Legend of the Invincibles

Discussion and development of scenarios and campaigns for the game.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply

Which of these units you find worth advancing and gearing heavily? Unpopular ones will be reworked.

Elvish Nightprowler
17
15%
Elvish Overlord
7
6%
Elvish Seer
16
14%
Elvish Warlord
5
4%
Exterminator
14
12%
Forester
3
3%
Goblin Ravager
0
No votes
Goblin Warbanner
0
No votes
Grim Knight
0
No votes
Faerie Incarnation
16
14%
Infernal Knight
5
4%
Lich King
7
6%
Lunatic Knight
10
9%
Monstrosity
0
No votes
Orcish Nightblade
0
No votes
Orcish Strafer
4
3%
Pilum Master
4
3%
Orcish Warmonger
3
3%
Phantom
3
3%
Predator
3
3%
 
Total votes: 117

Hex
Posts: 161
Joined: June 15th, 2010, 6:08 am

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Hex »

Raijer wrote:@Hex: ... Let's see... I clearly stated i played it on 1.10.7, which is the stable version, because i tried playing with your conditions. Also, i'm wondering if you actually noticed the keep in north, before reaching the dragon, and the cave close to it that has an item inside. Maybe you got only WCs because you didn't actually recruit
And I clearly stated I can only recruit WC, and nothing else. I completely explored the cave, including the water pocket item along the bottom after the dragon castle. My wesnoth version is 1.10.5 though.

I'm redoing the level and I did one thing differently, I didn't work so hard to level Argan. And stupid AI as it is, it won't ever bother to attack Argan at or near full health with bats. A whole different story if Argans HP level is low enough that AI is willing to attack him. Which means I can then leave Argan behind.

How about this, give cave movement (or +1 speed) and plague items at start so Argan can participate better, reveal dragon area suggestion I mentioned before, but increase difficulties in other ways if you truly feel these changes would make it too easy. Note these suggestions mostly only help first timers, and would have almost no effect on those who have done the map before.

Turn on fog of war, this map/scenario needs it. Cut off cheap bat WC shortcut (you said you would anyway) And put in level 3 or 4 Orc guard units trying to stop you from escaping. They could be waiting by the first castle before dragon and come at you all at once. Hopefully that will suffice for difficulty level?

P.S. Here is a save where I can recruit, but only recruit WC and nothing else, no human troops, no recalling.
Also, you do know that you can simply leave Argan behind with zombies, and use Lethalia and Efraim to win the scenario, no ?
Also, you know I mentioned this several times regarding this issue, so I clearly do know this.

As far as snow shoes go, well how about just providing one or two for free at that first snow level? This map need not be easier, just be nicer to those who haven't leveled elven fairy floaters.(which I did) So put in something else to compensate with difficulty. And what about the suicidal allie where you lose when he dies, still haven't responded to that. He can suicide in as little as turn 11, which is way too early.(requires reloading and hoping AI makes a smarter decision next time, or gets luckier against a yetti on snow)

In exchange you could add more yetis, and make griffon guy bigger (more castle recruit spots, and more gold) BTW, there is a flavor issue here, he talks like hes going to fight the undead too, but doesn't.

I also mentioned another text issue here, where you talk as though you never heard of the southern necromancers, then you talk as though your Deathlord overlord has a vendetta against them, which is completely inconsistent. You didn't reply to this.
I don't like spending an hour per day replying if most of it is repetitive as hell leads to nowhere.
You waste time and energy giving useless pat replies. Of course I got to repeat myself sometimes because you give me little to work with. Try discussing things with me, giving thought to your replies and you will find alot less repetition.
The event triggering thing can be easily found on http://wiki.wesnoth.org/EventWML . I meant that I will help you with coding things related to the campaign, not teaching you about wesnoth modding, because it can be self-learned easily.
That link is useless to me, I'd have to learn WML just to make heads or tales of its information.

Is it really so hard for you to simply tell me in plain english what options are available for triggering a event? If that challenges you or tires you too much, then I don't see you being able to help me with coding any.

Anyway, I already explained the problem with your troops standing in the middle of that area when they are triggered into existence, both with realism/flavor, and practical, and the simple solution to fix that, with them being barricaded in a room. I know enough that there is a simple enough way, regardless of issues of sight. Please respond sincerely to this, with discussion in mind, not "answering" as though it were Q&A, not glibly.
I was obviously writing about other ideas you suggested in the past, not these few scenario specific ones. Like making enemies use items.
Again, don't talk as though wrapping everything under one blanket. Even my none scenario specific suggestions come in different degrees and variations, even within the one suggestion.

Like I have suggest that enemies with items simply be made stronger dependent on quality of item. Like X unit has rare quality of item, so buff generically to 150% of normal strength(a for example, exact numbers can be figured out latter) where perhaps with certain items, some of its traits get partially show up for flavor, as a option. The whole suggestion can be simplified even further if need be, it isn't all or nothing. If you are trying to tell me that would require a massive overhaul that would ruin all balance, I would say you are pulling such a claim out of your butt with nothing substantial to back it up.

Ditto for implementing a system of converting gem types without having to go through making and breaking items over and over.

What about removing debuffs with anti-antisocial advancements? I carefully laid out my argument for such, and you seem to have ignored it all. Its not going to massively break balance or anything, that's for sure.

