Legend of the Invincibles

[Dugi]

Here's the save for Hordes of the other world, just before killing the 30th enemy.
There are also some errors that appear at each beginning of a turn.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Here you have it.

This is also too late, the side carryover into next scenario is calculated before the screen turns grey due to victory. Can you please give me one created one turn before the scenario end? Or before killing the last enemy?

Sorry. Is in Scenario 1 optional (Bandits):

Thanks.

I think that it should be defense, by the way.

It's defense in American english, defence in British english. LotI is written in British (because I was taught British english at school and I still stick to it rather than to American english).

You get three Dwarvish Fighters.

Right.

Soul Harvest sounds cooler than others.

Okay.

As far as I know, undeads don't have legacies. After Efraim & Lethalia become liches, they lose all advancements achieved when they lived. It is similar in part II when they turn from preserved liches to demigods.

Silly me, I wasn't able to figure this out... Congratulations.

[lastjuan]

[...]
This is also too late, the side carryover into next scenario is calculated before the screen turns grey due to victory. Can you please give me one created one turn before the scenario end? Or before killing the last enemy?

Here you have it. I didn't know that it was created after the scenario ends.

LotI1-Umbra-Guardado_automático7.gz

(505.41 KiB) Downloaded 123 times

[...]Thanks.

I think that it should be defense, by the way.

It's defense in American english, defence in British english. LotI is written in British (because I was taught British english at school and I still stick to it rather than to American english).

Fair enough.

You get three Dwarvish Fighters.

Right.

As far as I know, undeads don't have legacies. After Efraim & Lethalia become liches, they lose all advancements achieved when they lived. It is similar in part II when they turn from preserved liches to demigods.

Silly me, I wasn't able to figure this out... Congratulations.

Sometimes, I even can't understand myself. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

In Siege (Chapter 3, Scenario 3) Delly says:

We really ca not be bothered.

I thnk it's can.
About the item Quick Gauntlets, the description says:

Increases physical resistances by 5%
1 more attack

It's only in melee attacks, isn't it?

Playing in 1.11.x, it's very curious to see both versions of the Skeletal Dragon:

The new version looks very intimidating...

About the walktrough of Into Our Frozen Land (Chapter 4, Scenario 2), the text says:

Once an undead attacks your unit, Efraim will enchant them so they will be allied with you, and no longer attack you.

It's enough to approach Efraim near the lake, isn't it?

[Raijer]

In "Another orcish assault" (part 2 chap 7), knocking back a catapult kills it instantly.

[Dugi]

Here you have it. I didn't know that it was created after the scenario ends.

Odd, but everything went correctly (if you want the save file, write). I think it might be a bug in the latest version of wesnoth (I don't have the latest version of wesnoth, but it is based on one of 1.12's release candidates), consider reporting it.

I thnk it's can.

Yeah, corrected.

It's only in melee attacks, isn't it?

It doesn't affect spells, but it affects also bows. The property descriptions are meant to be brief, not mathematically precise.

The new version looks very intimidating...

The reason why LotI uses the old skeletal dragon is that the new one is oversized and unanimated. It looks magnificient, but there's a lot of graphical oddities around its use in the game.

It's enough to approach Efraim near the lake, isn't it?

It happens if he approaches the lake or if he's attacked and the case of being attacked by undead is usually solved by the first case.

In "Another orcish assault" (part 2 chap 7), knocking back a catapult kills it instantly.

Hm, strange. Might be related to my recent attempt to fix the problem of knockback ignoring plague. I'll need to have a closer look at it.

[Raijer]

Bug with redeem: Lethalia needs 12 kills at lvl 3, while the description says 10 and Efraim needs 10. Using Lethalia on one of the necraphagous in south should show that, when you pass to lvl 3, you need 12 kills.

LotI2-Corruption-Sauvegarde_automatique2.gz

(449.48 KiB) Downloaded 123 times

EDIT: Strange. On the passing kill (the last of lvl 2), after choosing your advancement path, it says 0/12. But when getting the first kill of lvl 3, it says 1/10. Any idea why ?

