AOF ToDo List

Things that do not fit any other section
Post Reply
User avatar
Savra
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:21 pm

AOF ToDo List

Post by Savra »

Basically the same as before but more cleared up.

  • Effect that changes what units transforms into on death, eg A unit effected by zombie infection will turn into a zombie on the same team as the unit who placed the effect, on death instead of a corpse.

  • Effect that add a category to a unit when using an ability (e.g. ["U_CHARGING"] category for units that use a charge ability)

  • Update the AI's buildlist options so they can build on more terrain then just clear ground.

  • Update the Uncontrollable ai so they don't camp near tc's, and make it so they can attack after they can move, not just before.

  • Ability Power change (+) needs to be updated so that it removes all modifiers after effect expired.

  • Make the new area effects, able to target ground tiles (this way we can have spells like fireball that can be arranged in the middle of enemy units to maximize the amount of targets hit by them).

  • Create the "ignoreArmor" stat that allow a unit to ignore a certain amount of armor or p.armor (based on the unit damage type).
    A archer with "ignoreArmor": 3, will deal damage as if its target had -3 to its p.armor. I'll make 3 examples for clarity:

    We have a archer with 10 power and 5 ignoreArmor

    on a target with 10 p.armor the archer deals 10-(10 armor-5 ignoreArmor)= 5 damage
    on a target with 0 p.armor the archer deals 10-(0-5 ignore armor will be considered 0 armor)= 10 damage
    on a target with 3 p.armor the archer deals 10-(3-5 ignore armor will be considered 0 armor)= 10 damage

  • add the chance to make categories for effects (e.g. spells, techniques, runes, crystals) so that we can make abilities that affect only certain spells (e.g. we can use a silence spell that disable all the effect listed as "spells", cause we can have other spells and non-spell abilities on a unit, ike elven casters that have both spell effects and others like lembas that aren't spells)

  • create a effect that can temporary disable the abilities of a unit by adding a cooldown to such abilities OR alternatively make a status effect that disable (gray) the spells of a certain category for the duration of the effect


  • Make a bonus for abilities success rate against specific units or categories: If I have 100% bonus against a unit (in effect) and the normal success rate is 30% it becomes 60%. If an effect has 50% bonus success rate becomes 45%, if a unit has 150% bonus the success rate becomes 65%, and so on

    So if I make an effect with 20% rate and I want 100% chance of success against infantry melle I simply give it 400% bonus so success becomes 100%

    that should work with all types of resistance (so, for example, if hp resistance is set between 10 and 50 hp, for a unit that we have 100% bous against it becomes between 20 and 100)

  • Effects (spells or active abilities) changeable with techs (e.g. a tech that increases thunderstorm powerrange): possibly a few days

  • Adding bonus against a certain category via techs or spells. Also adding unit type with spells or techs will be required: few hours

  • A option to make attack that miss with normal missing chance (like siege units) not move to another target but simply hit nothing at all from 10 minutes to a few hours


  • new building counter for mini-mega buildings (2x2 buildings, 1 for every tc)

  • new game mode to add extra production. Current is tcx1 (one factory for every tc) add options like tcx2, tcx3 and so on

  • new dodge logic against bonused units: At the moment when a unit has bonus against a unit with dodge, it completely ignore dodge. We need bonuses to reduce dodge by bonus/5 so a 50% bonus to a unit make you ignore 10% dodge. all 3 dodge should work this way.

  • New trnSpecAction "CAN_BE_HIT_BY_GROUND_MELEE" for effect that allows flying units to be hit in melee for normal damage




Done:
  • Reanimation spell that raises zombies from corpses instead of skeletons, reanimated dragon corpses into draco zombies.

  • For abilities is needed the chance to use attackRange instead of normal casting range. Maybe a "USE_ATTACK_RANGE" property for abilities json


  • Effects that use a unit stat to quantify its effect like heal rate does with healing spell (e.g. a tech to throw you melee weapon that inflict damage based on unit power stat), this way you can make a single effect for more unit and the result will be different and moreover the same unit will deal increasing effect in late gme after upgrades. If possible it would be great if we could use some fixed modifiers (e.g. half, double, triple) and settings (the damage is reduced by armor or maybe p.armor)

  • Effect that alter units’ cooldown (e.g. an haste effect that reduce a cooldown of all spells of a unit or a silence spell that increase cooldown on spells of an enemy unit, even spell that have no cooldown)



User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

Savra wrote: Fri Jan 01, 2021 5:57 pm
  • Create the "ignoreArmor" stat that allow a unit to ignore a certain amount of armor or p.armor (based on the unit damage type).
    A archer with "ignoreArmor": 3, will deal damage as if its target had -3 to its p.armor. I'll make 3 examples for clarity:

