Suggestions


#202

Quick idea here, one that the devs can actually implement fairly easily.

Would it be so hard to add a ‘bestiary’ on the main menu?

Pretty much, let us view the monster cards+stats for immortals we’ve personally killed, as if were making a ‘deck’ of monsters-standard immortals, bosses, and monster immortals (hydras, dragons etc). And maybe later, creep creatures, if we ever add those.

I know there’s a counter every time we down a boss, so it shouldn’t be too hard to link those cards to the main menu in some way.

If we ever get around to adding more+improved bosses or different types of immortals (or even creeps+immortal creeps) that’s going to be a lot of information on our enemies that would be really useful to have. It’d be useful to have right now. :stuck_out_tongue:

If I see some Orcs barrelling down on a mana pool, for example, I pretty much have to dredge my memory to try and remember what sort of bosses are going to pop out. If I am about to lose a monster base, is it really fair if I have to guess what sort of strange abilities they have until they literally pop out and attack?

It wouldn’t impact the game much (you’d still get that ‘ohshi’ factor when first meeting something new, before you add them to your ‘deck’, they would be a total surprise to you), but afterwards it’d be really helpful to have them all listed down neatly. Instead of hoping someone makes a wiki or something, and maybe you can find it, and hope it’s still updated.

I was thinking, you guys will probably be adding a bunch of righteous+corrupted cards to the lists at some point anyway, so why not add this along with it?

Thoughts?


#203

I think that would be awesome. It would be fairly easy to add and would add a lot I think.

I hope to get back into blight soon, and perhaps some easy things like this might be a better place to start that the whole righteous and corrupted thing.


#204

@thatfrood, I don’t think the blind valour and such need to be downgraded. They require large amounts of valour or mana to be used anyways so they’re useful for end-game cleanup but are only of vital importance during the end-mid game. Before that they’re usually still to weak to be considered OP. I don’t think these cards need to be downgraded, they’re a way for players to cooperate though shared resources and finish practically won maps faster.

One of the problems you mention when you attack a unit much weaker than your attack and you lose some valour: when you do that, there are probably no stronger hordes for you to select, suggesting you’re just cleaning up at this point. Is a valour loss really a big problem then? Although I do agree that the other races such as the dwarves would profit if their large-range cards would become more relevant.

@gregmatic, I don’t think a sprint option would be a very good idea. From what I heard(which may easily be wrong), the devs are trying to keep casual players just as relevant as micromanaging players who can log in every hour or so. This feature would widen that gap.

Your idea for hero clutter reduction might be a good one. I haven’t really experienced this problem myself yet, but I can understand it being much more annoying on a Phone screen and auto-organising it to have all the same cards in the same spot might indeed help with that. The reinforcement idea is a good one as well, I know myself how much time you can lose having to wait for some units to march until others meet up with them when you have to do it manually.

And one idea of my own: We can give other players our villages and unused cards. Could we do something like that for the cards on the map too? When there’s a chokepoint with the units of multiple players in one place, I sometimes want to give my units to the other guy so the advantages of f.e. my stout general will work on their dwarves too.

Alternatively, how about the option for us to allow our units to follow units from other players? We can’t make their units follow ours, off course, but we can give our unit buffs and our units will auto-follow theirs when the other player moves them.


#205
  1. I’d love to get a simple way pointing system that would allow me to click on friendly characters or map locations and generate icons suggesting attacks, defenses, requesting reinforcemetns, etc.

  2. I’d love to be able to name units and then search them by their names.

  3. I’d love to see non-combat effects on enemies. When I read Queen of Lies, I thought of how nasty it could be if, say, for 18 hours a cities population became hostile (just enough time for them to train a unit and attack a nearby village, but not long enough to escape an entangle, which would not wear off until they were already back to neutral.)

Effects like this add depth to the strategy and the availability of our resources. Being forced to deploy a tree whisperer to the backfield to handle an unruly settlement is the exact kind of thing that would happen in a situation like this. And it would suck sometimes. You might get put in a situation where the 50 soldiers that they spat out simply need to be put down.

Powers like that would add depth to the mechanic. Perhaps save it for hard games but it’d be interesting none-the-less.


#206

Those are all cool ideas @ArchReaper95!


#207

My proposal is simple and quick: multiplayer tournament.
The cost of entrance in coins can be equal to the players’ number, so the match can be only accessible to skilled players.


