|
Gerblyn posted:At the moment, no, they can cast spells anywhere. We're playing round with different ideas with it though, like maybe have it so the leader can only cast spells in their own domain or where another hero is present. There's also thoughts of having the leader use a different pool of casting points in battle, so that spells cast their don't interfere with spells cast in the world map. I liked the Shadow Magic style, where you had the feat that gave you a turn-regenerating manapool that you used first and only after that your leader would tap into the global empire wide mana. That you can still use your awesome spells in small battles (in moderation) without screwing yourself on the global scale. Encourage people to use their cool spells since they are the core of the game.
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Mr.48 posted:Also, the campaigns are not really the important part of HoMM games (I cant even remember any of the story-lines). Its all about the crazy custom maps and playing against your friends. The HoMM 2 campaign was awesome back in the days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Shadowmorn posted:I had a friend muse on a really simple win for this, How about optional spectator mode? At least this way you can egg on the bad guys while your buddy gets horribly crushed by a giant bone dragon. This is an amazing idea, and I'm going to see about getting it done tomorrow. I could be wrong, but I think that it should be fairly easy to implement as well... Splicer posted:How will leveling work? Same as SM, where you choose from one of 3 randomly offered? I think the current plan is more AoW 1, where you get points to buy upgrades. That's not final though. As for the beta, all I can say is I think that they'll want to try and get people from the community, which essentially means people on the main forums and people on the heaven games site. I don't know though, maybe closer to the time I'll be able to wrangle some invites for people here, really can't promise anything though. Elias_Maluco posted:HoMM 3 was the best before HoMM 5 got Tribes of the East and the unnoficial AI patch. Does the AI patch change the difficulty at all? I got annoyed with 5 since the normal AI was a pushover, while the next level up seemed to cheat so hard that whatever I tried I'd end up facing some undefeatable doom army and would have to quit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:I think the current plan is more AoW 1, where you get points to buy upgrades. That's not final though. On that note: Have you considered having the "Boring" skill-ups (attack, defence etc) run off a different track to the "interesting" things like Life Stealing, Round Attack etc? Raw number-go-up level ups are vital, but boring. If you either got to buy them from different point pools (so instead of 10 points per level you got 5 boring points and 5 interesting points) or just had the number-go-ups be a function of your race and class (Everyone gets 5 interesting points per level, but in addition to that Orcish Warrior chooses between +1 attack or +1 damage at level 2 while Elven Mage chooses between Movement and Defence at level 2) then you'd never feel like you were wasting a level on boring-but-mandatory things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
Splicer posted:On that note: Have you considered having the "Boring" skill-ups (attack, defence etc) run off a different track to the "interesting" things like Life Stealing, Round Attack etc? Raw number-go-up level ups are vital, but boring. If you either got to buy them from different point pools (so instead of 10 points per level you got 5 boring points and 5 interesting points) or just had the number-go-ups be a function of your race and class (Everyone gets 5 interesting points per level, but in addition to that Orcish Warrior chooses between +1 attack or +1 damage at level 2 while Elven Mage chooses between Movement and Defence at level 2) then you'd never feel like you were wasting a level on boring-but-mandatory things. Just asked a designer about this, and he said that in a game like Diablo 2, stat boosts become mandatory since enemies are constantly becoming more powerful, so you have two sets of skill points, 1 for stats and another for abilities. In Age of Wonders this isn't the case, the only things that get more powerful over time are heroes. So we want to make it so the player has to choose between stat upgrades which boost the heroes survivability and basic combat strength, or utility abilities that give the player more options like fireballs or wall climbing. Also, with regards to the optional spectator mode, it turns out the idea is so good that we implemented it weeks ago and I didn't realise. So, hurrah for us!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 10:19
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:Just asked a designer about this, and he said that in a game like Diablo 2, stat boosts become mandatory since enemies are constantly becoming more powerful, so you have two sets of skill points, 1 for stats and another for abilities. In Age of Wonders this isn't the case, the only things that get more powerful over time are heroes. So we want to make it so the player has to choose between stat upgrades which boost the heroes survivability and basic combat strength, or utility abilities that give the player more options like fireballs or wall climbing. I do know that in SM that unless you went full caster there was a definite point where if you hadn't invested in +attack you were kind of boned vs anything interesting late game. e: Sorry, mightn't have been clear: There's a number of ways you can design around making sure that the flat numbers increases are useful, interesting, and not mandatory other than just giving them out "free", and from what you've said it sounds like a number of these are being taken into account. I'm just being pedantic about the specific reason given because uh... actually I don't really have a good reason. Splicer fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 10:40
