Internet Meme Era v 0.0.8

It's not easy creating an entire faction or era. Post your work and collaborate in this forum.

Moderator: Forum Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
lindsay40k
Posts: 97
Joined: May 11th, 2009, 2:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by lindsay40k »

re Tank/boat ideas: the image I had in mind for the lv 1 Tank was something like Stephenson's Rocket, crossed with a tractor; a big land train. Making the lv1 into a tracked unit... well, it'd make the line more internally consistent in terms of design, and justify it being amphibious from the get-go. The idea of a four-way branch, whilst perhaps justifiable, is a very big step to take and we should definitely explore all other options first.

I'm not keen on souping up the Probe line at sea. That would be a big difference with the Default flying units.

I'm really not keen on making the regular 'bots into Deep Water-capable units. They are powered by furnaces; going into deep water is not so much going to make them poor at evading so much as it's going to extinguish them. The Scavanger line going for a swim works, as they could be manufactured with a sealed chassis; not so with the smokestack types.

Visually, I'm liking the idea of an amphibious Tank-type unit. Something like the D-day landers, with big tracks that function as paddles in water. Can we make units that have different sprites for when they are in water and out? If so, I've got some concepts I could play around with for a possible new line for us to consider.

Re Oiler. I think that making Oiling give Mechanical units +1 movement might solve the problem of the similarity to Undead, weakness-wise, by virtue of the fact that whereas Fire spam means big damage against Undead, it means forcing the Robots to move more slowly. (Though if we don't go with the +1mp idea, the water/sand system would still make sense.)

It occurs to me that adding +8 damage from Fire would also present a way for Scavengers to level up more easily; knock something down to 10hp, Oil it, then have a Tessla bolt light it up. (In this case, we should raise the XP requirements for Scavvies.) Also, since Dazzle is inflicted by Fire attacks, the current darkening of the sprite is not going to cause conflict unless the Dazzle happens before the Oiling. I think that since most Robots are furnace-powered, making them weak to Fire is slightly contradictory (planned part-wooden appearance notwithstanding), but if we make that weakness dependent on them being Oiled, it makes a little more sense.

Regarding the Oiler unit itself, perhaps if the lv1 simply has an Oiling attack (and a Menu option - not KISS, I know - to Oil a friendly unit), and the lv 2 & 3 Refiner line has an oil geyser the visually illustrates the fact that it auto-Oils all units in contact? Or maybe have the lv1 only auto-oil friendly Mechs, whereas the lv2 is an indiscriminate 'sprinkler'...

I'm somewhat against the auto-Oiling of units that are missed by a Flamespitter... to me, missing with this weapon represents poor aim, not the fuel failing to ignite. It would also mean that miss-hit-miss-hit patterns would feedback for super damage!



Edit: perhaps instead of having a menu option to Oil a friendly unit, maybe Oil attacks could be set to not inflict direct damage upon Mechanical units (or only inflict direct damage upon Living units?), and be capable of targeting friendly units? That would integrate the function into the existing interface, and also reinforce the fact that whilst the stuff's pretty unpleasant for living creatures, oiling up a machine is a pretty good idea - as long as safety regulations around naked flames are well observed...
currently contributing art to Internet Meme Era
fog_of_gold
Posts: 637
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by fog_of_gold »

@deep water's movement:
I think, too, it's a good idea to give them a bad movement (about two hexes) but giving them submerge. I you want to be fast in deep water, use the probes. If you want to fight, you'll need to use the others. The submerge helps you to balance the missing moves to be still able to retreat. I don't think it's good to give them no moves in water. Also, I'm not sure how you can fight and move seriously with a smokestack.
[edit:
Also, since the robots aren't affected by the TOD, they don't have to care that much about it. It makes "just" a different of mostly less than 25%.]

@oiling giving moves:
I wouldn't suggest to allow friendly units to be oiled. Let's say, since we are talking about robots and therefore with programmes, the command "oil friendly units" doesn't exist. But the idea to make mechanical units move faster is a pretty good one.

@oiling being fired after a miss:
It wouldn't lead to "super damage" since you can't be oiled more than one time and with magic, you'll hit nearly always anyway. "A poor aim" isn't magic anyway, at least as far as I read and remember. Magic with BfW always hits, but have to work (with a chance of 70%). So it's about the same description like in mainline.

@oiling increasing fire damage:
I think, too, it shouldn't do too much. +8 damage is pretty to much. With the foragers, you'll do up to +24 damage just because of that special. There are already many units in the bot's faction doing fire damage. +2 damage is more than enough. Don't forget there's another use; the decreasment of the defence.

@removing oiling:
I think the best idea is just to keep the ability being removed after one turn. If we make it depending on the hex, I'm not sure what you do if there's no such terrain on the map. It is less random and since wesnoth's random is just built by the hit/miss system, I think it's better we keep it there.
User avatar
lindsay40k
Posts: 97
Joined: May 11th, 2009, 2:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by lindsay40k »

re Oil increasing fire damage +24 for Scavengers: I got the impression Dixie was looking at making the Oiled status disappear as soon as one Fire strike hits, not after all the strikes in a Fire attack have been resolved. In other words, the first sucessful strike from a Scavenger on an Oiled unit will have base damage 10, and then the Oiled status will be removed before any remaining strikes which revert to base damage 2.

re Oil being a one turn only status effect: this would probably make more sense... though it would rule out the possibility of a school of Merfolk flailing around in a dirty big slick, which is an image I definitely would like to realise:3
currently contributing art to Internet Meme Era
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by Dixie »

Damn, you guys really have it to make me hesitate when I thought I had about reached a decision :P

@ Water movement:

I'm still thinking about the first tank being amphibious and having a boat-bot level up. To resolve the 4-branches issue, I thought we could scrap the "keeper" (lv2 village specialist) and make the "sentinel" and alternative to the bulldozer: that is, just a lv3 upgrading from a "blocker", or whatever I called them. I think it makes sense.