    We have a archer with 10 power and 5 ignoreArmor

    on a target with 10 p.armor the archer deals 10-(10 armor-5 ignoreArmor)= 5 damage
    on a target with 0 p.armor the archer deals 10-(0-5 ignore armor will be considered 0 armor)= 10 damage
    on a target with 3 p.armor the archer deals 10-(3-5 ignore armor will be considered 0 armor)= 10 damage
@Stratego (dev) can you work on this anytime soon? We really need this for balancing.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

it seems too complicated to players calculating end damage and keeping in mind.

maybe some special actions can be like
ignore armor
ignore half armor
ignore quarter armor

or something.
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

It actually less complicated than your proposition and also more balanced.for example ignore x% of enemy armor (half or quarter) will work waaaaaay too exceptional against dwarves.
While we need just a minor attack boost against armored targets via armor reduction during attack only.

Yes it will work similar to ignore quarter armor (for example) but instead of % based we need a numerical value.

Also if possible it would be awesome to make this one shown in statistics of unit when unit has it and otherwise hidden (like dodges, spell power, spell range or minimal range).

Another problem with your idea is that we need this effect as growable one (so we can increase it or decrease via spells or techs).
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

ok than i suggest dropping this idea.

i dont want to put in such complexity factor into game. (complexity for players)
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

It is not complex actually but rather easy understandable.
At least after short discussion everyone with whom i was discussing this idea understood right after.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
User avatar
Savra
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:21 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Savra »

Wouldn't it look like this in stat sheet:

IgnorePArmor:x
IgnoreArmor:x
Were x is how much armour the attack can bypass:
10 attack + IgnoreArmor:1 , vs 5 armor= 6 damage.
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

Stratego (dev) wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:31 am ok than i suggest dropping this idea.

i dont want to put in such complexity factor into game. (complexity for players)
@Stratego (dev) please reconsider this.
This feature will actually become very useful and not "complex" for players.
It even can be shown in stats of unit. And will make things more useful and balanced.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

i still feel the same but we can re-warm it after unity version is ready and published, is that ok?
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

Fine for me as long as it will be actually implemented.
Ignore armor (or % of it) in aof where units can get exceptional amounts of armor will be quite powerful. Especially against dwarves.

This will use a fixed value of how much of armor is ignored and thus will be more balanced. Overarmored units will still be impenetrable fortresses with this.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

if we are already warming it up: pleae tell me 3-4 unit examples how this would be good, as i think only 100% armor resistance i can imagine being right (that is already exists at least for abilities).
- and the reason that can be right if the ability is totally not a mechanical one, eg a spell that will not interfere with armors.
- and the reason anything else is not right is if anything is colliding with armor than armor should deflect it imho - without modifications.
(these are my concerns, but my main one is the complexity i dont like to increase)
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

First thing first — this will not be an ability that you activate. It will not be like self strengthen, enchant burning or disarmor on hit.
This is meant as passive effect similar to power base that works purely for attack of unit so it can't affect abilities at all.
It also is not supposed to work continiously after attack of unit with this effect.

Alas abilities or techs which increase armor penetration will be a thing.

1. Power base thing initially was planned to be armor penetration for elves. It was supposed to reduce armor for attack.
Giving for them ignore armor (especially full) will be too much. Especially initially we planned to give that trait for all elven archers and elven melee units.
Amount of armor penetration was supposed to be up to -3 (before upscale). Now it is planned to be -9.

Unit examples: elven archer, quick archer, elven swordman, town watch and every other unit of elves who is affected by fencing fineese techs and presicion shot techs. In total more than 40 units. Enough?

1.1. Crossbows also were planned to have armor penetration so they will have better anti-armored role.

Unit examples: human, dwarven, goblin, minotaur, uruk, imperial, defender, phantom, skeleton monster crossbowmen.

