wesnoth-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Dwarvish Runemaster and Wesnothian Philosophy


From: David White
Subject: Re: [Wesnoth-dev] Dwarvish Runemaster and Wesnothian Philosophy
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 17:01:37 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Joseph Simmons wrote:

Well, this is my view. Right now, we have AFAICT forbidden
implementation, for MP, of third level outlaws. That causes a problem
for Age of Heroes. You have a faction, half of who's units cannot level.
I think we need to really rethink either dwarves aligning with outlaws,
or outlaws not getting third levels. I would prefer we rethink both, but. :]

I don't think we've really 'forbidden' third level for outlaws. Most developers just aren't that interested in it. Well, I'm not, anyhow. :)

If someone wants to do it, that's fine with me. Mostly though, I'd like to split outlaws out of the Knalgan Alliance, and use them as campaign enemies (or heroes, perhaps).


On the other hand, I'm not sure exactly how much closer the Runemaster will take the Dwarves to being able to 'declare independence' from the outlaws. It seems to me that we'll basically have five dwarvish units that all have similiar movement and defense values, with one being a basic fighter, one being a ranged fighter, and the other three simply having different 'cool' abilities.


Is not the Gryphon Rider a dwarf? Take a careful look at the image.
That's a dwarf riding it.

Yeah, he is considered a dwarf now.

So, we could leave the Gryphon rider with the dwarves, bringing it up to
6 units, including one scout/fighter. It would be a rather unique
faction, but I think it could still compete. I might do some AI v. AI
testing of a faction composed of those units.

Yeah, I think they could compete, and would be interesting to play.

PS: um, can anyone tell me why the Ulfserker has _worse_ defences than
the other dwarvish units on hills and mountains? This seems
counterintuitive to me. The berserker should have less resistance to
melee attack types, but not worse defence. In anything, better defence.

The reason is because it's considered that it's "unbalanced" for a unit with 'berserk' to have high defense -- it's just going to be too nasty being attacked by a unit over and over when that unit has 60 or 70% defense.

The 'logical' argument is that if you want to charge forward like a madman attacking so viciously, you're likely going to have to forgo alot of cover, and be easier to hit.

David




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]