In theory, the whole faction having water movement is very interesting, but my main concern is that movement cost is either 1 or 2. So they either move 2 hexes (which seems a tad slight), either they move 4 (which may be a bit much). Same goes with the pirates, by the way: they either move 2 or 5. In that regard, I opted for 2 movement for the pirates. I could possibly do the same for the bots, I guess: with a swimmer scout and a specific ship line of unit, pirates would probably still be better at controlling water, especially with those cannonball attacks doing 2x damage on mechs (note that ships are actually mechanical too, and that's the original reason of the 2x damage).

Now, about deep water. If they move 2 hexes in shallows, it seems weird to allow 2 hexes in deep, especially since submerge would mean that they are not swimming, but rather walking (or whatever) on the bottom. In that regard, I would be tempted to give them 1 hex movement. How many hexes can skellies move in water, anyway? I'd have thought it's about 2 in shallow and 1 in deep. I think it may be a good indicator. Am I mistaken?


@ Oiling:
lindsay40k wrote:re Oil increasing fire damage +24 for Scavengers: I got the impression Dixie was looking at making the Oiled status disappear as soon as one Fire strike hits, not after all the strikes in a Fire attack have been resolved. In other words, the first sucessful strike from a Scavenger on an Oiled unit will have base damage 10, and then the Oiled status will be removed before any remaining strikes which revert to base damage 2.

re Oil being a one turn only status effect: this would probably make more sense... though it would rule out the possibility of a school of Merfolk flailing around in a dirty big slick, which is an image I definitely would like to realise:3
Yeah, that's right, I was thinking of making the status disapear after a strike from a fire attack. Alternative method of removing it would be simple heal, village or unit (Maybe just units with Cures if I can, else any healing unit, even the heal +4 ones). I am less certain about the hex-removing thing, though, I think I won't include it, finally.

Maybe 8 damage still is a bit much, though, and we could opt for 4 damage? (2 seems a bit slight to me, although I'll agree it's not the main objective of the attack) Also, more movement could probably be interesting if not auto-given, in the same fashion fog presents it.

Now, once again, who should get this attack? I'm really leaning towards the Oiler and ups rather than the flamespitter. If I have to up it's damage, so be it: it was meant to be an epic village clearer showering flames around, rather than a support unit with effects. The Oiler, on the other hand, I see as ambivalent between melee and ranged, offense and defense. This could give him an interesting support role, and incite a player to pick the extractor over the flamespitter (with more damage), and also risk this free income a bit. But how should we arrange that? Replace the ranged attack for Oil, and make his melee fire? Add a new ranged attack for Oil? Or make his melee Oil? My first choice would maybe have been adding a new ranged attack, but it might not use it on defense, which, damage appart, might have more side-effects than plain fire attacks. But then, if we replace it, the oiler's range fire attack becomes melee, which is way less usefull against, say skellies and HI (among my main reasons to actually recruit oilers in the first place)

Btw, flamespitter having magical: While I'll admit it would make more sense for flames to havecth both on offense and defense, and that a stable 70% might be more logical than 60%-and-maybe-more, my main concern is a vocabulary nitpick: bots really aren't magicel in any way. They're probably what could be the most opposite to fantasy, magic and wonder: they are realism, science and technology.


@ Resistances:

Ok, new subject. I would want your opinions on this, as currently I feel they may bit a bit too strong, while they previously they were too frail. Also, should we give them a weakness? Here's what it looks like currently:
actual bots resists:
So right now, I would be inclined towards lowering av. bots phys. def. by about 10%, lower cold by 10 or 20% and up fire by 10 or 20% (depending on cold) (fire and cold mods based on their furnace nature). Problem: fire (mage) was the loyalists' and the rebels' main weapon against bot. Now, they still have HI/wose, but it's not as potent. Originally, they were weak against fire because those were lasers (for the bots). And I have not mentionned Nothies, or even Bots themselves, who might have a hard time against a fire resist. That's why I had made both fire and cold neutral. If they resist cold, problem slides towards undead.

Oiler would be an exception fire-resist-wise, but their pierce weakness more than compensates for it. Do you think pierce should be 0%, and that I should up blade to 20% (to fit the other lowered bots)? I thought such heat would not fear the cold, but do you think it would be interesting to make them weaker to cold, as these will be one of the bots' main weapons against undead?

About scavies, they actually have 10% more resistance than the average elusivefoot unit (fencers, assassins, etc.), and I swapped the main blade weakness for an impact one. Should I up all this by another 10%? They would still be the faction's weakest.