And would it really be that hard for you to to code full refund on crafting on same turn made? Or why are you against this suggest? I already asked this before with no reply.
Attachments
LotI1-Where_the_Sun_Does_..._Turn_30.gz
(288.06 KiB) Downloaded 60 times

Hex
Posts: 161
Joined: June 15th, 2010, 6:08 am

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Hex »

I thought of another good difficulty increaser for lava prison.

All items are stripped off your characters and put into storage, the only items available is 1 gloves or axe that give plague(and nothing else), and 1 shoes that give +1 speed (that way cave tiles still matter, but +1 speed on Argan over cave tiles is still 50% faster) No items can be recalled from storage, not even on castle tiles. Think of it like they went to prison and were stripped of all their belongings and not left with powerful swords etc. Of course you'd still have dropped items.

Furthermore, they could have no gold, the gold from before this scenario will come back to them latter in the next one when they meet up with their comrades. But for now, no carry over gold, and a maximum amount of gold that can be carried over from this scenario of say maybe 300 gold. Items in storage and recalls are not available in next scenario either, till you meet up with your comrades.

Seems perfect for the mood/flavor, and it means new players and old hands would have a more similar challenge level (especially when combined with the rest, like revealing dragon area and disabling bat WC shortcut etc, stuff mentioned in my last post just above this one) and not need to reload as much.

Also, perhaps the orc guards are bribable, when you first encounter them you get a option to bribe them, and if you have enough gold that they ask for, they leave you in peace/are friendlies (don't fight for you though) (maybe even sell stuff?) Well maybe not, since old hands would know better how much to save, unless the game warned players how much guards want for bribes at the start. Well, its just a idea I am spit-balling, not married to it.

P.S. Did you fix the gold not carrying over when you turn into a ghost scenario?

User avatar
Dugi
Posts: 4955
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 10:29 am
Location: Carpathian Mountains
Contact:

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Dugi »

Raijer wrote:About the redeem problem: the "LotI2-Corruption-Sauvegarde_automatique2.gz" save file that i joined, has Lethalia with 7/8 kills at lvl 2 redeem, meaning that redeeming an unit with her should be enough to show the error. Also, did you see that i edited my message, saying that it only shows 0/12, but then, when killing another unit, it shows 1/10 ?
I somehow failed to notice it. My bad.
Hex wrote:As far as snow shoes go, well how about just providing one or two for free at that first snow level?
If a scenario is too hard (and this one was confirmed to be), I prefer to decrease its difficulty without altering the way it's played. This scenario was made easier and the change will be included in the next update. I haven't changed the terrain, haven't added snow boots to let your units rush there, I haven't removed the boss. I have altered the modifications to stats that the icy monsters have, decreasing their damage globally. This will make it easier for the ally and he will not have trouble facing the enemy.
Hex wrote:That link is useless to me
Why do you ask for help and refuse the help afterwards?
Hex wrote:I know enough that there is a simple enough way, regardless of issues of sight. Please respond sincerely to this, with discussion in mind, not "answering" as though it were Q&A, not glibly.
As I wrote before, something units can go through can't be seen through. 1.11 allows different view distance than move distance, but it does not support different movement costs for vision and for movement.
And as I wrote before, an easier way to prevent them from spawning in a room full of enemies is to increase their quantity based on the number of enemies or destroy nearby enemies. The easiest way to fix it is to prevent the enemies from approaching their spawning point (might be called a hesitation to attack).
Hex wrote:Ditto for implementing a system of converting gem types without having to go through making and breaking items over and over.
This idea was proposed before and I am still thinking about it. I have written about some ideas, but I don't want to add new things without thinking about it properly. I learn from my mistakes If you look about 220 pages behind, you'll notice that the addition of items was the biggest failure ever. It took me a lot of time to make them work properly and they have never been balanced ideally.
Hex wrote:What about removing debuffs with anti-antisocial advancements? I carefully laid out my argument for such, and you seem to have ignored it all. Its not going to massively break balance or anything, that's for sure.
I might make them weaker, but I will have to think about it more.
Hex wrote:And would it really be that hard for you to to code full refund on crafting on same turn made?
I may not have replied to this clearly, but I think that somebody else did. Items' history is not recorded. It would require adding additional information to every single item just for those who are lazy to do the maths, further increasing the size of save files.
Hex wrote:All items are stripped off your characters and put into storage, the only items available is 1 gloves or axe that give plague(and nothing else), and 1 shoes that give +1 speed (that way cave tiles still matter, but +1 speed on Argan over cave tiles is still 50% faster)
No, no and no. When you are planning a unit's gear and advancements, you get some important effects from AMLA, some from items. So if a unit is stripped of items, it may become totally flawed. I hated this in most RPGs and I don't want it to be a part of a campaign of my writing.
And I don't find it necessary to give you extra items for Argan, because it is only you who thinks that it's too hard.
Hex wrote:Also, perhaps the orc guards are bribable, when you first encounter them you get a option to bribe them
Imagine the difficulty difference that might come from having 49 gold instead of 50 carried over from the previous scenario.
Hex wrote:Did you fix the gold not carrying over when you turn into a ghost scenario?
Never seen it reported. I will fix that.

Raijer
Posts: 425
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 9:00 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Raijer »

Small typo in "Subterranean war" chapter 7, when Dulaithsilos says "Welcome to the town...Out king was killed" should be "Our".