2. About "why this can be right":
2.1. Balance wise — elves have 3 tiers of fencing techs and 3 tiers of presicion shot techs each giving right now power base. Power base is not used anymore as wide as before and thus this is outdated and unused. On other hand we can't give too high power base for elves because it will become too op. Armor penetration will take role of power base for these techs.
Now why we can't give "ignore armor":
Elves are cheap. Even 1 turn town watch unit is affected by those techs. All elven archers also are supposed to be affected. But giving for 3 turn cost quick archer ignore armor 25% will be too powerful against heavy armored units like imperials or defenders (defender shielder when maxed will have more than 40 p.armor and cutting that armor by 1/4 is too much). And elves have 3 techs so it will become 75% armor ignore.
On other hand armor penetration will work by substracting for example 6 points from armor value of enemy. If enemy has less than 6 (in this example, number can vary and can be increased or decreased) armor than unit will do full damage. If enemy has for example 500 armor (i am purposely exagerrating, but defender shielder is supposed to have 36 armor when maxed and even more under buffs) than this armor reduction will not do much and even many not increase actual damage output.
Easier to control and to balace.
2.2. Idea wise:
Fencing mastery and presicion shots by alex were described as "techs which increase elven mastery to attack weak spots of armor" and thus dealing slightly increased damage. Not ignoring armor.
Follows original idea.
2.3. Mechanic wise:
Ignore armor as mentioned above is too powerful effect (in aos flail soldier received lots of nerfs due to that) and we are trying to avoid everything that is op.
Ar.or penetration while will work similar way will not give full ignore of armor and can be balanced more properly. Also if you will give armor penetration 5000 than it will become ignore armor as result.
Has wider range of usage.

3.
Stratego (dev) wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:26 am - and the reason anything else is not right is if anything is colliding with armor than armor should deflect it imho - without modifications.
In real life all armors have weak spots. And armor can't fully protect from damage anyway.
And some units can have special training to aim for these specific weak spots.
Crossbows are one of such examples (since you do not need to hold an arrow and instead you can concentrate on aiming).
For example in real life i have armor with slight problem in right shoulder due to bad smithing in form of small hole (big enough to be shot by arrow or crossbow bolt). Around hole ofc there is weaker metal as well. If opponent notices that he can aim for that weak spot and armor won't be able on its own to protect wearer (not fully at least, but it will be able to negate some damage at least).
Armor can't fully negate damage if that is aimed onto weak spots.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

ok i am still not convinced, this seems a WAY too complexity i would like to put in.
so i feel like
- we strenthen elves
- too strong ok strengthen armors of others
- too much ok give precision shot and start ignoring armors.
- next request will be, ok but ignore armor should not be against all but only this and that unit type, or only shield weilders
- or if unit is in stance of X than not affecting.
and so on

so this seems an endless feature flow need.

i think this should be simpler, and i always thought the current possiblities are already much, much more and already too complex so i am very afraid making more.

i defintely do not want to emulate "damaged armor" and "crossbows targeting armor weak / damaged points" armor is armor and lets consider it a homogenous thing over the body.
Also on a armorless unit there are also "weak" point a precision arched why can not kill better armorless units too? Why not simply give bigger base damage?
(in unit examples i also feel it is a global thing - maybe simply they need bigger base damage?)

but as i said it can be considered/discussed later after unity version
(as with every single new modification on old code burns me out and that can result slower or never finished unity version :(
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

It is actually pretty simple.
It is you who are trying to make it sound complex.
Stratego (dev) wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 9:01 am ok i am still not convinced, this seems a WAY too complexity i would like to put in.
so i feel like
- we strenthen elves
- too strong ok strengthen armors of others
- too much ok give precision shot and start ignoring armors.
- next request will be, ok but ignore armor should not be against all but only this and that unit type, or only shield weilders
- or if unit is in stance of X than not affecting.
and so on

so this seems an endless feature flow need.

i think this should be simpler, and i always thought the current possiblities are already much, much more and already too complex so i am very afraid making more.

i defintely do not want to emulate "damaged armor" and "crossbows targeting armor weak / damaged points" armor is armor and lets consider it a homogenous thing over the body.
Also on a armorless unit there are also "weak" point a precision arched why can not kill better armorless units too? Why not simply give bigger base damage?
(in unit examples i also feel it is a global thing - maybe simply they need bigger base damage?)

but as i said it can be considered/discussed later after unity version
(as with every single new modification on old code burns me out and that can result slower or never finished unity version :(
No ignore against this or that unit specifically. We have bonuses for that.

Another reason why do we need this is to give for elves some good way to deal higher damage WITHOUT giving them higher attack. Giving them higher attack is a no because it will make them too powerful against undesired units.
This feature will give them a bit higher damage against units with armor (tor example dwarves) without increasing damage against unarmored units (for example scalefolks).

Let us forget about damaged part but each armor has weak points. No matter how you make armor it will have weak points — for example between elbow and forearm. This part of armor always has not too high amount of protection or else you won't be able to move your arm freely.

Both techs already give bonus attack for units. But we want to give armor penetration as well.

