I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.
|Azure_Zero 05.23.2020 07:31|
I agree I'd like to know the final decision, as right now I recall the Large one is; Two for Combat Alchemist trainers(attacks, and features), Skirmisher, and Expert.
For Me I'd like to know the Combat Alchemist Holding's information; Bulk requirements, DI generation, etc.
And I'd like to know a timeline for these new buildings coming into the game, though I'd enjoy it if we could keep the traveling combat alchemist at the keeps up to a year after these get put in, since no one group has a giant stock of formulas to get to +3 or +4 combat alchemist buildings, and most settlements/groups already have every spot in the settlement filled with no where to put in the new buildings, so Combat alchemist could be a rare to train class for about the first year or so after the buildings are available to be put into settlements.
Heck we still have stuff for classes that aren't even in the game yet
(i.e. Ghostwood for Druid/Ranger, Dragonskin armours for the Barbarians and Sorcerers, etc)
|Azure_Zero 04.21.2020 13:28|
I did say I was willing to be a Linux tester.
As the engine is converted over I'd still recommend changing the rendering core from DirectX to OpenGL just to help keep some WINE compatibility until Goblinworks does a Native Linux version.
|Azure_Zero 04.21.2020 07:56|
Yeah I'll miss the Mumble, all the Keepside chats were done there.
|Azure_Zero 04.20.2020 17:00|
Yes, Thank you for looking at going for the Unity Upgrade, and I hope Goblinworks does put in some effort for Native Linux support.
|Azure_Zero 04.20.2020 14:22|
I like the Idea
But I'll add I would like to have custom guard load outs as well,
and I think a max of 4 different load outs (one for each armour type (cloth,light, medium, heavy)) should be good so the spawning guards aren't as predictable.
The loadouts equipment customisation wise would cover just; a Weapon (+ ammo container if needed), and maybe one other item to help customise their look.
Feat wise the loadouts customisation wise include; Class feature, armour, reactives (2), defensives(3), and a few attack feats for the weapon.
But the feat customisation would be based on the settlement's level, so settlement under level 12 can't choose trapsense as a defensive feat for the guards since a level 12 rogue is the min level to get it.
And if the settlement level dips below a feats min level it gets bumped out of the feats the guards have.
Now the armour feat would set the armour the guards will use when they spawn, but I would not mind it if at a later time we could add a equip armour slot to each load out so they could have a enchanted armour put in (but capped at TX+3 armours)
|Azure_Zero 04.14.2020 21:03|
Talonguard has a Ghostwood split recipe it can trade, 2 armoursmith codexes will be the price as I'm trying to upgrade the Talonguard armoursmith building.
|Azure_Zero 04.11.2020 16:47|
Well that hex has been cleared of Nhur, now the Emeralds
|Azure_Zero 04.11.2020 14:08|
Well I will say, I do agree that it is odd for lighter armors to naturally have energy resistance.
But we have to remember this is a Fantasy setting, so that law of realism could be bent or broken some for the game to keep things in order and balanced.
(I could see folks being fine up to a max of 50% cut in energy resistances, but it'll require some new defense feats that can stack with other feats, unlike now where there is no stacking)
I've played using many armours against a number of different mobs, and I can say that a shift of resistances from one armour class to another has a big impact in survivability.
Try using heavy armour against Razmirians and you'll be cut like swiss cheese, while the Medium and Light armours offer the best survivability against them and pretty much every T2 and higher mob.
Heck even wizards have high survivability because pretty much every attack from a T2 or higher mob is energy based.
But right now, there is an issue, I've heard of with enchanting, mainly the mats.
Mats for stuff that'll make it's way to enchanting breakable stuff is freaking rare,
while the mats to make stuff that'll hardly see combat are plentiful.
That doesn't make sense if we are going to use enchanting for breakable items like armour.
Which means if GW wants to follow there plan, it'll need to open the valves on the enchantment mats a bit or a lot more.
Now I will say that the current energy resistance formula from enchanting, sucks, if the formula was
(Armour +(X+1)) * Resistance(Static of value of +4) * (Armour Type Value)
Armour Type = (1 for Heavy, 1.5 for Medium, 2 for Light, 2.5 for Cloth)
Then it'd make enchanting the lighter armours better and worth putting the energy resistance at +0 on the armours.
This way even a +0 Heavy armour get +4 resistance, while the +0 Cloth gets +10 resistance.
While there +5 versions are +24 and +60 respectively.
|Azure_Zero 04.11.2020 10:20|
I know OE 2.1 is coming
But I think this point should of been discussed with the player base.
Bob (OE 2.1 thread)
Now this is a major change, and SHOULD OF BEEN discussed with the players, before going in….
Especially if the plan is to entirely remove all energy resistances and force enchanting to get those energy resistances.
If that is the plan, congrats, you killed off a number of classes and cheesed off paying players, which means players will leave the game, killing it.
Now the most I'd say could be done with out messing up the classes and cheesing players, is about 25% to 33% off of energy resistances to the cloth, light and medium armours, and NO more.
Furthermore NEVER FORCE the NEED for ENCHANTING on Armours to get resistances they had before ya Nerf it to zero, it just leaves one heck of a bad taste in a player's mouth and that Goblinworks would do a move that'd start to make EA look good.
The Energy Resistance of non-heavy armours should of been discussed/crowd-forged before this change was put in the OE 2.1,
But I can see a bit from GW's angle, if you SUM the resistances together, the lighter the armour, the higher the SUM total, and means your beefer against more things especially At T2 and above mobs, and it's WAY easier to get a Physical Resistance Buff with Defensive feats, or via an armour feat.
(kinda sucks defensive and armour feats don't stack, but it's somewhat understandable).
And if you Look at the armours characters tend to be wearing, NO ONE is wearing Heavy Armour at all.
The Fighters and Clerics are in Medium in some cases Light armour,
the Rogues are doing Light or Medium if cross trained with either Cleric or Fighter,
the Wizards are using Cloth armour or Light armour if crossed with Rogue since Light armour has the Least impact of Arcane spell failure to Arcane attacks.
So I can see the need to get players looking at the Heavy armour, but GW is doing it the WRONG way if you nerf to energy to 0 and force enchantments.
The Best way to get Heavy armours back in the game (without a bad taste) is to start having MOBS that do High purely Physical Damage And is Immune (or Highly Resistant) to all Energy Attacks with minor to moderate physical resistance in ALL tiers.
This means it is a bigger threat, the lighter the armour one wears, and would give Wizards and Clerics pause about using their usual energy based attacks in a fight with a mob or escalations with this new mob.
It would force a tilting for a party in that the purely Physical combat character would now be way more useful and a weapon against this new threat that is introduced or GW could update some mobs to do more physical attacks and be more energy resistant or immune.
|Azure_Zero 04.10.2020 07:41|
Thanks for checking into this Bob,
I checked every holding last night and did a restock on any that were shut down or eating into other resources.