Also, same scenario, you have to limit which villages get converted to the player's side at the start. In my case, Efraim and Lethalia both had the "Boots of evancescence", which give them teleportation, and so the 2 possessed leaders in south got killed at the 1st and 2nd turn (Lethalia didn't have enough mouvement to reach the second leader on 1st turn). It then makes it quite easy to kill the demons in the north, with the dwarwes' help. Not changing the side of the ones in "8,21" and "19,27" should do the trick, though the one in "12,21" puts one of the enemy leaders nearly in reach.

P.S.: never noticed, but shouldn't it be boots of evanescence and not evancescence?
Also, forgot to say, but i'm playing it on Hard (if the number of villages depends on it).
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

User avatar
Dugi
Posts: 4955
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 10:29 am
Location: Carpathian Mountains
Contact:

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Dugi »

Fixed the typo. I also fixed the gold carryover problem over the Ascension scenario that Hex mentioned.
Raijer wrote:Also, same scenario, you have to limit which villages get converted to the player's side at the start.
They get only the nearby ones, no? If not, I'll fix that, if yes, I'll make them start with some units already recruited.

Raijer
Posts: 425
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 9:00 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Raijer »

Well, "only the nearby ones" is quite a lot... You're giving the player half the villages, which mean 40 income at start. Also, the 3 villages whose location i gave are quite far from your main keep, and can't really be seen as close.

EDIT: In "An old f(r)iend", you can use redeem on Argan, but it doesn't kill him, just makes him run, even if it hits. Though it adds to the redeem count. Is that intended ?

Also, on the 7th hit, the door next to Argan doesn't open, same thing for the 9th hit. And i think we don't have 11 hits but 10 before having him leave (cause you say 11 in the walkthrough).
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

Hex
Posts: 161
Joined: June 15th, 2010, 6:08 am

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Hex »

Come on, I spend so much effort posting this and you give so little effort reading and replying.
If a scenario is too hard (and this one was confirmed to be), I prefer to decrease its difficulty without altering the way it's played.
If you level your elf mages to floating, and luck out with allie AI, its actually pretty easy, even on difficult level. It would be a mistake to decrease their damage.

On the other hand, if you lack units or items for moving on snow, its very hard indeed, and I dont see a nerf of damage making much of a difference, its a matter of getting units into position in a organized fashion and attacking so they can move on before turns run out.

And its absolutely impossible if your allie leader wanders onto snow to attack a yetti on turn 11, making skeletons weaker won't change that any. What reason do you have against keeping him on his castle so he doesn't suicide? Any? Might you even reply to this point and not just ignore it. Unless you plan to nerf yetis etc. to a quarter damage just to preserve AI stupidity... Though you still haven't explained why its so important to preserve AI stupidity. You are in love with reloading games or something?
without altering the way it's played.
Is having to beat the scenario in 11 turns when most units couldn't do that even if they traveled in a straight line, somehow altering the way the map plays in some horribly crucial way? Please explain the benefit of a scenario that can be literally impossible to play depending on the random decisions of a stupid AI.
Why do you ask for help and refuse the help afterwards?
Why do you refuse to help, but pretend you did anyway?
I haven't removed the boss.


It's almost like you think someone asked you to remove some boss, well that isn't the case.

And as I wrote before, an easier way to prevent them from spawning in a room full of enemies is to increase their quantity based on the number of enemies or destroy nearby enemies. The easiest way to fix it is to prevent the enemies from approaching their spawning point (might be called a hesitation to attack).
*edit in* I am so use to you making it sound like I am only suggesting things because of my own failings to do them right that I misread you and thought you were telling us players to do these things. The last thing you said, that would mean the first half of the map would be too easy since no skeletons to fight.

A big point I made here is about the realism of having skeletons walk right past your allies till you trigger allies appear event, it makes no sense at all, and you pretend I said nothing about this. There are other issues too which I detailed earlier. My solution fixes all these problems and you have not mentioned one reason to not use my solution. Vision doesn't matter, there are other ways to trigger events, even if you refuse to tell me what they are exactly, I know they exist because I see them even in your campaigns.
I may not have replied to this clearly, but I think that somebody else did. Items' history is not recorded. It would require adding additional information to every single item just for those who are lazy to do the maths, further increasing the size of save files.
First of all, don't expect other people to speak for you but not tell anyone they are.

But more importantly, I replied to this. It does not need to be saved. So save file size would not change in the slightest. It just needs to be cached temporarily. Taking about saves ignores the whole point of the idea. Also I told you its not just about math, and your not one to talk about laziness. Think of it as a planning mode for items (except much simpler and easier to use, and more necessary because of how complicated the items are and how your english/descriptions fail sometimes)

All items are stripped off your characters and put into storage, the only items available is 1 gloves or axe that give plague(and nothing else), and 1 shoes that give +1 speed (that way cave tiles still matter, but +1 speed on Argan over cave tiles is still 50% faster)
No, no and no. When you are planning a unit's gear and advancements, you get some important effects from AMLA, some from items. So if a unit is stripped of items, it may become totally flawed.

By this stage, you don't have much ALMA under your belt, even less if you've done this before and know all experience on these guys is wasted at this stage.

Totally flawed? What does that even mean? Are you saying the map would be too hard for you without items except for those two? Have you even tried it?
I hated this in most RPGs


Hate what exactly? Hate areas where you are imprisoned and lose items momentarily?
Also, perhaps the orc guards are bribable, when you first encounter them you get a option to bribe them
Imagine the difficulty difference that might come from having 49 gold instead of 50 carried over from the previous scenario.
Shame shame, this is absolute proof you did not fully read what I said. This would be in conjunction with the suggestion where your gold is taken from you and returned latter, so everyone would be equal in this, the gold they would use to bribe guards and possibly buy items from them would be from villages captured and held on this scenario only. And that was just a idea I was spit balling, you didn't even reply at all to the other suggestions for making these scenarios harder that I was more certain on and the balance I was trying to get, and why.
Never seen it reported. I will fix that.
Well I did report it, further proof that you skim my posts and reply with minimal amount of effort and thought. Which is why I am forced to repeat myself so much.