EDIT 2: Also, it is possible to push an unit out of the map with knockback.

[Hex]

type: sword (? a quick slashing weapon might fit)
New weapon special: kamikaze sprint
Merges attacks
20% resist cold (? I imagine it to be quite handy against groups of chapter 7 corrupted things, so why not specialise it against them)

Cold resist is common because Ice armor is common,(and about the best armor you can find on the map so far, oddly better then ancient and mithril, found more often then these too) plus your main characters come with it as liches and of course so do your undead units, so a item that gives further cold resistance is a bit much in cold resistance terms. Arcane resist might be better. (just to be clear, I don't care all that much, just pointing out something to consider)

If I wanted to nitpick, I'd enjoy writing that you want to plan so many things ahead

I have no clue what you are saying here.

This is just a shameless excuse. It's not hard to make a few experiments with non-crafted items and figure this all out (especially when you're interested in the exact result, you should know the formulae).... I take a calculator (or open a calculator program) and compute it all,

That's great, for you. Is this your shameless excuse to not add a mechanism for full refund of items on the same turn they are crafted? How hard would it be to add such a mechanism? Is difficulty in coding the only reason you are against it? (well you haven't actually given a reason against it, I had to read this reason between the lines) Besides, its not just about knowing what a attack will be after damage altering mechanisms are added, but knowing which attacks will be effects at all. Also because of issues like description text saying attack, when it means strike, it is really hard to know what something will do without actually equipping it, calculator or not. Even knowing which type to craft is difficult till you experiment a bit with crafting by saving and reloading.

Look, they can look over/through the barricade and see you, they got windows in the room too.

I am not speaking about any realism here, have you noticed that impassable terrains in wesnoth can't be seen through?

And what is your point here, you mean for triggering discovering them or something, you want to use the units line of sight to trigger the event? But surely there must be other ways to trigger a event. I have also been told it is possible to give a unit vision independent of movement. Give a hidden immortal event item such vision that goes away after being triggered, or something.

From past posts, I know that you performed much worse in that scenario than others, so I can easily assert that it was only you who had issues in that scenario.

When I loaded from previous scenario and snuck in some items, especially movement and plague attack, it became much much easier.

Here, try this. Do this scenario with only a few items on your two MCs (as like if you were someone to spread items around different units and not just put em on one or two) and no plague/infect or movement items. See for yourself how huge of a difference this makes.

Also, once again, you don't even argue against my suggestion, you basically say "no need" (ignoring all my points saying there is a need) Do you have even one reason against adding a item that gives plague and adding a item that gives cave/mushroom walking (and nothing else) for the beginning of the scenario? If so, lets read it, out with it please.

In the special advancements there is "Health (+10 to hp advancements)" I have no idea what this means. This means +10 hp per unit level, including max levels? Future levels?
Though when you actually pick it, it just says "more healthy" and doesn't even give 10hp, it gives 7. But does it keep giving for each level after this?

It will add unlock several advancements that will add 10 hp instead of the usual 3.

The advancement gives 10hp, or the leveling does? You should say it gives +7, because that is more accurate. Don't count stuff that increases anyway with any advancement as part of the advancement. Otherwise all advancements could be worded as also giving +3 to max hp and giving full heal, and that would just be silly (increase magic attack, and gives +3 to max hp along with full heal once, increase movement, and gives +3 to max HP along with full heal once, and so on) And "more healthy" is way too vague.

The wording should be, "Unlocks four advancements that increases max HP by 7 each"

And in the advancement screen, "Gives +7 to max HP" rather then "more healthy" (which is also bad grammar as well as being uselessly vague)

I also questioned whether +7 to max hp was too weak a advancement. You never replied.

James_The_Invisible
lightning: 35-1, magical, can be improved to 42-2 with first strike (attacking first even in defense)
thunderer: (you meant thunder?) 30-1 explosive, can be improved to 50-1, it is rather magical fire than some gun
meteor: 40-1 fire, magical, explosive, cannot be used in defense, its damage can be increased by 30

Thank you

Thunderer
Piercing gun attack.
Meteor
A fiery attack with AoE.

