Wishlist for September

[Cainehill]

Two things I'd like to see, neither of which would have any impact on gameplay.

#1: Selecting a mage from the Nation Overview should select that mage, not just go to the province. When you have 20-50 mages in one province, and many have the same names (because renaming wasn't turned on), selecting the nation isn't enough. Plus - there's already code for selecting individual mages, because that's what happens when you say "go to commander" from the event list.

#2: An "Item Overview" for browsing through all magic items, thus making it a lot easier to find out which mage has that dwarven hammer/Tempest/Sceptre of Unholy Regency.

[Gandalf Parker]

OK lets try to keep the list thread cleaner in order to make it the most useful. Adding a post to mention something you feel should be on the list is fine. But if you decide to reply in debate it might be best to just post a link to the new thread you opened for the debates on certain items.

I would like to avoid the jockeying for priority which killed the previous lists.

[The_Tauren13]

What I believe to be most important:

� blood slave frequency changeable or linked to magic site frequency
� better text message interface
� graphs showing (gem) income from events, items etc.
� ability to protect blood slaves from heat of the Abyssian warlock leading them
� symbols for more abilities, like spy, sailing, ability to heal...
� When selecting commander from F1 screen, have the commander be highlighted when it jumps to him
� Confirmation screen for 'throw item away'
� Battle results (i.e. list of casualties) when storming a Castle
� Enabling/disabling spells [being able to indicate which spells your mage should pick from]
� Less focus on supercombatants
� More regrowth possibilities / less emphasis on population death
� making temple-burning take one turn
� rebalancing the spell "False horror" (by increasing Air level needed or fatigue cost)

[Gandalf Parker]

The_Tauren13 said:
What I believe to be most important:

*sigh* what tauren13 would most like to see.. ?
or a seperate thread on what people feel is most important.. ?

[The_Tauren13]

well, start a separate thread then.
Endoperez's list just seems *far* too long to interest the devs...

[Thufir]

Gandalf Parker said:

*sigh* what tauren13 would most like to see.. ?
or a seperate thread on what people feel is most important.. ?

I'm not sure I see the problem, Gandalf. Certainly there are times when the arguments we are have about prioritization and the various features often get tedious, obnoxious and sometimes immature, but I think they are inevitable, and in the end useful.

I think Endoperez started this out with a great list, and you now have three of choices for format:
a) 1 thread (as it is now)
b) 2 threads (the wishlist [possibly stickied] and a debate thread)
c) N threads (the wishlist and a separate thread for each argument)

I think a) and b) are both reasonable choices, just don't go to option c) as that will make it harder to track issues. The important thing is the list itself, as this is our communication to the Devs (whom I trust to use this list with appropriate judgement and wisdom). So long as Endoperez is willing to undertake the ugly job of maintaining the list, I think we've got a working system. And at the end of the day, we as Users will just have to live with whatever choices Endoperez makes in terms of how he edits the list.

Debate is a messy thing, but I think the current format is quite liveable. (And thanks to Endoperez and yourself for getting it this far along )

[baruk]

"1. Something *really* need to be done with madcastling. (And it has nothing to do with cheating for gems/money/whatever.)"

I don't personally find mass castle building too bothersome, but I had an idea for a possible solution.

The main exploit, as I see it, is using a castle as an extra 1 turn speedbump to an invasion force. Often the castler will not have significant garrisons in the majority of his fortifications. He can use the extra turn to gateway in a garrison.

The idea is to give commanders an additional attack order: move and attempt to storm castle. It would become available when a commander is ordered to attack a castled enemy province (in the same way move and patrol becomes available when moving to a friendly castle). A force given this order would storm a castle the same turn they attack the province, as long as the castle defences were knocked down (the turn order would need to be: province battles, seiging, then storm castle battles).

I think this would make using hordes of cheap, undefended castles somewhat less useful, perhaps making the endgame against a fortified opponent more fluid. It would also have the effect of making defence values of castles more important, if a lightly defended fortification can be lost the same turn it is attacked.

[Gandalf Parker]

Thufir said:
I'm not sure I see the problem, Gandalf. Certainly there are times when the arguments we are have about prioritization and the various features often get tedious, obnoxious and sometimes immature, but I think they are inevitable, and in the end useful.

That depends on what the object is. If the object is to create a quick list that the devs can glance at when wondering what they might want to work on next, in order to not forget good ideas that were mentioned, then extensive discussions in this thread will get in the way.

If the object is to create a thread which is irritating to read and buries good ideas under piles of argument until it flames up and disappears.. well that would just be standard.

I think Endoperez started this out with a great list, and you now have three of choices for format:
a) 1 thread (as it is now)
b) 2 threads (the wishlist [possibly stickied] and a debate thread)
c) N threads (the wishlist and a separate thread for each argument)

I think a) and b) are both reasonable choices, just don't go to option c) as that will make it harder to track issues.

I disagree abit. I think the list is worth being stickied. But I think there will be too many subjects to discuss in one thread. If the sticky thread lists each item such as
- a map command to put indies on patrol
and then just a clickable link to the thread explaining that it allows adding castles to a map for stronger AIs without having them exploitable by 1 scout chasing everyone into the castle and taxing the province to death...
well I think that would be a very clean arrangment.

[Cainehill]

In other words, things that _everyone_ would agree might be useful (like the casualty summary when castles are stormed), as opposed to things which are matters of opinion?

[Gandalf Parker]

Cainehill said:

In other words, things that _everyone_ would agree might be useful (like the casualty summary when castles are stormed), as opposed to things which are matters of opinion?

Not at all. Everything should be listed. In an unbiased simple reference list. And in such a list everything would be seen where obviously some of these flaming threads do not get seen. And Im not saying the debates should not occur but a well done respectful wishlist doesnt need them getting in the way of its purpose.