Did you even read and consider what I said about items on enemies for a second? If you had you'd know you have a misconception or two on it and that your limited argument against it (of super work, and super game balance breakage) has been totally refuted.
Last edited by Hex on August 24th, 2014, 2:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

gfgtdf
Developer
Posts: 1312
Joined: February 10th, 2013, 2:25 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by gfgtdf »

Raijer wrote: In "An old f(r)iend", you can use redeem on Argan, but it doesn't kill him, just makes him run, even if it hits. Though it adds to the redeem count. Is that intended ?
On which version of wesnoth did that happen? I remember than when i played that scenario, when i redeemed argan all units died and i lost.
Scenario with Robots SP scenario (1.11/1.12), allows you to build your units with components, PYR No preperation turn 1.12 mp-mod that allows you to select your units immideately after the game begins.

Raijer
Posts: 425
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 9:00 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Raijer »

@gfgtdf: happened on 1.11.16, the last development version.

@Hex:
Hex wrote:What reason do you have against keeping him on his castle so he doesn't suicide? Any? Might you even reply to this point and not just ignore it. Unless you plan to nerf yetis etc. to a quarter damage just to preserve AI stupidity... Though you still haven't explained why its so important to preserve AI stupidity. You are in love with reloading games or something?
Might be just me, but i think Dugi missed it when you said that Garcyn (allied leader) dies easily. It happens to anyone from time to time, just don't get angry... (also, it was when he was away for 2 days)
Hex wrote:
Why do you ask for help and refuse the help afterwards?
Why do you refuse to help, but pretend you did anyway?
I think that what you were asking for requires knowledge of WML, and so Dugi gave you that link assuming that you would learn about WML. If you have absolutely no intention of learning WML, i doubt anyone would take the time to explain it to someone that doesn't seem so motivated...

Hex wrote:A big point I made here is about the realism of having skeletons walk right past your allies till you trigger allies appear event, it makes no sense at all, and you pretend I said nothing about this. There are other issues too which I detailed earlier. My solution fixes all these problems and you have not mentioned one reason to not use my solution. Vision doesn't matter, there are other ways to trigger events, even if you refuse to tell me what they are exactly, I know they exist because I see them even in your campaigns.
Oh yes indeed, you made quite a big point, which was discussed... 3 weeks before you started coming to the forums, and resolved at that time. If people could read at least the 10 last pages before writing, just to make sure they aren't complaining about something that has already been resolved, just not uploaded. If you don't agree with the solution Dugi's using, please explain yours more efficiently. Your solution does work indeed, but as it adds a mechanism that is never seen outside of this particular scenario, it looks out of place.
Hex wrote:But more importantly, I replied to this. It does not need to be saved. So save file size would not change in the slightest. It just needs to be cached temporarily. Taking about saves ignores the whole point of the idea. Also I told you its not just about math, and your not one to talk about laziness. Think of it as a planning mode for items (except much simpler and easier to use, and more necessary because of how complicated the items are and how your english/descriptions fail sometimes)
I think he's actually speaking about the fact that you have to record when the item was created to allow you to refund it within one turn. Also, from what i remember, some part of the code is saved in the save files.
It also allows huge exploits: as in, i'm making an item, but it suits more than 1 unit. So i'm simply attacking with the first, then refund the item, recraft it on the second unit, and then refund. And hop, you got an item that can travel all over the map just by refunding and recrafting it.
Also, knowing that at this stage, you can probably craft only 6-7 items, why don't you simply try to get more item drops, to see which ability does what, and forget about crafting at least for this chapter ? All the crafted item abilitiess are present in dropped items, so you could use drops to discover the abilities, and then try crafting.
Hex wrote:Totally flawed? What does that even mean? Are you saying the map would be too hard for you without items except for those two? Have you even tried it?
IMHO, i think he means that you have usually an objective when you choose advancements/equip items on an unit. Like, i'm gonna make that one a fast hit and run killer, so i will improve mostly his movement points so he can kill from very far, and then go out of retaliation range with the hit and run (i did that on Efraim once, quite fun). The problem is, that means you use advancement to improve movement, and rely on whatever item you have for the hit and run (Cunctator's sword or Guerrilla, whatever). And once that unit lose its items, it becomes... Just a fast unit, with low damage. Kind of flawed, and quite a big fall: with items, it kills from far away and can never get attacked, without items, it can just run away fast and see far. Not that useful anymore (without thinking about difficulty, it's just annoying).
So, a scenario where your units lose their items shouldn't be done.
Hex wrote:Did you even read and consider what I said about items on enemies for a second? If you had you'd know you have a misconception or two on it and that your limited argument against it (of super work, and super game balance breakage) has been totally refuted.
About this, i'm quite sure he considered this, but it implies way too many problems, which he kind of already exposed:
Which item would you give to which enemy ? How do you change the item's abilities to fit an AI's thinking, since it's obviously less efficient on AIs than on humans? Where do you put the limit on how different from the original item it can be ?
If i give to an orcish leader enemy a sword that gives +20% damage and knockback. It's obviously useless (not strong enough) for the Ai, so i have to give it more bonus damage. How much more ? Will it still be approximately balanced ?
How do you decide wether you have to remove the abilities (like knockback) or not ?
Also, seeing an enemy having a claymore (it gives +20% damage and knockback), but the enemy unit has huge damage, because you had to make it stronger. Won't you think: "oh good, that item seems quite strong, seeing the effect it has on that enemy", and when you kill him, you get the normal claymore... A little disappointing, in my opinion.