Other consideration is making them distinct from both undeads and drakes. Oiler is already somewhat drakelike: fire resist, pierce and cold weakness (although he fears more pierce than cold actually, unlike the drakes) Other bots -used- to be undead like: slight impact weakness, fire weakness. I thought making them impact and cold weak would make them unique, but problem with fire resist is mentionned above. Another option would be to make them more dwarf-like: just resist everything. Maybe like 20% blade/pierce/fire and 10% impact/cold/arcane. Or maybe no arcane resist, even...

So, your opinions?
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth
fog_of_gold
Posts: 637
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by fog_of_gold »

Dixie wrote:Damn, you guys really have it to make me hesitate when I thought I had about reached a decision :P

@ Water movement:

I'm still thinking about the first tank being amphibious and having a boat-bot level up. To resolve the 4-branches issue, I thought we could scrap the "keeper" (lv2 village specialist) and make the "sentinel" and alternative to the bulldozer: that is, just a lv3 upgrading from a "blocker", or whatever I called them. I think it makes sense.
I don't think the "4-branches issue" is really an issue. It's getting a that important unit we don't need to hide its importantness. Anyway, the problem is, you need to have a mobile tank in water to be able to protect scavengers well enough.
In theory, the whole faction having water movement is very interesting, but my main concern is that movement cost is either 1 or 2. So they either move 2 hexes (which seems a tad slight), either they move 4 (which may be a bit much). Same goes with the pirates, by the way: they either move 2 or 5. In that regard, I opted for 2 movement for the pirates. I could possibly do the same for the bots, I guess: with a swimmer scout and a specific ship line of unit, pirates would probably still be better at controlling water, especially with those cannonball attacks doing 2x damage on mechs (note that ships are actually mechanical too, and that's the original reason of the 2x damage).

Now, about deep water. If they move 2 hexes in shallows, it seems weird to allow 2 hexes in deep, especially since submerge would mean that they are not swimming, but rather walking (or whatever) on the bottom. In that regard, I would be tempted to give them 1 hex movement. How many hexes can skellies move in water, anyway? I'd have thought it's about 2 in shallow and 1 in deep. I think it may be a good indicator. Am I mistaken?[...]
I'm not sure if the skeletions are a good indicator. They have a better flyer than this faction have. 4 moves, comparing to the average moves of more than 6 moves, isn't much. The same goes for the 5 moves. It isn't very much, too. 1 movecost in shallow and 2 movecost in deep water is OK, in my opinion.


@ Oiling:
I understand. Removing it after an attack is a good idea, too. Then of course, 4 damage is pretty good.
Before we discuss who should get the ability, we should first discuss which unit is meant to have which role and which unit have which role. In my opinion, we have:
Smog Belcher: support
flame spitter: mage
extracter: defence
oiler: defence
The reason I counted extract as if it's defence is, you'll need to controll less villages. For every pair of extractor and every group of oiler containing four units, you need to defend one village less. It makes you be allowed to defend a less big area so you can concentrate your units on a less big area and therefore you are stronger in defence. But in this way, you won't be able to attack.

Btw, flamespitter having magical: While I'll admit it would make more sense for flames to havecth both on offense and defense, and that a stable 70% might be more logical than 60%-and-maybe-more, my main concern is a vocabulary nitpick: bots really aren't magicel in any way. They're probably what could be the most opposite to fantasy, magic and wonder: they are realism, science and technology.
You don't need to call it magic. Just rename the ability and it's everything fine. It makes it also possible to change the 70%cth to xx%cth.
Dixie wrote:@ Resistances:

Ok, new subject. I would want your opinions on this, as currently I feel they may bit a bit too strong, while they previously they were too frail. Also, should we give them a weakness? Here's what it looks like currently:
actual bots resists:
So right now, I would be inclined towards lowering av. bots phys. def. by about 10%, lower cold by 10 or 20% and up fire by 10 or 20% (depending on cold) (fire and cold mods based on their furnace nature). Problem: fire (mage) was the loyalists' and the rebels' main weapon against bot. Now, they still have HI/wose, but it's not as potent. Originally, they were weak against fire because those were lasers (for the bots). And I have not mentionned Nothies, or even Bots themselves, who might have a hard time against a fire resist. That's why I had made both fire and cold neutral. If they resist cold, problem slides towards undead.
I real wonder you gave the oiler resistences to fire. If he's fired, he'll burn it's whole oil and therefore won't be able to attack/move/receive commands. It's the same like dieing since they won't work anymore in both ways. But anyway, like you said, the robots haven't got to do anything with magic. Therefore they have to resist magic. Also, they resist cold since it won't forge new shapes and would at least make the bots be more stable but slowlier. They are already very slow so they can't get seriously slower. But fire forge new shapes and divide important links of wires and make them unable to move and fight without damaging themselves since their metal got soft. So they'd need to be very frail to fire but resist cold. They are already very strong with their attacks against undeads and with that, they'll get undefeatable against undeads but they won't have a chance to fight against drakes. It leads me to make a new unit. They haven't got a cold attack anyway so it's missing and we wouldn't have to make both resistences be neutral.
Oiler would be an exception fire-resist-wise, but their pierce weakness more than compensates for it. Do you think pierce should be 0%, and that I should up blade to 20% (to fit the other lowered bots)? I thought such heat would not fear the cold, but do you think it would be interesting to make them weaker to cold, as these will be one of the bots' main weapons against undead?
Yes, I think we should make them be frail against cold and fire. Cold weakness is explainable in different ways like for example oil have to be warm to be fluently enough to get out of the tank. They should have a pierce weakness. To balance, we could increase the other defences. (arcane anyway like described above).
About scavies, they actually have 10% more resistance than the average elusivefoot unit (fencers, assassins, etc.), and I swapped the main blade weakness for an impact one. Should I up all this by another 10%? They would still be the faction's weakest.
The scavengers are very frail and random-conditional which isn't bad for cheap units. It's always good to upper the role of a unit and since with more resistence we have a bigger chance to have the enemy's damage rounded down/up, I'm for it.
Dixie wrote:Other consideration is making them distinct from both undeads and drakes. Oiler is already somewhat drakelike: fire resist, pierce and cold weakness (although he fears more pierce than cold actually, unlike the drakes) Other bots -used- to be undead like: slight impact weakness, fire weakness. I thought making them impact and cold weak would make them unique, but problem with fire resist is mentionned above. Another option would be to make them more dwarf-like: just resist everything. Maybe like 20% blade/pierce/fire and 10% impact/cold/arcane. Or maybe no arcane resist, even...
see above
edit:
Making them resist everything make them be healed more easily. Since healing/repairing isn't very often possible without repair parts making it cost something, I wouldn't suggest it.
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by Dixie »