So explosive, that hits friendly units, and doesn't give experience for kills done via it, right?

Is replying really such a hassle that you can't give a answer like James did, rather then these pat brief replies that don't even fully consider what they are replying to? (and if you had noticed James answer, there was no need to reply at all) BTW, yes james, I meant thunder, my error. A error easy to figure out when you consider the context of choosing advancement menu that requires other magic attacks. And I wanted the full explanation like James gave, I even specifically asked for it.

Also, not everything is a question, some of it is a point, or a discussion. Something to consider fully and not just reply to get past.

You shouldn't take it right when you get the first AMLA, it's definitely not worth it. But after several advancements, it might not be so bad, because the antisocial's damage anti-bonus is multiplicative while the damage penalty isn't, it just subtracts 2 damage from all of his attacks.

The second advancement removes the (dis-)ability totally, but at another -2 damage penalty.

Well presumably by then it would be strong enough to fight on its own where antisocial wouldn't even come into play much. But the point is that antisocial is a nerf it didn't strictly need in the first place. Though it does add interesting character to it. And requiring two advancement to get ride of it is already a high cost, already making it hard to advance it far enough that anyone would consider a -4 nerf to all damage being worth it. Remember, each advancement increases the amount of experience required for the next one.

And of course one could point out that any unit will get better with advancement, but every nerf/bonus matters. If you have a warlock and a shadowalker, both with lots of advancements on them to make the removing antisocials damage nerf, relatively less and then choose those advancements. I mean lets say both have 10 after max level advancements on them (assuming you want to feed them that many kills), with two of them being removing antisocial with warlock, the warlock will definitely be weaker, in almost every way, including by magic (after you consider backstab) The warlock starts out with something making it hard to protect (because of antisocial), yet needing the protection, and has to spend two advancements making it even weaker, where has the shadowalker can devote all 10 of its advancements to being stronger. Weaker at start, and weaker at finish.

Besides, advancements top out soon enough and stop giving additional strikes,(more strikes makes more damage more valuable anyway) so that each one gives +1 to damage only, meaning the true cost of getting ride of antisocial with no nerfs is 10 advancements. 4 advancements for melee damage increase +1, 4 advancements for magic damage increase +1, and two to get ride of the antisocial.

10 advancements to get to where other units start out at, which represents alot of kills that could be given to other units.

Seems you find warlock unbalanced. Very well, I made him stronger.

Thank you. Yes I do, I find it too weak compared to the other paths for the same unit. What did you do to make him stronger? What ever way you did, would you also please remove the damage nerf from anti-antisocial advancement?

There are other stuff you didn't reply to at all. Like, adding a crafting item snow shoes that decrease movement cost in snow (maybe by 1, rather then to 1, if that is doable) that always must be footwear and provides no other bonuses. Obviously with lower crafting requirements. Alternatively, a few of such items at the beginning of the all snow level.

What about the issue of defense achievement increases that don't match their stated numbers and are all over the place?

Regarding items on enemies. I mentioned before that we could just make units stronger that have items on it, and more strength given with better items, even if the items attributes don't specifically fit with the increased strength. But we could have some of the attributes fit where applicable, this is for flavor, not to change difficulty.

Speaking of altered enemies, some enemy units have different graphics, like partial transparency, but are not any stronger. Is this intentional?

BTW, I said this before, but to repeat, this is a fun campaign to play.

[James_The_Invisible]

I have also been told it is possible to give a unit vision independent of movement.

Well, this is possible but only on Wesnoth 1.11.x.

Do you have even one reason against adding a item that gives plague

Actually, both Efraim and Lethalia should get plague to their melee attacks at the start of that scenario but when I got to that scenario long time ago, at least one of them did not get it. (Sorry for not reporting it earlier and not providing more info.)