And finally, how do you make it for every scenario ? Do you think there's a way to make it automatic ? Or do you think Dugi will actually go through the whole campaign coding that this unit will have a silver axe, this one a fine bow, this one could have Dugi's Wrath, just so someone can use it one day...
It can't be automatic, simply because units are too different, because depending on which scenario, you would need to give more power or not to enemies, and because items are useless for some units (give an axe to an orc leader, he can't use them...), so you can't give them randomly. Just imagine, every 5 units has a claymore. But, in some scenario, you might be fighting dwarves, and they can't use swords, so that's a useless item for them.

So, or you try to do it automatically (and in fact, randomly), and you break the balance completely, or you do it scenario by scenario, and you get a hellish ton of work (remember, Dugi's doing that for free, don't start asking things that aren't really needed and would take ton of time).

Hex wrote:Well I did report it, further proof that you skim my posts and reply with minimal amount of effort and thought. Which is why I am forced to repeat myself so much.
Indeed, you did report it (i re-read your posts just to check, but you did). The problem is, DUGI GOT A LIFE (i'm not kidding, though... who knows, maybe he passes all his free time on Wesnoth). So i think that in a huge post where most of it is something that has been asked 2 years ago and proved useless, he had a hard time remembering something perfectly useful: a bug report (to avoid that kind of problem in the future, try doing separate parts, "Propositions to make it better" and "Actual bugs", for example).

Also, small advice: people don't like double posts, try editting your post if you want to add something.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

Hex
Posts: 161
Joined: June 15th, 2010, 6:08 am

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Hex »

Raijer wrote:Might be just me, but i think Dugi missed it when you said that Garcyn (allied leader) dies easily. It happens to anyone from time to time, just don't get angry... (also, it was when he was away for 2 days)
I've mentioned it more then once, (just not by name because I couldn't remember it) including in the post that he was replying to.
me in post that was replied to wrote wrote: And what about the suicidal allie where you lose when he dies, still haven't responded to that. He can suicide in as little as turn 11, which is way too early.(requires reloading and hoping AI makes a smarter decision next time, or gets luckier against a yetti on snow)
I don't think its unreasonable to expect someone to read what they are replying to.
Raijer wrote:I think that what you were asking for requires knowledge of WML, and so Dugi gave you that link assuming that you would learn about WML.
The subject matter was ways of making unit appear event trigger while units are barricaded behind event blockage. Dugi said some stuff that was unclear like usual, (and like usual, refused to explain what he meant) but I inferred to mean a reason he was against the barricaded in a room idea was because they couldn't be triggered by event into existence if they can't see the approaching unit. I found this to be absurd, because I know there are many other ways of triggering a event, not just by sight, and even if by sight, there are other ways to do that too. The question about methods of triggering events was in direct correlation to this subject, and clearly was meant to aid me in discussing the matter (hard to discuss different ways of doing something if you don't know what the options are)
Raijer wrote:Oh yes indeed, you made quite a big point, which was discussed... 3 weeks before you started coming to the forums, and resolved at that time.
It wasn't resolved because my point hinges on how things work right now. Right now skeletons walk through that area as if no one is there, but when you discover your allies, its like they do too, and units they were walking right past suddenly get attacked.(well technically they just popped into existence, but in game story that isn't how it is) It makes no sense, and is not resolved because that is how it is NOW.
Raijer wrote:Your solution does work indeed, but as it adds a mechanism that is never seen outside of this particular scenario, it looks out of place.
You mean for this campaign, or any addon? I've seen this solution of blockage that disappears when you click on it and tell it to go away, in a number of different addon, its actually pretty common thing for it or something like it in the more intricate addons, and not at all a original idea. But it works. The graphics can be that of a pile of garbage. I don't understand how this could possibly negatively effect other scenarios in the campaign with some vague concept of "out of place"ness
Raijer wrote:I think he's actually speaking about the fact that you have to record when the item was created to allow you to refund it within one turn.
Sure, in cache, and that record would be deleted once conditions like end turn, or even perhaps unit movement, happen.
Raijer wrote:Also, from what i remember, some part of the code is saved in the save files.
Are you saying there is no way to program it so that this record of when items were created isn't put in saves? I find that hard to believe.
Raijer wrote:It also allows huge exploits: as in, i'm making an item, but it suits more than 1 unit. So i'm simply attacking with the first, then refund the item, recraft it on the second unit, and then refund. And hop, you got an item that can travel all over the map just by refunding and recrafting it.
You can limit crafting to the same limitations as getting items from storage. And with that, the exploits allowed with juggling items in storage are stronger then if we did this with crafting.