#208

How hard would procedural random maps be, and are they anywhere on the roadmap? Because they would be wonderful.

Also, I’m annoyed that on Dust to Dust there’s a large human settlement with no roads surrounded by a nexus of hamlets with roads to spare. It pulls me out of the world because it is so clearly meta.

I don’t know if that’s something that bugs other people but it definitely pulls me out of the game for a minute.


#209

Cool idea @JeanRenard. Also I see you are at the top of the board for this week!

@ArchReaper95 Thats sounds like a bug in Dust to Dust. I will make a note and look at it next time we are editing maps.

Procedural maps it not currently on the roadmap for Blight, but we have been talking a little bit about what we could do to make the map editor available to everybody.


#210

The reason I ask about procedural is it just adds a lot of flavor to the game because it removes the possibility that someone has already meta’d out the map. I like to play Random maps on Wesnoth.

Is there any intent to upon the game up to client side modding? I would love to add in some of my own sound effect triggers (such as when armies are approaching a horde, sounding off a horn, or sword clashing sounds when clicking on a unit that is preparing to calculate combat).


#211

Oh. And a simple in-game friend system of some kind would be great.

I’m probably gonna shower this thread with ideas. Just pat me on the head when I get to be too much.


#212

Why is there no in-game global chat? This is one of reason the community is dead…


#213

Can I like this multiple times?


#214

keep em coming @ArchReaper95

@Whatever We had an official Discord channel running for a while. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for?


#215

An official discord is nice, but something directly integrated into the client would be better. A global chat server lets people coordinate creating games (or joining the same games) and is a big help. It would need with it an in-client friend system as well.

I think he’s right. It’d help a lot.


#216

Maybe a small green/red dot over the player banner representing online-offline status at least …


#217

By the way. Card drawing system is pushing you to pick just 2-3 types of OP cards and just forget the others. Because this way you are almost guaranteed to get them early in game and get a huge boost. So basically you never need to play the rest which is silly and boring.

What I am trying to say is that 2 Valour per card drawn in early game is way too much. And EVERY card game I encountered gives you an option to re-draw starting hand at least once.


#218

Mulligan would be nice.

Maybe a gentleman’s mulligan and then a drop 1 from there?


#219

A mulligan option would probably be good overall, but we’ve experimented with lower cost card drawing in the past and it makes the game much too easy.

While the “only pick early-game cards” strategy is certainly something that happens sometimes (especially in tournaments, for obvious reasons), now that I have a decent collection, I no longer find it necessary. Having lots of the really important cards lets me bring a larger overall deck with more variety, while still being more or less guaranteed to draw the two or three cards I really want in my starting hand. Obviously, a mulligan option would help here, too.


#220

I think a good way to get more people to ease their way into Multiplayer is to have something like a “Mentor Match” option. A feature where all players can host a match to get only experienced people to join so that they can get pointers and see what an active game is like.

What I’m thinking about is if every player, even free players had an option near “Host a Game” button on the Multiplayer menu to have a highlighted “Host a Mentor Match” button. Something like below.

So every player can host one, and you can check hosted “Mentor Matches” with a button near User Created Games or in the same menu but in a category at the top.

You will only be able to host 1 Mentor Match at 1 time, and this is on top of the 2 game limit that free players can play. When you host a Mentor Match, you can pick any map at 4 players or lower. So no 6+ player maps as 4 player maps and below are a nice way to introduce people to the game. Maybe even 3 players and lower.

People with a profile level of 4+ or 5+ can only join these games, so new people will have experienced people there to give a helpful hand.

Also maybe when a “Mentor” goes to join a mentor match, there will be a brief menu that pops up to mention how joining these maps, you’re agreeing to try be as helpful and active as you can be.


Also an in game change log would be nice


#221

This is a great idea. I try to do this in an unofficial capacity by joining Normal public games, but it would definitely be great to have an officially sanctioned “mentor mode”. How many mentors are you picturing, versus non-mentors? In my mind, a four-or-six-player game split evenly between experienced players and newbies might hit the sweet spot, especially considering the the 4-6 player maps currently available.

These games could also suggest (or even restrict) which player positions you might take based on your collection & experience level, so the mentors end up in the hard slots (e.g. Goblins on Celestial Pools) and new players in the more forgiving positions (Elves on Fountain of Wisdom).