Sorry if I took a few days before answering. Took some time to think about all this.
fog_of_gold wrote: I don't think the "4-branches issue" is really an issue. It's getting a that important unit we don't need to hide its importantness. Anyway, the problem is, you need to have a mobile tank in water to be able to protect scavengers well enough.

[...]

I'm not sure if the skeletions are a good indicator. They have a better flyer than this faction have. 4 moves, comparing to the average moves of more than 6 moves, isn't much. The same goes for the 5 moves. It isn't very much, too. 1 movecost in shallow and 2 movecost in deep water is OK, in my opinion.
My recents thoughts about the tank line have led me to the following conclusions:
- First and foremost, the death roller doesn't seem to really fit the tanks. I know it was a stylistic addition, and it certainly has its uses, although I'm not utterly convinced it fits the faction's playstyle, but in any case, if we are gonna keep him, maybe he could become an optionnal Lv2 for the Battle Bot?
- I remain with my previous idea that the Sentinel might as well be only a Lv3 alternative to the Bulldozer, and although it could certainly have uses as an independant branch with a Lv2... It might be more flavorful to have it only as a Lv3?
- If the lv1 tank is supposed to be amphibious, it would certainly be good to keep a later level up with the same properties: not just profecient either on ground or in water, but in both (at the cost of other stats, of course). I thought maybe the Lv2 "Blocker" (or whatever he is called atm) could keep the amphibious properties, and create a new Lv3 amphibious as another alternative to the Bulldozer.
- And of course, we would have a mostly-water unit, with more movepoints and mobility in water, but worst than any other bot on ground (which is not much mobility, all in all).

About water movement in general:
- The (amphibious) tank would of course have 1 movecost in shallow and 2 in deep. The mostly-water one would cost 1 in both, but have much more MP (like 6-7 instead of 4 for other tanks); on the other hand, it would cost much more to move on ground (like 3 on flat, possibly).
- However, I do not plan to make the whole faction as amphibious as the tank, so it remains special. I can certainly boost their water mobility a little however (from cost 3 atm to cost 2 in shallow, perhaps, and access deep at 3 or 4). I will see if the Scavenger requires boosting in water too, that may happen.
- As a side note, I haven't decided if they should get submerge or not, as lindsay's argument about them being furnaces still somewhat stands (although it stands in the realm of theme rather than gameplay, and we are more discussing the latter atm)
fog_of_gold wrote: @ Oiling:
I understand. Removing it after an attack is a good idea, too. Then of course, 4 damage is pretty good.
Before we discuss who should get the ability, we should first discuss which unit is meant to have which role and which unit have which role. In my opinion, we have:
Smog Belcher: support
flame spitter: mage
extracter: defence
oiler: defence
The reason I counted extract as if it's defence is, you'll need to controll less villages. For every pair of extractor and every group of oiler containing four units, you need to defend one village less. It makes you be allowed to defend a less big area so you can concentrate your units on a less big area and therefore you are stronger in defence. But in this way, you won't be able to attack.
Well, I can agree to that. Although I made Oilers/Extracts' stats in a mixed fighter kind of way, your reason to count them as defense is valid. If you are trying to point me toward justifying giving Oil to the Smoggy, however, I must admit I have doubts. Poison is already plenty useful by itself to justify the unit... And Oil would most assuredly be a nice special to have access to starting Lv1 (although it could carry on to another branch than the extract), as it greatly fits the bots "terrain ignoring" theme.
fog_of_gold wrote: You don't need to call it magic. Just rename the ability and it's everything fine. It makes it also possible to change the 70%cth to xx%cth.
Of course, you are right. I can't say it never crossed my mind, too. I think 70% is a good CTH %, though. 60% seems a bit weak, and 80% is clearly too much. What could we call it, though? "Wide"? "Area"?

An interesting option could be to get inspiration from D&D's fireballs, which when dodged only halve damage, not nullify it. Of course,c ertain abilities counter this. To adpat it to Wesnoth, we could do something like this: roll the attack 2 or 3 times. If the defender dodges none he gets full damage, only 1 gets half damage, 2 is a quarter, and the whole three he gets no damage. Not as KISS and wesnothy as a CTH%, but it could bring in some variation. What do you think?