And/or if you lost that ability for fill refund when ever a unit moved/attacked.
Raijer wrote:IMHO, i think he means that you have usually an objective when you choose advancements/equip items on an unit. Like, i'm gonna make that one a fast hit and run killer, so i will improve mostly his movement points so he can kill from very far, and then go out of retaliation range with the hit and run (i did that on Efraim once, quite fun). The problem is, that means you use advancement to improve movement, and rely on whatever item you have for the hit and run (Cunctator's sword or Guerrilla, whatever). And once that unit lose its items, it becomes... Just a fast unit, with low damage. Kind of flawed, and quite a big fall: with items, it kills from far away and can never get attacked, without items, it can just run away fast and see far. Not that useful anymore (without thinking about difficulty, it's just annoying).
I mentioned already, this is early on, people won't have many AML advancements for these two, perhaps not any, if they have done this before and know that experience up to linch transformation is all wasted. That means there is no real specialization to be done yet, the issue is only that of difficulty. Maybe what your saying is true for latter scenarios with many advancements under belt and increased difficulty to match, but not here.

Someone earlier even said they used editor to cheat their way to this level, playing the characters with only 2 and 3 AML achievements, and the items the MC starts with, and was able to do it without too much difficulty, on hard, so this point is moot, and contradictory with other arguments against different change suggestions I made for this scenario.
Raijer wrote:Which item would you give to which enemy ? How do you change the item's abilities
Now your not reading what your replying to. I've said this over and over with this suggestion, I'll say it again and carefully spell it out, now listen up please.

Only the rarity of the item matters. Each item could have a rarity value (probably already does for chance to drop) Enemies would be boosted in their stats by a percentage based on the rarity of a item. For example, claymore swords most be the most common item ever, and are similarly weak. So they would be Common rarity, and all enemies with common rarity items could have their stats boosted across the board by (for example) 10% (10% more hp, damage for all attacks, resistance, defense, last two scaling like it does with your units) Dragon Sword might be a legendary rarity item, and all units enemies with legendary items could have its stats increase by (for example) 90%. The actual effects of the item would be irrelevant. And of course equipment slot etc would be irrelevant too, when on enemy AI unit. Special exception may need to be made for major bosses, who might become too strong with this, but in return they would guarantee drops of a certain rarity.

Optionally, but not necessary, some effects, like say knock out or plague etc could be used. Lots, few, none, we could choose among those . Or if luminescence, converted to darkening etc. This would be more for flavor then anything else.
Raijer wrote:Separate parts for bugs and suggestions.
And risk having the suggestions part ignored more?
Raijer wrote:Also, small advice: people don't like double posts, try editting your post if you want to add something.
Nothing wrong with double posting, and if its been awhile since my last post, if I edit in content latter on, someone whos already read the post might not even notice/think to reread it for alterations. Posting new if some time since last post, is more polite and reasonable for others reading it and more likely that the new content won't be missed. And it would be silly to wait for someone to reply just to add to what I am saying.

Dugi, I again remind you of the issues I mentioned before regarding dialogue problems in that first ice scenario. You have yet to reply to either issue.

Raijer
Posts: 425
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 9:00 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Raijer »

Hex wrote:It wasn't resolved because my point hinges on how things work right now. Right now skeletons walk through that area as if no one is there, but when you discover your allies, its like they do too, and units they were walking right past suddenly get attacked.(well technically they just popped into existence, but in game story that isn't how it is) It makes no sense, and is not resolved because that is how it is NOW.
Well, might as well has spoken to void... How long has it been since the last new version ? More than 3 weeks, so the fix simply hasn't been uploaded yet... As i said it:
Raijer wrote:something that has already been resolved, just not uploaded.
Hex wrote:Someone earlier even said they used editor to cheat their way to this level, playing the characters with only 2 and 3 AML achievements, and the items the MC starts with, and was able to do it without too much difficulty, on hard, so this point is moot, and contradictory with other arguments against different change suggestions I made for this scenario.
Indeed, that was me... To show that adding movement/plague items at start was useless. The problem of removing all items for 1 scenario is more about not being annoying with the player than a problem of difficulty. I think Dugi doesn't want to do things that would destroy the point of items (even if it's just for that scenario), and also found that it was annoying for the player to lose all items. More a question of feelings on that one, so i doubt you could make him change his mind.
Hex wrote:Only the rarity of the item matters. Each item could have a rarity value (probably already does for chance to drop) Enemies would be boosted in their stats by a percentage based on the rarity of a item. For example, claymore swords most be the most common item ever, and are similarly weak. So they would be Common rarity, and all enemies with common rarity items could have their stats boosted across the board by (for example) 10% (10% more hp, damage for all attacks, resistance, defense, last two scaling like it does with your units) Dragon Sword might be a legendary rarity item, and all units enemies with legendary items could have its stats increase by (for example) 90%. The actual effects of the item would be irrelevant. And of course equipment slot etc would be irrelevant too, when on enemy AI unit. Special exception may need to be made for major bosses, who might become too strong with this, but in return they would guarantee drops of a certain rarity.
... What's the difference with giving enemies special traits, which already exists ? In the end, is it about knowing which items will drop ?
I don't see the point of doing that and speaking of enemies equipping items, when the items don't really have any logical effects, and don't even depend on which enemies you're fighting. If you want the enemies to be stronger, there are aready things done for this.
If you want to know which item will drop, it's against the idea of random item drops, which's point is that you never actually know which item will drop.

