Maintain? They never break. Just fire and kill. Then go pick them up. Use seeds to tip them for extra effects.
The crossbow makes darts do a ton of damage. A highly upgraded crossbow can carry a run, absolutely! The darts don’t even need to be tipped! Plus darts don’t ever break, the tips just wear out!
Yeah that’s how the Total War series does it. A single unit could be up to 200 people. It tends to make the unit far less maneuverable though. This means it leans pretty far away from what the WarCraft/StarCraft fan is looking for with highly microable units.
The issue with psychopaths is that although they may be rare, they can have an outsized impact. It only takes one of them to victimize hundreds of people and create an atmosphere of terror.
Norms. Same thing for women’s bathrooms. Unless you are alone in there, the psychopath is going to face multiple women yelling at him to leave.
As a society of laws we like to think we can solve everything by just writing a good law. Sometimes it’s much better to create situations where strong norms can solve the problem without the need for law enforcement. Norms are like laws where everyone is an enforcer.
That is awesome! You can have a field day at the blacksmith with that!
I personally would just go all in on the crossbow. I love that weapon!
I read a piece not too long ago by one of the developers of WC1. He originally had it so you could select all your units at the same time and just order them to attack. The lead designer said that was too boring and easy, so he had him limit the unit selection to groups of 4.
After trying it both ways, they agreed the smaller group limit made the game more skilful and interesting to play. Ever since then RTS games have gone towards increasing the selection cap more and more! I think it’s a mistake.
I loved the first one so much. I’ve been hearing the remaster for WC1 won’t have online multiplayer. That’s a huge disappointment for me. Hardly anyone ever got to experience that game multiplayer. I played it with my friend exactly once, when I brought my computer over to his house. It worked over LAN and I think also modem, but not the internet.
They’ll mount machine guns on the front of their wheelchairs. The orphans can push the disabled soldiers into battle!
That works great for regular guys. Not so great for the evil psychopaths who just don’t care what we try to teach them and will always be looking for people to victimize.
Balkanization isn’t a master plan of any thinker, it’s a natural process as people move to cut themselves off from those they strongly disagree with.
I think there is a strong argument to be made that Balkanization is the ultimate, if unintended, result of the US founding fathers’ plan. From the very beginning it was a deal with the devil: a compromise between factions — who ought to be bitter enemies — under threat from a superior foe (the British Empire).
The collapse really began to build steam after the last great foe, the Soviet Union, was defeated.
In other words they went to these removable modules in order to simplify their supply chains and reduce inventory costs from unpopular configurations. They might not have any intention to open these up to 3rd parties.
The whole idea of a treaty between these two is highly amusing to me. Basically as believable as a treaty between drug cartels.
I would prefer it not be owned by Google as well, though that wouldn’t really change the economics of the situation.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. So to start you may want to read up on Rawls’ theory of Justice as Fairness and how he uses the original position thought experiment (imagining society from behind the veil of ignorance).
Robert Nozick wrote a critique of Rawls’ theory: that it was a “patterned but not historical” principle (that it gives no moral weight to who produces what) and that “liberty upsets patterns.” That is to say, if you start with an equal society where everyone has the same resources you can’t expect it stay that way if everyone is free to exchange those resources with each other. Just like in the game of Monopoly, you’ll see winners and losers after enough time has passed.
This is all to say that the big problem for Rawls is that his theory is a “time slice theory.” It is very strong at describing how a society can be made to be just at a single moment in time but it fails to account for how that state of affairs can be preserved long-term without restricting people’s liberty. One can argue that the game of Monopoly is just according to Rawls’ theory because everyone starts with identical resources at the beginning!
Silent? No no no. The gaping hole makes loud chewing noises while the nostrils merily chat away in a sing-songy, whistly voice!
I mean it is true if you’re doing it as a one-time event. This is one of the main critiques against Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance.
There’s nothing wrong with it. Both are pickled. The pink stuff has a bit of food colouring.
In some cases it might be non-vegan due to cochineal dye but beet-based dyes work just as well. I guess you’d have to ask wherever you go.
Starting with purity and remove curse identified is very much in character. Seems quite strong too, for smoothing out the early game.
I’m really excited to learn more about those spells. I love utility/defensive type characters in general!
Suggestion: Stabilize Unstable Spellbook
Currently Unstable Spellbook draws random scrolls from a list of 10 eligible scrolls with replacement. My suggestion is to change this so that scrolls are drawn without replacement.
This idea came to me after someone on Reddit claimed to have drawn a bunch of strings (a string of 4 and a string of 6) of the same scroll in a row, all within the same game. Generally when this happens it gets people out of the game and has them thinking there’s something wrong with how scrolls are chosen.
My suggestion, to draw the scrolls without replacement, would make longer strings of duplicates like this impossible. It would also make the Unstable Spellbook more strategic in its use because you could keep track of which scrolls you get and then be able to make plans for potential upcoming scrolls. To make this less tedious, you might consider allowing the player to see some of the potential upcoming scrolls, similar to how some versions of Tetris show you the upcoming pieces (though not necessarily in exact order like Tetris).
Some further notes and thoughts:
- Identify, remove curse, and magic mapping are all half as common as the other scrolls. This could be handled by having a deck of 17 scrolls, with 7 duplicates for the more common types but only 1 copy of each of the 3 above.
- If you do go with a deck type system, maybe the player could keep adding more scrolls (beyond the needed for each upgrade) to bias the deck in their favour. This would make the Unstable Spellbook into a kind of deck-builder minigame, like Slay the Spire!
- Another idea might be to remove the popup choice for upgrading scrolls you draw, in favour of allowing the player to add both regular and exotic scrolls separately, giving them separate distributions within the deck. This loss of control would represent a small tactical nerf to the usage of the book which would partially offset the strategic buff caused by letting the player know and have more control over the distribution of scrolls they get from the artifact.
Anyway, thoughts, opinions, suggestions? I personally love the Unstable Spellbook in its current form but I have talked to others who don’t like it at all. My thoughts around this suggestion are to attempt to bridge this gap and make the item feel less random while still preserving its random flavour. The tradeoff is that this suggestion would make the item a bit more complex, though I don’t see think it’s an unreasonable amount of added complexity.
Alchemy is quite a complex system in the game and many players don’t engage with it at all. Even at the most tricked-out “deck builder” version of this suggestion, it’s still quite a lot less complex than alchemy because the choices are much more straightforward: want to see more of a scroll? Add another copy to the spellbook!
Small Suggestion: Store Trinkets in Velvet Pouch
I love the variety and strategy trinkets are bringing to the game in 2.4! They do add to early game inventory pressure, which for me is the most frustrating part of the game (juggling a full inventory, throwing stuff down pits, running back and forth).
If trinkets were stored in the velvet pouch instead of the main inventory it would at least keep inventory pressure the same as it is now, without adding to it.