@ Resistances:

While your arguments are all valid, I don't plan of making them nigh-invincible against undeads. Since I can agree to increase their Arcane resistance, their cold resistance should remain low. Same goes with fire. Maybe since both those are to stay around 0%, I guess we can keep the physical ones as high as they are.

About the Oiler: I think we can lower its fire resistance, and up its arcane (like ther bots) and probably blades and impact too, possibly to match other bots (but leave it with the pierce weakness, although it could go from -10% to 0%, maybe).

About the Scavvy: We can agree to up his resistances to 0% (leaving a -10% impact, probably, though).

About a new bot with a cold attack: at first I had plans for this, but as lindsay said, cold attacks fit poorly the industrial revolution theme. Plus, a faction doesn't need both types to be efficient: most mainlines have only either fire or cold, with the exception of Drakes, which have both, and Knalgans, which have none.

I still have a concern with the arcane resistance, though, and this one is a more general one: since most factions are made of human, almost none fears arcane: they almost all resist it at 20%. In mainline, outlaws resist it too, so the option to lower pirates' and ninjas' arcane res. would be kinda void. I think indians don't resist it, although I'm not too sure, which more or less doesn't make that much sense. Now bots resist it too, and although Triffids are probably gonna suck to arcane, it isn't too much of a great damage type. Luckily, since it's an era with little magic and such stuff, it's a relatively sparsely used damage type: so far, I think only the indian shamans and the monks use it at all. So, maybe it mostly is a non-issue. I just thought I'd point it out.


On about other factions a bit: The pirates' design I mostly have in my head (I wrote it previously, it hasn't really changed all that much since then), the cowboys still have that canoe-carrying explorer to design (and possibly mounted indian), but I'm mostly not thinking about him much right now.

On the other hand, ninjas were mostly set in stone, but with the recent talks about illusory units elsewhere on the forums, I thought the frail ninja could benefit from such a trick. They're already a pretty tricky and sneaky faction (with some degree of magic, might I had), so it mostly fits the theme. I thought maybe about a worthless 4-gold costing unit that, upon recruit, prompts a menu that let you choose any other ninja to take the shape of, costing as much gold to take that shape as the desired shape has levels (so taking the shape of a Serf would be free, and the shape of a Jonin would cost 4 gold). Upkeep is also a concern. That menu could be accessible any time through a right-clic menu, which also serves as a mean for the player controlling them to distinguish the illusions from the real units (since you can't have hidden traits or stuff only accessible to the owning player). Then, those illusions get all the stats of their shape, but have two important limitations: they cannot capture villages, and if they are engaged in combat, they auto-die, hit or not (Not giving as much xp as a regular unit would, but I'm hesitating between never give xp, always give 1, or give as much as the shape's level). Would only remain certain matters namely healing and leadership: and illusion should not really be able to effectively use those ability, but appear as if they were. I have some ideas on how to code that. The only concern (which needs to be tested) is I dunno if they would be detectable through the damage statistics window.

Anyway, comments welcome as usual. :)
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth
fog_of_gold
Posts: 637
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by fog_of_gold »

Dixie wrote:[...]- First and foremost, the death roller doesn't seem to really fit the tanks. I know it was a stylistic addition, and it certainly has its uses, although I'm not utterly convinced it fits the faction's playstyle, but in any case, if we are gonna keep him, maybe he could become an optionnal Lv2 for the Battle Bot?
This unit would be a wonderful Battle Bot-replacement. I like this idea.
- I remain with my previous idea that the Sentinel might as well be only a Lv3 alternative to the Bulldozer, and although it could certainly have uses as an independant branch with a Lv2... It might be more flavorful to have it only as a Lv3?
This unit is a very important unit for this faction. Since this faction is very slowly having no real fast unit but the probe, this faction's got real problem to defend villages are scouted of the probes far away or to support allies are far away and need your help. They balance the slow movement of this faction and are, IMO, too necessary to make them be level three. Maybe we could set them to level one. Also, I suggest to delete the level after the keepers since it isn't possible to hunt and kill wounded units with 3 moves. They are not meant to anyway.
- If the lv1 tank is supposed to be amphibious, it would certainly be good to keep a later level up with the same properties: not just profecient either on ground or in water, but in both (at the cost of other stats, of course). I thought maybe the Lv2 "Blocker" (or whatever he is called atm) could keep the amphibious properties, and create a new Lv3 amphibious as another alternative to the Bulldozer.
A non-RIPLIB unit should always go from the first level. I'm not sure; is the Blocker meant to be that? -If yes, I agree, if not, I suggest a new level two unit.

@water movement|lindsay40k's argument:
We can use it, if we need to. The 'bots don't need to be powered be furnaces, it can be possible by anything else like e.g. by radioactivity not needing to be protected seriously by water.