Hex wrote:You can limit crafting to the same limitations as getting items from storage. And with that, the exploits allowed with juggling items in storage are stronger then if we did this with crafting.
That could actually be done, though it could change some parts of the gameplay in a strange way. Depends on Dugi.
Hex wrote:And/or if you lost that ability for fill refund when ever a unit moved/attacked.
Well, now you're starting to get to how it should actually be done. Though it wouldn't be enough, as some items give commandement abilities (something like improved illumination), that do not need to move or attack to be useful, you could actually make that circle of improved illumination travel through your line using that, but that's indeed a smaller problem.
Hex wrote:Sure, in cache, and that record would be deleted once conditions like end turn, or even perhaps unit movement, happen.
Well, as i don't know how to code in WML, i can't say anything, but if Dugi says it isn't worth it, i think he's right.
Hex wrote:The subject matter was ways of making unit appear event trigger while units are barricaded behind event blockage.
And he sent you to the page of event triggering, because he didn't want to waste time explaining WML to someone that won't use it out of that. Not surprising, i wouldn't want to start teaching someone out of nowhere about things he will never actually use, even more if the person in question has been a little annoying just before.

Though your solution could be done easily, as creating a lvl 0 unit called "barricade" that would have 1 hp and be on the enemy's side (it was used in IftU, i think). You kill the barricade (let's be honest, you kill whatever you see that can be attacked), and then the event triggers.
So if Dugi doesn't want to do it, it's mostly because:
-he thinks his solution is more logical, as it doesn't need change to the dialogs and make it seems like they were fighting. (maybe a little lazyness there, but he's doing it for FREE, so DON'T complain)
-he feels that putting barricades there when he never uses them in the rest of the campaign would be out of place, or it goes against his idea of this scenario.
-he felt you were nit-picking and you didn't explain more clearly how you would do it.

Hex wrote:I don't think its unreasonable to expect someone to read what they are replying to.
If you go back in the topic a little, you will see that it happens regularly that he misses what someone wrote, or forget replying to it because he didn't have time.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

User avatar
Dugi
Posts: 4955
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 10:29 am
Location: Carpathian Mountains
Contact:

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Dugi »

Raijer, a big thanks for replying to Hex. Your replies were generally correct and I will not repeat the same things as you have said. But I have the same feeling about it than you, that it's like speaking to void. I could have said it in a dream and the result would be the same.
Raijer wrote:Well, "only the nearby ones" is quite a lot... You're giving the player half the villages, which mean 40 income at start. Also, the 3 villages whose location i gave are quite far from your main keep, and can't really be seen as close.
I will see what I can do.
Raijer wrote: In "An old f(r)iend", you can use redeem on Argan, but it doesn't kill him, just makes him run, even if it hits. Though it adds to the redeem count. Is that intended ?
I have forgotten to make him unredeemable.
Raijer wrote:Also, on the 7th hit, the door next to Argan doesn't open, same thing for the 9th hit. And i think we don't have 11 hits but 10 before having him leave (cause you say 11 in the walkthrough).
Fixed.
Hex wrote:Come on, I spend so much effort posting this and you give so little effort reading and replying.
Well, judging from the case when you mentioned somebody cheating in Where the Sun Does not Shine and the reply that it was in order to prove you something, I can be quite sure that you don't spend much effort reading. Or that you consider Raijer inferior to me or something, which would be despicable from you.
Hex wrote: Dugi said some stuff that was unclear like usual
My replies to you are vague because if they were clearer, I would spend more time writing them and the result would be the same. I have given up my attempts to write replies to you properly because you dispute it regardless of what I reply.
Hex wrote:Sure, in cache, and that record would be deleted once conditions like end turn, or even perhaps unit movement, happen.
I will explain this fully, in a way that should be understandable for anybody. Items have no identification keys. They don't have a central storage. They are partially using Wesnoth's default system for items (you can read further in http://wiki.wesnoth.org/EffectWML) and WML does not support pointers, so there is no way to make a central storage of items without having the check all units that would take some time. So the only way to know if the item was created that turn is either to add some identifiers to items or to record when were they created, and all would need extra data in save files. There are ways to keep some information so that it would not be saved, but you can't attach them to variables that are saved.
Even the two possibilities that consume extra space in save files are problematic. Identifiers would need to be unique, thus numbered from the first item you have picked (any random strings are not assured to be unique). I plan to add a possibility to let players export their army and meet in multiplayer, and they would not be unique in that way. Saving the creation time is an issue as well, because the turn is not always unique, in some scenarios the turn count resets at some point.
And also, I find this unnecessary because you want it only because you're lazy to do the maths. I play a game named Path of Exile from time to time. It's an action RPG with pretty complex character development. Recently, an update has broken my main character because some skills I was using were changed and I had to respecialise. So I checked some in-game information, wrote it down, done some maths, considered a few possibilities and made a new plan (still on paper, I need to get some items first). I also spent several hours preparing a character in Neverwinter Nights 2 before even starting to play him, but the result was a destroyer, well-armoured, highly spell resistant, powerful with spells, capable of healing himself repeatedly and capable to buff up to be quite noticeable also in melee combat. If you want to prepare characters, use a pen, a paper and a calculator for it and don't ask me for adding tools for that. Almost no games have it, including those with much more complex character development than units in LotI.

Don't bring this back again.
Hex wrote:Well I did report it, further proof that you skim my posts and reply with minimal amount of effort and thought. Which is why I am forced to repeat myself so much.
You know, most of your posts is just repeating the same arguments over and over again. I have said why I don't think so, you say that you don't like if for whatever reason. And you keep annoying with it over and over again. This strongly motivates me to skim your posts and reply to parts of it. I am also trying to motivate you to let this thread be because if you happen to mention a problem that actually is, it's hidden in a long irrelevant text. Trolling you did not help. Being rude did not help. Leaving for two weeks did not help.
I have a life and I don't have time for this prattle you're bringing back again and again. Even if I was to live forever I would prefer to spend my free time in a more pleasant way. And by the way, I am considering even the things I refuse initially, and sometimes I change my mind. But if you make me hate the idea by forcing me to read it ten times, I am less likely to agree.

