Again nice ideas, and the last should be easy to script, but I'm uncertain if the others would be 'too heavy' for a light scripted campaign..Maciek wrote:
Well, you could agree on some kind of army caps, such as max (approximately) X level Y creatures or max (approximately) Z peons worth of army carried from map A to map B.
Perhaps you could also have Kings Bounty styled army limits within maps to make the army caps act similar to the usual level caps, so that the limit to how much army you can have in map A and how much army you can carry to map B are similar.
Either that or some kind of time limits or increasing expected final army strength by an order of magnitude between maps. (So that players don't bother waiting endlessly for creatures to grow in map A, because they'll soon grow much faster in map B)
A feature taken from h3 (that seems easy to implement with scripts) - growth boosts in towns depending on number of captured dwells could help build large armies quicker.
I believe it was a Equilibris tread on how to improve AI behavour/help the AI by adding some general scripts. But to some degree, some of the scripts weren't hard to do, and could help improve AI behavour and increase difficulty, but some of them we have already mentioned. Amongst the more complicated ones was a way to improve artifact choice, but that was heavy scripting.Wimfrits wrote:
I agree. Without at least some resource and army boosts the AI is too much of a walkover. Especially on higher levels, as like you said AI is unable to cope with stronger neutrals. Wasn't there a thread on creation of a generic AI hero boosting script? That would be perfect for a shared endeavour like this. Or was that Equi only
Awsome. 1 or 2 level +/- isn't that important for me, but I still suggest that perhaps we change it a bit so it isn't a clean 5 levels pr. map for 2, 3 and 4? I'm still in favor for a slight decrease in level cap by each map.Dr. Marsupio wrote:
It's funny, I always hinder the player with annoying taxes / revolts / a crippled economy to accomplish the sense of challenge instead of buffing the AI player with extra stuff, I find overcoming these negative conditions to be more rewarding that beating the influence of some invisible hand, but that's only my opinion, other people might find it frustrating. Of course the exception to this rule is the "final battle" when the heroes have to have a script to make them stronger on an x time basis to prevent the player from amassing a huge army.[/quote
I find that this is a useful way to differ between difficulties, as novice should get less taxes than champion players, but for several of the suggestions to work, we will need 5 different settings. I don't think it's heavy scripting, but simply unavoidalbe if a proper balance should be reached.
How about scripted army growth of whatever the hero is carrying? Some on-the-road breeding program. That could be a strong incentive for the player to keep the army with the hero at all times
Again interesting idea. Basically we only need to do the script twice, first hero, and then the carry over hero can be copied between maps. The same goes with town scripts etc. I would suggest that if general resource, creature etc boosts are added, we all use the same scripts/settings (meaning basically just one has to do the inital one- this will also speed it up).
But to make things clear, can it be agreed upon that 5 difficulty settings IS required?
We also need to agree upon which of the suggested AI/balance improving scripts we should use.
- Attack/Defense boost (like +10/10, +20/20, +30/30- from adv. -> champion).
- A weekly resource boost (again increased with difficulty).
- "Growth boosts in towns depending on number of captured dwells could help build large armies quicker."
- "Extra dwellings, double towns, stuff like that"