has that effect just for flavour. You're right that it looks odd, I'll think of something else to put there.

Demigods have the soul eater score shown there, it's because they do still have the soul eater score. You're right that they should lose the soul eater score when they lose that ability, because they also lose all the soul eater bonuses, though. Fixed.

@beshead0
There was an era called Ascension where units had some level 4 and level 5 versions, but with no AMLA or new appearances. It was multiplayer only and it was forgotten long ago.

It would be cool if you still had the extended Drakes faction, if I had Drakes, I would have almost all factions complete.

[wuxiangjinxing]

Some suggestions for the antisocial ability:

The current antisocial ability is not so interesting. Simply speaking, if warlock consumes the two amlas to remove the antisocial ability, it will become much weaker than champion/shadowwalker but costs much more experiences. Besides, antisocial is also buggy because it can be overwritten by leadership, despair, etc.

Here's my suggestion of a new antisocial ability: if the unit is not adjacent to any allies, then its damage is boosted by 10%. However, every adjacent allie will cause its damage being decreased by 5%.

I think this shall be a better ability. At least, antisocial usually only hurts yourself, not the society.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm thinking of a new ability: Speed aura. At the begining of each turn, all the adjacent units gain +1 movement points. I think this is a good ability for a new LV4 unit advanced from dwarvish explorer.

[Dugi]

Your suggestion regarding the antisocial ability is reasonable. However, the ability you describe would not represent what antisocial actually is (somebody who is not able to think what will be the future reactions of others depending on his behaviour, and tends to be impulsive, aggressive, deceptive, lawless, etc just because he feels like that as a result, it's the others who will hate him, he does not hate others until they punish him).
I'd rename it to 'loner' to fix the first issue. However, the second is quite a problem. I'll need to contemplate more about the second problem.

That speed aura isn't a bad idea. Easy to code. However, I am not really planning to add a level 4 advancement of dwavish explorer, because you don't need a dwarf scout if you have elves. And I have pretty much no idea how could he look.

[dabber]

The formula for redeem's AoE is:
Are you sure with your data?

Not sure enough for you to look further. I'm sure Efraim tried to AoE a level 5 multiple times with Redeem 10/11 and I'm sure it never worked. But since Lethalia has higher level of Redeem, and has recently been Redeeming A LOT, I may have confused myself.

@ Antisocial
Antisocial is a disadvantage, and one I personally find annoying, so I'd say it does its job.
To me, "antisocial" is a better description of its current affect than "loner". To me, a person that is antisocial hurts the people around them ... the antisocial person isn't (overtly) bothered by their bad behavior, but everyone else is.

Is Warlock really weaker (after removing anti-social) compared to Champion or Shadowalker? Warlock still gets the fireball, which hits magically compared to the other two. Warlock melee attack gets pretty cruddy though, so it would be nice if it didn't decline quite so much (and/or started higher). I admit I'm not really using any of those units now, but I'm currently playing "resistance is everything".


Antisocial reminded me of another comment - Cunctator's Set.
To me, it is the only set where the set abilities are irrelevant. The sword is incredibly awesome by itself, maybe even too good (although see bug below). The Armour is neat, but it does not become significantly more attractive to wear when you have the other parts. If you want Shield and can live with AntiSocial, then you don't care if you use the other Cunctator items. Despair on the Helm is great, but a slight bonus when defending does not make me want to build the set (although see below).
Bug in Cunctator's sword - it hits harder on hard than easy. You wrote {QUANTITY damage -50 -40 -30} but those numbers should be reversed.
Both set advantages on the Helm are to add Careful(5), but those don't stack, so the second one does nothing. Maybe intended, maybe a mistake.


I think Lightbringer's Trident should be weaker on hard. It is clearly the best spear for everything except AoE. I feel like it needs a {QUANTITY damage 50 40 30} on it.

[Dugi]

I didn't mean that I want to rename antisocial to loner, I meant that if it was to change to increase damage if he has no adjacent allies, it should be renamed to loner.

The idea behind the Cunctator's set is that although it's greatly defensive, it damages your offensive abilities a lot. It was meant to be useful in situations where you need to delay combat until you deal with trouble elsewhere. If you insist, maybe it could be a bit weaker. Are you suggesting that it's too good for this role?
By the way, Cunctator was a Roman general famous for delaying tactics (that actually helped him win, although it angered both allies and enemies).

And yeah, those numbers have to be reversed. I am also nerfing Lightbringer's Trident on higher difficulties (50% to attack count remains, damage will be only 20% on hard and 35% on normal).

[dabber]

Not saying Cunctator's is too good (or not good enough), just saying that it doesn't feel like other sets. In other sets, individual items may be good (even really good), but putting together all of the set is clearly advantageous. I think Cunctator's items have a much bigger ratio between individual impact and combined impact. For example, I've been running the sword plus helm on one soldier, armour plus helm on a second soldier, and helm only on a third. And I have extra copies of helm and armour that I'm not using. Other sets I mostly use together (or don't use). Even the Gloomy set, where the cloak and amulet are individually awesome, I re-arrange placement to complete the set on one soldier.
Although I think I have enough other good options I may put all Cunctator's items except the sword into storage.

For example (and this might be too extreme)
Sword only gets explosive slow if used with armour, but gets struggle all the time
Helmet gets careful (5) all the time, but careful (10) with sword. Helmet does not get Despair on its own, but only gets Despair with armour.

[wuxiangjinxing]

A suggestion about the infect weapon speciality:

Personally, I feel that infect is almost the same as posion because waiting for an enemy unit to be poisoned to death is usually a bad choice.

Here's my suggestion: after the motion of an infected untis, all enemies adjacent to the infected victim have a chance to be infected. The chance can be set as 50%-10%*level. As you can see, this is really the meaning of "infect". Let's have a BIOHAZARD.

[Dugi]

@dabber
Why should I try to prevent you from using the set only partially? It just adds more combinations. There's no huge bonus for completing a set (like in Diablo 2, from where I have taken this idea) to remove the need of using a set either entirely or not at all.

@☣wuxiangjinxing
Could be done. An alternative would be to make the infected unit become a zombie on death, regardless if it died from poison or not. What do you say?