Again i am not forcing to implement this here and now. I just want you to accept this feature so it will be implemented as soon as you will release unity.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

This feature will give them a bit higher damage against units with armor (tor example dwarves) without increasing damage against unarmored units (for example scalefolks).
than simply use bonus againt those instead - we have mechanics already to increase damage.

Let us forget about damaged part but each armor has weak points. No matter how you make armor it will have weak points — for example between elbow and forearm. This part of armor always has not too high amount of protection or else you won't be able to move your arm freely.
here we should not model weak points of any armor - just a homogeous armor we should model here. this a factor of something being complex or simple.
Both techs already give bonus attack for units. But we want to give armor penetration as well.
why? i see no reason, give more bonus to "simulate" the things you want to give by peentration - i designed bonus system eactly for these: for ANY reason a unit should deal more damage to other
why should we make a duplicate feature for same thing?

this way we should make other 10-20 aspects of bonuses
- bonus because of height (eg. mounteds)
- bonus because of swords blunting
- bonus because of unit tireness
- bonus because of veteranity
- bonus because of ...

so anything imaginable.

i simply made "bonus" so you can put there any value symbolizing ANY ability / phenomenon that increase or decrease a damage.
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

The problem with bonuses is that we have dodges whom bonuses cut in half.
Another problem with bonuses is that we do not have DYNAMICAL bonuses which we can change via techs.

Again.

What do we want is:
1. An ability to penetrate armor on hit;
2. It reduces just for attack armor value for a fixed amount;
3. It must be usable only for attack;
4. It must be able to update that stat in the game (ongoing match) via:
4.1. techs;
4.2. abilities;
4.3. triggers;
5. This stat will not increase actual damage if unit has 0 armor already (for example due to disarmor spell).

Another reason why we want to reduce random bonuses because of unknown reasons is to make in aof specifically bonuses more dedicated and highly specialized. Not when that unit has bonuses to 1500+ other units.
You have unit type.
You already know what bonuses it has (usually they are quite specialized).
You know what to expect from him.
You can PLAN how to either use that unit or how to counter that. And how to cover that unit in order to protect from enemy counter (most dangerous units at least).

Bonuses can't give for us such flexibility that we need, @Stratego (dev).

Another point is that this game is about magic.
And we planned for elves, humans and some other races penetration enchantment for arrows.
The one that does not directly increases attack of archers but gives them better damage due to armor penetration against armored targets.

1. Bonuses are not dynamical. And we do not plan even when that ability is added to give dynamical bonuses for elves against everything that has at least some armor (literally against everything in result).
2. Bonuses increase direct damage which we want to avoid. This stat must give different way to increase damage.
3. Bonuses work against target even if opponent did not research techs for higher armor. This stat will decrease armor for attack down to 0 but even 1000000000 armor penetration on unit with 18 attack will not increase damage against unit with 0 armor higher than 18.
4. Bonuses affect dodges. If unit has bonus against enemy with dodges than dodges cut in half. This mechanic is useful only when bonuses are highly specialized, not when every unit can cut in half your dodges. On other hand this mechanic gives for units with bonuses a role as anti-dodge units. Thus we do not want any changes to it.
5. We can't apply even +10% bonus via abilities without calculations onto everything. +10% bonus on unit with 20 attack will give +2 extra damage, while on unit with 100 attack it will give +10 extra damage. We need a fixed bonus attack.
6. This stat will be unaffected by unit bonuses which also is required. This stat will increase damage up to fixed amount (depending on enemy armor) regardless of is enemy in bonus list or not.
7. We are trying to keep categories rather intuitive and thus we do not want to increase amount of categories and amount of bonuses.
8. More bonuses means more balancing issues. More balancing issues means more work for devs on balancing instead of working on new content.

In general for our required functions bonuses are not good to use. Neither now nor when dynamical bonuses will be a thing.

Bonuses system i must admit is really awesome and unique for ao-games which is why i like it.
But it must be intuitive or otherwise it will only discourage new players.

Also do not try to suggest disarmor variant — it will not work the way that required since it will apply an effect that will last at least 1 turn and thus other units without this stat (planned) also can abuse that.