@water movement|movementcosts:
You are right keeping the special of the swimmer is important. Moving one hex is really to less. Two hexes are OK, but it would be odd to be in deep water as fast as in shallow water and to be even stronger in deep water. I think the only possiblity would be, to decrease the defence a lot down to 10% or 0%.
Well, I can agree to that. Although I made Oilers/Extracts' stats in a mixed fighter kind of way, your reason to count them as defense is valid. If you are trying to point me toward justifying giving Oil to the Smoggy, however, I must admit I have doubts. Poison is already plenty useful by itself to justify the unit... And Oil would most assuredly be a nice special to have access to starting Lv1 (although it could carry on to another branch than the extract), as it greatly fits the bots "terrain ignoring" theme.
I didn't thought about which one to give. I just wanted to make a list which one is who. But that'd be be point to give it him; yes. The alteranive would be to give it the mage. I don't like the idea of miking the oiler be a support unit since you already use this unit a lot to fight. With no upkeep, you can spam this unit and fight with it. Better increase its mixed fighter kind with a tend to the defensive role. Maybe it would be really better to give it another type of unit than the oiler. It isn't very important but however, we'd need to change it's name since the player'd get confused another unit than the oiler gets oiling. 'Fueling' could be one alternative name.
Of course, you are right. I can't say it never crossed my mind, too. I think 70% is a good CTH %, though. 60% seems a bit weak, and 80% is clearly too much. What could we call it, though? "Wide"? "Area"?
I think area is a good name.
An interesting option could be to get inspiration from D&D's fireballs, which when dodged only halve damage, not nullify it. Of course,c ertain abilities counter this. To adpat it to Wesnoth, we could do something like this: roll the attack 2 or 3 times. If the defender dodges none he gets full damage, only 1 gets half damage, 2 is a quarter, and the whole three he gets no damage. Not as KISS and wesnothy as a CTH%, but it could bring in some variation. What do you think?
Yes, it'd bring some variation but 1) how would it increase this unit's power and 2) what's the explanation? More kiss and wesnoth-like would be, to just half the damage every time the attack hit in one attack.
[...]About the Oiler: I think we can lower its fire resistance, and up its arcane (like ther bots) and probably blades and impact too, possibly to match other bots (but leave it with the pierce weakness, although it could go from -10% to 0%, maybe).

About the Scavvy: We can agree to up his resistances to 0% (leaving a -10% impact, probably, though).

[...]

I still have a concern with the arcane resistance, though, and this one is a more general one: since most factions are made of human, almost none fears arcane: they almost all resist it at 20%. In mainline, outlaws resist it too, so the option to lower pirates' and ninjas' arcane res. would be kinda void. I think indians don't resist it, although I'm not too sure, which more or less doesn't make that much sense. Now bots resist it too, and although Triffids are probably gonna suck to arcane, it isn't too much of a great damage type. Luckily, since it's an era with little magic and such stuff, it's a relatively sparsely used damage type: so far, I think only the indian shamans and the monks use it at all. So, maybe it mostly is a non-issue. I just thought I'd point it out.
Since the mainline almost disregard arcane's resistences, it would be interesting to set the resistence to 30%. It's since they aren't antiholy and don't believe any holynesses since they can't think and therefore believe. Therefore they can't be affected by arcane (which was holy, before). About the scavengers and the oilers, I think it's good that way.
On about other factions a bit: The pirates' design I mostly have in my head (I wrote it previously, it hasn't really changed all that much since then), the cowboys still have that canoe-carrying explorer to design (and possibly mounted indian), but I'm mostly not thinking about him much right now.
The only thing you have think of is, how to make them be able to win in water. I even won against them with the 'bot's probe very easyly.
On the other hand, ninjas were mostly set in stone, but with the recent talks about illusory units elsewhere on the forums, I thought the frail ninja could benefit from such a trick. They're already a pretty tricky and sneaky faction (with some degree of magic, might I had), so it mostly fits the theme. I thought maybe about a worthless 4-gold costing unit that, upon recruit, prompts a menu that let you choose any other ninja to take the shape of, costing as much gold to take that shape as the desired shape has levels (so taking the shape of a Serf would be free, and the shape of a Jonin would cost 4 gold). Upkeep is also a concern. That menu could be accessible any time through a right-clic menu, which also serves as a mean for the player controlling them to distinguish the illusions from the real units (since you can't have hidden traits or stuff only accessible to the owning player). Then, those illusions get all the stats of their shape, but have two important limitations: they cannot capture villages, and if they are engaged in combat, they auto-die, hit or not (Not giving as much xp as a regular unit would, but I'm hesitating between never give xp, always give 1, or give as much as the shape's level). Would only remain certain matters namely healing and leadership: and illusion should not really be able to effectively use those ability, but appear as if they were. I have some ideas on how to code that. The only concern (which needs to be tested) is I dunno if they would be detectable through the damage statistics window.[...]
I dissuggest you to do this. See the archaic era. There, it's possible to detect them on many ways and as far as I know, there are even not corrected. Capturing villages is a pretty big problem and the archaic era solved it by making them disappear. The problem of your solution is, that it isn't kiss. Expect making it be a ghost-like unit disappearing after a short period of time, I don't think there's a possiblity to make it KISS.

Edit:
I have one comment:
I think it's really important to give the keeper its teleport and its three moves back. The arguments are above in which I forgot it was changed.
User avatar
markm
Posts: 157
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:53 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia Canada

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by markm »

Maybe a "disguise" ability could fit the tricky ninja? Instead of recruiting illusions you'd change the appearance of your tricky ninja. It'd be a form of ambush, in fact could work just like ambush (adjacency lets you see who he really is and also ends your turn (which if he had been disguised as a level 0 unit you'd not have expected)) though my initial thought had been it'd revert when attacking or attacked.