I will do something with the ally spawning issue, but I don't need your further input for it. Especially when you're speaking about that stupid barricade all the time and I had at least 5 different ideas what could be done. Don't bring this back again.

By the way, I have fixed the problem with Garcyn rushing to combat by preventing him from leaving his post.
Hex wrote:You can limit crafting to the same limitations as getting items from storage. And with that, the exploits allowed with juggling items in storage are stronger then if we did this with crafting.
I can indeed do that to fix the problem with cycling items in the case if there was full refund for crafting, but there won't be any full refund for crafting. As I wrote before, this is one of the absolutely minor things that would need doing a million other things to make it viable. It's almost like asking me to add a real-time scenario, yes, I can rewrite all wesnoth to support this but is it worth all the effort and nuisance.
Hex wrote:Only the rarity of the item matters. Each item could have a rarity value (probably already does for chance to drop) Enemies would be boosted in their stats by a percentage based on the rarity of a item.
Whether a unit will drop an item or will not and what the item will be is decided when the unit dies, not when the unit is created (because that would never work for all units and would require changing all scenarios where some units are created in a different way than recruited). In many scenarios, the odds that an item drops is like 1%, and that would affect enemy difficulty only a little bit. Items have no rarity attribute, because using a mechanic like that in a language like WML would be problematically slow (WML isn't suited for any larger calculations, it's like 3000 times slower than C++). Adding this feature would require a heavy rewrite that would bring many regressions and furthermore would cause short freezes when units are created.
Hex wrote:And risk having the suggestions part ignored more?
I recommend order you to ditch the suggestions part completely. People like Raijer have played through the campaign several times and know better what it needs.
Hex wrote:Nothing wrong with double posting, and if its been awhile since my last post, if I edit in content latter on, someone whos already read the post might not even notice/think to reread it for alterations.
If you will double post again I will report you to moderators, it should not be done unless you need to bump the topic which is not the case.
Raijer wrote:The problem is, DUGI GOT A LIFE (i'm not kidding, though... who knows, maybe he passes all his free time on Wesnoth).
Yes, I have a life. Sometimes I go out with friends, sometimes I play other video games, sometimes I help other people with their add-ons and mainly I work on another project. Besides free time, I am studying two universities, neither of which is considered easy and working on a thesis; currently it's summer but I have a summer job and I am taking driving lessons. If you want me to get the other project working before it will no longer be possible to continue studying and I will have to start working and have a family...
Raijer wrote:he feels that putting barricades there when he never uses them in the rest of the campaign would be out of place
This is the case. Adding a new element to fix one lesser issue is not the way I find solutions. If I added something new to fix any issue, the resulting complexity would be a real problem, both to maintain and to understand for players. I add some new things if I want to make a unique scenario (like Ascension, Darkness Closing In, We Walk in the Shadows, Another Orcish Assault, Arctic Wastelands, Gladiatrix or Rush), but that's a different case.

Raijer
Posts: 425
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 9:00 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Raijer »

Hmm, just wondering: can the snowstorm in "Arctic Wastelands" kill ?

Also, something that i've been asking for a lot: can there be an option inside "Items" that would allow to pick everything that's on the current hex ?
Mostly because of zombies, but also because of some errors in manipulation, or when you're testing different items: if you drop an item that you didn't want to drop, or if you're comparing an item that dropped from a kill and an item you already equipped, after turn 3.
Before you ask, it's also because the 2 little move points that are needed to go back and forth to the hex can cost the unit (and can actually go up to 6 or 8 move points depending on the terrain and unit), and because going in and out of the item menu doesn't work with every unit.
And finally, because of the little annoying bug that makes it that if you pick a gem first, you can't get the weapons at the same time.



And if you finish an unit with redeem, but it isn't supposed to be possible to redeem, it still works. At least, when i tested it on the nightmares in "Arctic Wastelands", that disappear after on hit. When you kill them with redeem, the count increases.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

User avatar
Dugi
Posts: 4955
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 10:29 am
Location: Carpathian Mountains
Contact:

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Dugi »

The snowstorm can kill.

How did you manage to succeed with redeem on the evil Lethalia, whose level is 25, while the highest level of units that can be redeemed is 23 and an ability to do that is extremely hard to get AND the chance to succeed is 5%?

I have added an option to pick up items under a unit. I can't find the cause of the bug with items under gems, but if I won't find it it will be at least less annoying.

Raijer
Posts: 425
Joined: April 25th, 2013, 9:00 pm

Re: Legend of the Invincibles

Post by Raijer »

Dugi wrote:I have added an option to pick up items under a unit.
Thanks a lot.
Dugi wrote:How did you manage to succeed with redeem on the evil Lethalia, whose level is 25, while the highest level of units that can be redeemed is 23 and an ability to do that is extremely hard to get AND the chance to succeed is 5%?
Well, that seems to be a bug related to nightmares (not the really one, just the illusions). Whatever's the level of redeem (i'm at lvl 8, but it worked with lvl 7), if you hit the clone, it redeems it.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley

Post Reply