If you do not like sound of "targeting weak points" i can rephrase this into "magical enchant of armor penetration". You apply magic of armor penetration onto your weapon which is why it can ignore armor to some extent. It does not increase direct attack of weapon though.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

"The problem with bonuses is that we have dodges whom bonuses cut in half."
good! i remove dodges than! :) i did not even like that either. :)

dynamical: that is fair request, now that i am agree with, being able to modify bonuses via techs and abilities.

please postpone this discussion - as it takes us many time to talk about and i dont really agree making it and if ever it will be - will be after unity version - so all thoughts in our minds will be lost, and we can start again later the discussion.
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

I think you did not even try to read my arguments.
Bonuses is not suitable for role we need.
makazuwr32 wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 3:28 pm What do we want is:
1. An ability to penetrate armor on hit;
2. It reduces just for attack armor value for a fixed amount;
3. It must be usable only for attack;
4. It must be able to update that stat in the game (ongoing match) via:
4.1. techs;
4.2. abilities;
4.3. triggers;
5. This stat will not increase actual damage if unit has 0 armor already (for example due to disarmor spell).
makazuwr32 wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 3:28 pm 1. Bonuses are not dynamical. And we do not plan even when that ability is added to give dynamical bonuses for elves against everything that has at least some armor (literally against everything in result).
2. Bonuses increase direct damage which we want to avoid. This stat must give different way to increase damage.
3. Bonuses work against target even if opponent did not research techs for higher armor. This stat will decrease armor for attack down to 0 but even 1000000000 armor penetration on unit with 18 attack will not increase damage against unit with 0 armor higher than 18.
4. Bonuses affect dodges. If unit has bonus against enemy with dodges than dodges cut in half. This mechanic is useful only when bonuses are highly specialized, not when every unit can cut in half your dodges. On other hand this mechanic gives for units with bonuses a role as anti-dodge units. Thus we do not want any changes to it.
5. We can't apply even +10% bonus via abilities without calculations onto everything. +10% bonus on unit with 20 attack will give +2 extra damage, while on unit with 100 attack it will give +10 extra damage. We need a fixed bonus attack.
6. This stat will be unaffected by unit bonuses which also is required. This stat will increase damage up to fixed amount (depending on enemy armor) regardless of is enemy in bonus list or not.
7. We are trying to keep categories rather intuitive and thus we do not want to increase amount of categories and amount of bonuses.
8. More bonuses means more balancing issues. More balancing issues means more work for devs on balancing instead of working on new content.
Even if we will get dynamical bonuses 7 other points with bonuses will still be presented.
For example we can't give via ability or tech completely same bonuses for different units with different attack values.

Dodges: no we will not remove that because in that case we need to fully rebalance elven race. Just because of amount of work for that (up to 2 years) we will not remove dodges.

I have a question regarding bonuses:
1. Can you make it so that bonuses will not work against unit if opponent has not researched techs for bonus armor?
For example for caster of humans. At base he has 0 armor and can get up to 4 armor via tech. Can you make bonuses working ONLY when this unit has some armor?
2. Can you make a tech to give different bonuses for different units?
For example: we have for dwarves basic crossbowman with 12 attack and defender rifleman with 44 attack. They both must do specifically +4 bonus damage to specific target via tech. Can you give via same tech for one unit +35% bonus and for other only +9%?
And no we can't give directly bonus attack for them since it must not give higher attack value for units against enemies with 0 armor.
3. Can you make dynamical bonuses specifically to not affect dodges in any way?
Only basic bonuses unit has must affect dodges.
4. Can you make that some dynamical bonuses not applying when enemy has 0 armor?

If for at least 1 of these questions you have answer "no" than please do not try to insist of using bonuses as replacement of armor penetration.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

I feel forced too much in these requests.

I kindly asked to postpone this topic.
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

Well everything is solved via addition of armor penetration stat.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

that atm i am not planning to...
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

Not right now. Just please accept that stat for implementation.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
Stratego (dev)
Site Admin
Posts: 15734
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Stratego (dev) »

i said in about 8 ways already to postpone the discussion ->> it is NOT accepted.
User avatar
Savra
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:21 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Savra »

Updated the list @Stratego (dev)
User avatar
makazuwr32
Posts: 7830
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:29 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by makazuwr32 »

Effects (not abilities but actual effects) already can have categories.
Look into aos — there are chemical effects provided by herbalist, moral effects and many more.
makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:54 amWhen you ask to change something argument why...
Put some numbers, compare to what other races have and so on...
© by Makazuwr32™.
AoF Dev Co-Leader
Image
User avatar
Savra
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:21 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Savra »

makazuwr32 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 3:13 pm Effects (not abilities but actual effects) already can have categories.
Look into aos — there are chemical effects provided by herbalist, moral effects and many more.
That's a reminder for me actually.
User avatar
Savra
Posts: 5629
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:21 pm

Re: AOF ToDo List

Post by Savra »

@Stratego (dev)


Update the Uncontrollable ai so they don't camp near tc's, and make it so they can attack after they can move, not just before.


Added this, since currently the uncontrollable ai tends to camp near your tc's, and don't seem to go anywhere else from there.
Post Reply

Return to “Others”