It could even be only on certain terrains, again similar to ambush and concealment. Rationalisation being wearing a disguise then hiding in the woods is kind of pointless, you need to be out in the open so people can actually see the disguise or in a village so there are people to be thought to be one of. (Nah, once disguised he should then be able to go anyplace until disguise is seen through.)

Whatever the details, disguise is a ninja tradition in some RPG games that have a ninja type dunno if that carries over into internet memes.

Basically any time you think he is safely under cover of shroud/fog you could have him put on a disguise...

-MarkM-
Developing Between the Worlds campaign portmanteau.
Have you eaten today?
fog_of_gold
Posts: 637
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by fog_of_gold »

In fact, to make this work is very difficult and interrupting a move is, unlike the rest, impossible. Also, it is nearly impossible to hide they are just disguised. If we can get it work, we should do; it's a nice, wesnoth-like idea. But it's better to find another idea before we invest to much time.
User avatar
markm
Posts: 157
Joined: August 13th, 2008, 3:53 pm
Location: Halifax Nova Scotia Canada

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by markm »

Ambush and Concealment interrupt a move. Are they built into the engine in order to accomplish this supposedly impossible feat? If so and they require association with a terrain maybe we could place a terrain under our disguised unit wheneer it stops moving, so it always stops on a terrain that has a disguise overlay or something and the ability is associated with disguise-overlay terrain type?

Hmm, I wonder how ambush and concealment do work... You got me curious about them now...

EDIT: Yes, they use a hides container-tag that uses a location-filter. Location filters can filter on x,y location though can't they? Or we could mak custom terrains that look like units we want to disguise ourselves as and put them where our fake move of our disguise moes to then unstore ourselves on that spot. When someone moves near presto we ambush them. We'd need an event that tirggers on ambush I guess or maybe on adjacency to our hidden unit so as to remove the fake terrain we were hiding in.

Or, we make a hiding abiity that works on ANY terrain, but only give the unit that ability while wearing a disguise?

-MarkM-
Developing Between the Worlds campaign portmanteau.
Have you eaten today?
User avatar
Pentarctagon
Project Manager
Posts: 4532
Joined: March 22nd, 2009, 10:50 pm
Location: Earth (occasionally)

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by Pentarctagon »

there's also the nightstalk ability which works only at night, so it ToD based instead of location based. there's also the [move_unit_fake] tag which moves an image along the map to another location.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs
take one down, patch it around
-2,147,483,648 little bugs in the code
User avatar
lindsay40k
Posts: 97
Joined: May 11th, 2009, 2:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by lindsay40k »

Re Death Roller becoming a Battle Bot level up: I don't have any objections to moving this unit out of the Tank line. Only concern is that I was expecting the Death Roller to be a unit with tracks, not legs (and thus move like cavalry). I felt it was important to limit the mobility of a Berzerk unit that has resistance to most melee attacks... how would you feel about making the Death Roller a line of its own? A non-Berzerk unit levelling up into a Berzerk unit was pretty unorthodox (and potentially lethal - I've had a number of wins by getting a Tank levelled up near a Mage type commander and steamrollering him, which would have been a lot more difficult if the unit was Berzerk from the start).

Re lack of Cold attack. Why not make Oil a Cold attack? I think it's fine to allow Oilers to have a ranged Oil attack, a ranged Fire attack, and a melee Fire attack; one arm has an oil spray, the other has a Zippo. The Refiner enhances these weaponas, the Flamespitter simply trades them in for a specialised flamethrower, and the Smog Belcher scraps them all in favour of a bigger furnace.

Re multiple rolls to decide effect of Flamespitter attack: isn't this somewhat similar to the 'resolve lots of small strikes simultanously' suggestion for grapeshot? Why not use this 'area' ability for both the cannon and the flame?

Re resistances. On reflection, I think fire and cold weakness does make more sense. These are not titanium cyberpunk creations, but wood-and-brass steampunk robots that can be burned and whose steam engines can explode if they overheat. Likewise, being cooled down will make their steam pistons less powerful, dampen their fuel and maybe even extinguish their furnaces. The exceptions, IMO, should be the Oiler line (it's given temperature protection for obvious reaons) and the Scavenger (it's electric, not steam-powered; making it colder should make it run more efficiently - so, keep the Fire weakness whilst giving it Cold resist).

Re Cannons. Making them offensive only is a good way of representing the difference between ordnance and hand arms. I'd like to throw in the idea of making them move-or-fire point defence weapons, with even more damage.
currently contributing art to Internet Meme Era
fog_of_gold
Posts: 637
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by fog_of_gold »

lindsay40k wrote:[...]Re lack of Cold attack. Why not make Oil a Cold attack? I think it's fine to allow Oilers to have a ranged Oil attack, a ranged Fire attack, and a melee Fire attack; one arm has an oil spray, the other has a Zippo. The Refiner enhances these weaponas, the Flamespitter simply trades them in for a specialised flamethrower, and the Smog Belcher scraps them all in favour of a bigger furnace.[...]
I really like this idea. The only problem I'd have, is, to explain it. Usually, oil isn't cooled down since it would decrease it's fluentlyness. If you watch it as if it's a weapon, it's an interesting question, why you use oil and not something more special like a posioned gas or burning oil being more suitable. Anyway, this is perfectly to make you risk the life of the oilers so in my opinion, we should keep it.
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 1757
Joined: February 10th, 2010, 1:06 am
Location: $x1,$y1

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by Dixie »

Ok.