The wording should be, "Unlocks four advancements that increases max HP by 7 each"

I for one find the current formulation alright as the question (at the top of the window) is "Which new advancement path should our victorious unit get?".

[Hex]

Lethalia, as a mage who's melee attack isnt even boosted by items (5-3 attack, not magical), this isn't worth much. Argan needs plague too, his movement slows the party down way way too much without movement items, and without plague one can't even safely leave him behind. Argans movement without items is often two(2), making it a really difficult to even safely get him to a house for healing. It takes him nearly half the 100 turns just to walk in a straight line to the end without stopping to battle, heal, or anything else, without a movement item. And with bats spawned every turn plus the rest, he wouldn't be able to do that.

I have also been told it is possible to give a unit vision independent of movement.

Well, this is possible but only on Wesnoth 1.11.x.

What about a invisible invincible event unit with a AI that tells it to do absolutely nothing, as a way to trigger the event? Surely there are other ways to trigger events too. I've seen it, like the event that causes the dragon to appear is triggered without being in line of sight of the dragon (it doesn't even exist at that point)

What different methods exist for triggering a event?

The wording should be, "Unlocks four advancements that increases max HP by 7 each"

I for one find the current formulation alright as the question (at the top of the window) is "Which new advancement path should our victorious unit get?".

I am sorry, you lost me, I don't know what you are talking about. Formulation what does that mean in relation to this? You like the way "Which new advancement path should our victorious unit get?" is put? What does that have to do with this subject?

[Raijer]

Ok... Can i have your starting save, just so i know what you did wrong ? Cause i tried, and it isn't really hard:
On 1.10.7, i re-started the campaign on hard, used debug to reach "Where the sun does not shine" fast (meaning, i never actually fought out of this one), and gave some advancements to my leaders: 1 advancement past max for Lethalia, 2 for Efraim.
I played it with no items out of the sword of Krux you get in the tutorial.
And the conclusion is... 25 turns of margin, which i could have used to give kills to the death knight. Seriously, did you give no kills to your leaders in the precedent scenarios ? I can admit that you would lose maybe 10 turns to explore some parts of the map, but 25 ?
Also, you do know that you can simply leave Argan behind with zombies, and use Lethalia and Efraim to win the scenario, no ?

All in all, i think that even if it was as hard as you feel it is, you should expect that, when you're on hard, there can be some scenarios where you have to try once, see where you failed, and then re-try it and do a lot better.

@Dugi: I forgot this, but you still forgot to fix the recruit list in " Where the sun does not shine", there should be only walking corpses, but there are also tons of human units that can be recruited.

[James_The_Invisible]

I am sorry, you lost me, I don't know what you are talking about. Formulation what does that mean in relation to this? You like the way "Which new advancement path should our victorious unit get?" is put? What does that have to do with this subject?

No, I was talking about "Health (+10 to hp advancements)". I think that it is a valid answer for the long question which I expected you miss. Well, at least the Health part, the rest might use some re-wording as it is not clear enough. And that is what were you doing, suggestion new wording for the second part in () (not the whole text as I thought), right? Well, it is very clear but also too long in my opinion. (Note to myself: never ever answer again anything at late night. I am not totally sane at that time.)

[Dugi]

Dear Hex,

I see that you're interested in my campaign. You're telling that you like it, but look at your way of saying thanks to me. You suggest a lot of things that include massive overhauls to a system that is working well. These massive changes would ruin all balance, make significant changes to the whole thing and require a lot of work, with a result that is questionable. You are getting little agreement despite the number of arguments you've seen, so you should see that I have more reasons to disagree with you than just because I have another opinion.

If you are so strongly persuaded that you're right, you can fork this campaign and create your own Legend of the Invincibles with all the changes you desire. You are and you have always been free to do that. If your campaign will show to be better than the original, I will gladly take your changes into the main project. I will be cooperative and tell you which parts of code do what and how to control them.

Thank you for understanding,
-Dugi

[Dugi]

I forgot this, but you still forgot to fix the recruit list in " Where the sun does not shine", there should be only walking corpses, but there are also tons of human units that can be recruited.