A summary of what has been agreed upon (if no objections are stated, the subjects won't be brought up again):

- The tank becomes amphibious; The rest of the faction becomes somewhat mroe profecient in water, but less so than the tank and scavvy.
- Since you both agree, let's make Oil a cold attack, given to the Oiler.
- Resistances: arcane is up to 30%, the rest doesn't move on average. Scavvies get more physical Res, Oilers too (but not pierce) and lose their fire resist.

Some stuff to decide:

- We can possibly add a new Lv1 unit tree, wither the death roller or the sentinel. I tend to go for the sentinel. This would bring the total recruitable units to 8. I feel like 9 would be a bit much.
- While it is true that if either the sentinel/roller becomes an independant line, the other can remain a Lv2 for the tank, it is also true that the roller fits poorly tank line (a bit RIPLIB, trading steadfast for berzerk and losing water movement); However, it is also true that the faction might beneficate more from a second, village specialised, Lv1 tank (independant sentinel) which would fit the mood of the faction better. Also, the roller fits more-or-less the battle bots thematically. Although it is a minor concern, do you feel like it is needed in the faction, anyway? Bots already ressemble Knalgans to some extent, so removing the roller might not be such a bad move. And while it had some good damage potential (which the faction lacks on Lv1, but it is ok), I think effects such as dazzle, oil and poison, added to the high resistances, more than compensates. Maybe the roller should just get removed?
lindsay40k wrote: Re Cannons. Making them offensive only is a good way of representing the difference between ordnance and hand arms. I'd like to throw in the idea of making them move-or-fire point defence weapons, with even more damage.
Basically, you are suggesting that if a cannon has all its moves left when it ends its turn, his cannonball/sharpnel attacks be available on defense? I'm not entirely sure this can be done, I'd have to verify some stuff, but it could be an interesting idea.

Another idea for those comes from the recent Era of Four Moons. Basically, Velensk implanted a new attack range: artillery. Which means that since very few units have that range, it 1) rarely gets used on defense and 2) rarely fears retaliation. I'm not sure how he did it, possibly he used Lua, which I'm no expert in, but I suppose I could analyzed and imitate (if not outright copy) his code. This would imply, however, that at least one other faction gets an artillery-ranged weapon. Bots sound like promising thematically, or maybe it could help the ninjas out (with those rockets I forgot the name of, dang, you know, the ones that makes coloured pattern in the sky? Fire---?). While cannons existed in cowboy times and themes, I am less inclined toward giving that bonus to them, and it definitely don't fit the triffids. Also, if we want it to remain special and efficient, it must not get too widespread.


@ Illusions and other ideas:

Ok, let's drop this off. While the idea -could- have been interesting to some extent, it might be really complicated for not much plus-value. Also, the disguise thing looks really complicated, even if it had some interesting potential too. I'm not really willing to get myself caught into that. Not until the whole thing is mostly finished, anyway.

Is there an issue I have not addressed? :)

Edit: What should the "Oiled" status effect cap the target's defenses to in your opinion? It should obviously be between 20 and 50%, but I was more hesitating between 30 and 40%. What do you think? 30%, maybe?
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny - Frank Zappa
Current projects: Internet meme Era, The Settlers of Wesnoth
fog_of_gold
Posts: 637
Joined: December 20th, 2009, 5:59 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Internet Meme Era v 0.0.5

Post by fog_of_gold »

Dixie wrote:[...]- We can possibly add a new Lv1 unit tree, wither the death roller or the sentinel. I tend to go for the sentinel. This would bring the total recruitable units to 8. I feel like 9 would be a bit much.

- While it is true that if either the sentinel/roller becomes an independant line, the other can remain a Lv2 for the tank, it is also true that the roller fits poorly tank line[...]
However, it is also true that the faction might beneficate more from a second, village specialised, Lv1 tank (independant sentinel) which would fit the mood of the faction better. Also, the roller fits more-or-less the battle bots thematically. Although it is a minor concern, do you feel like it is needed in the faction, anyway? Bots already ressemble Knalgans to some extent, so removing the roller might not be such a bad move. And while it had some good damage potential (which the faction lacks on Lv1, but it is ok), I think effects such as dazzle, oil and poison, added to the high resistances, more than compensates. Maybe the roller should just get removed?
What's about a weak unit being just there to level to these two units? -I haven't got an description or an imagination, but I think, these two units fits together. It could start with the sentinel line and get the choose to choose the roller while leveling.

(a bit RIPLIB, trading steadfast for berzerk and losing water movement)[...]
RIPLIB only count if there isn't another unit haven't got RIPLIB. So, for example, you may add a mage you may level to to the tank line.
Edit: What should the "Oiled" status effect cap the target's defenses to in your opinion? It should obviously be between 20 and 50%, but I was more hesitating between 30 and 40%. What do you think? 30%, maybe?
I'm not sure what you think about: Wasn't the oil status meant to decrease the target's defences by xx%? -If you wouldn't keep this, we can surely delete the scavenger since you won't use them anymore. Or are you thinking about capping the decreasement? -I wouldn't cap it since dazzle already set the defence to 20% (if you follow my suggestion) and you wouldn't use it then. If you'd allow to be cumulative (you know, value's readed in first, then comes add, sub, multiply and at least divide. It'd be done automatically), you'd even make the players use the scavenger more they do already.
Post Reply