Damn. This should have been noticed ages ago. Thanks for telling.

Bug with redeem: Lethalia needs 12 kills at lvl 3, while the description says 10 and Efraim needs 10. Using Lethalia on one of the necraphagous in south should show that, when you pass to lvl 3, you need 12 kills.

I'll have a look at it, it looks weird. Can you show a save file where it can be seen?

Also, it is possible to push an unit out of the map with knockback.

This looks like a bug in wesnoth, it uses a command that should find a suitable place for the unit. Not a wall, not an enemy, not off-map void.

@James_the_Invisible
Thanks for cooperation.

[Hex]

Last time I played it, I could only recruit WC. And I could not recall. Maybe that bug only shows in developer version, not stable.

You suggest a lot of things that include massive overhauls to a system that is working well. These massive changes would ruin all balance, make significant changes to the whole thing and require a lot of work, with a result that is questionable.

I am no programmer, but I know without a ounce of doubt, putting a item that gives cave walking only at the start of a scenario would not require a massive overhaul of the system, would not be even slightly difficult, would not negatively effect balance in the slightest. Ditto for making the allied boss on the ice map not wander off and get himself killed, the snow shoes, and so on.

If you are referring to other things, you need to be more specific. To respond to everything I said using one set of hyperbolic words is not nice.

There are many ways of accomplishing things, but so far you've resisted having any dialogue at all with me, only giving me your pat reply with little thought, if any reply at all,some stuff doesn't even get the pat/glib reply (with small partial exceptions)

You say I don't talk like someone who appreciates your campaign? You don't talk like someone who appreciates feedback and discussion to improve your campaign. Considering this, it wouldn't matter if I did learn to code and made a fork, I don't see you giving me any more thought even then. (plus a fork for such small changes would be absurd)

Hell, you won't even answer me regarding methods of triggering a event, so I find " I will be cooperative and tell you which parts of code do what and how to control them." to be a lie.

[Dugi]

I was obviously writing about other ideas you suggested in the past, not these few scenario specific ones. Like making enemies use items.

Your scenario specific suggestions are, well... intended just to make the game easier. Raijer clearly wrote that he was able to complete it on hard, so it shouldn't be impossible. You complain about any scenario that is harder than others, so obviously, hard is not your ideal difficulty.
Cheap craftable boots allowing easy movement on snow would affect a lot of scenarios with snow, so it will make massive changes despite your claims. The snow and problem related to it are a part of the scenario, they aren't a bug. The scenario with icy skeletons will be easier in the next version, but not by adding boots allowing easy snow movement. I have tested that scenario when I was writing it and although getting to the battlefield took some time, it wasn't impossible.
The scenario with the fungus and caves has its terrains made so that cave terrain is when I wanted it, if I didn't want it to slow you down I wouldn't have placed it there at all.

I like talking to those who appreciate my campaign, but I don't like spending an hour per day replying if most of it is repetitive as hell leads to nowhere. To be honest, you are one of the very few whose majority of feedback I don't appreciate. Things like Last time I played it, I could only recruit WC. And I could not recall. Maybe that bug only shows in developer version, not stable. are okay. Telling that Warlock is too weak is okay. Telling that a scenario is too easy is okay. Telling that a scenario is too hard would be okay if you hadn't told it too much.

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.

[Raijer]

@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 (because it seems hard to miss that you would have the whole recruit list and not only WCs). Anyway, i played it recruiting only WCs which are the normally allowed recruitable units. The problem there is that, while i admit i know the map quite well, i'm not a good player at Wesnoth (which is why i usually play it on normal, and tested hard only for that scenario), but i still went right through it, taking my time. That 25 turns margin could have been changed to a 30 turns margin with a little optimisation here and there.

So, it's simply that you shouldn't have chosen hard difficulty for a first run. That's all. If you replay it in something like 1 month, it might actually seem like a walk in the park. Anyway, i doubt there is any need to add items when it looks quite easy to me...


@Dugi: 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 ?