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I do know that in SM that unless you went full caster there was a definite point where if you hadn't invested in +attack you were kind of boned vs anything interesting late game. There's actually a very big difference that you might not realize. In AoW:SM, it was possible for units to miss, so low attack units were essentially worthless against high defense ones. In AoW3, this isn't the case, Attack and Damage have been merged into one value, a low attack unit striking a high defense one will always hit it, it will just do less damage. Regardless, I guess if you want a hero that can go toe to toe with a dragon, then you're going to have to drop some points into damage and defense boosts. Or bring your own dragon to help 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
Has anyone done an LP of the earlier games? couldn't find anything in the LP Archive and I'm interested in reading / watching the intricacies of the earlier games (not necessarily playing it though)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
Tithin Melias posted:Has anyone done an LP of the earlier games? couldn't find anything in the LP Archive and I'm interested in reading / watching the intricacies of the earlier games (not necessarily playing it though) There's one running now: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3539534
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:There's actually a very big difference that you might not realize. In AoW:SM, it was possible for units to miss, so low attack units were essentially worthless against high defense ones. In AoW3, this isn't the case, Attack and Damage have been merged into one value, a low attack unit striking a high defense one will always hit it, it will just do less damage.  Tell whichever designers proposed this I love him and/or her. This is seriously the best thing.e: How will this work for effects? Splicer fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 12:10
|
|
|
Splicer posted:
It was me, I used to get so annoyed when my Dread Reaper would miss some stupid halfling swordsman  We tried having effects work in a similar way (the effect had a strength, and would always affect units that had a lower resistance), but they all ended up being too overpowered. Effects now work on probability, so every point of difference between the strength of the attack and the target resistance indicates an X% shift in success probability. You can see the probability being displayed in a preview popup in the video when the evangelists use mind control. Most resistible spells now have an "On Failure" effect though, so even if they effect fails the target will still lose some HP or some move points or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:It was me, I used to get so annoyed when my Dread Reaper would miss some stupid halfling swordsman s. So psyched for this game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:There's actually a very big difference that you might not realize. In AoW:SM, it was possible for units to miss, so low attack units were essentially worthless against high defense ones. In AoW3, this isn't the case, Attack and Damage have been merged into one value, a low attack unit striking a high defense one will always hit it, it will just do less damage. Are there other random factors to combat, or is this representative of your design philosophy overall?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Are there other random factors to combat, or is this representative of your design philosophy overall? There's random variance of something like +-20% in the amount of damage done by any attack. There's also a debate going on about the whole "Using X damage has a Y chance to cause Z effect", like we had in Shadow Magic (where using lightning damage on something had a small chance of stunning the target, for example); It's not currently implemented, but it's possible it will be. The idea wasn't so much to reduce random factors, more to stop a player performing an action that had no effect. Many people (like me) hated the way that you could go "Let's try this cool ability!" and just get a little boop sound as it did nothing. We're definitely keeping randomness, since we don't want combat to deteriorate into a determinate chess game where people can accurately predict exactly what the consequences of their actions will be. Gerblyn fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:There's actually a very big difference that you might not realize. In AoW:SM, it was possible for units to miss, so low attack units were essentially worthless against high defense ones. In AoW3, this isn't the case, Attack and Damage have been merged into one value, a low attack unit striking a high defense one will always hit it, it will just do less damage. Oh my god this is the best. Seriously, chance to hit is the worst mechanic in every strategy game, I'm really glad you got rid of it. quote:We're definitely keeping randomness, since we don't want combat to deteriorate into a determinate chess game where people can accurately predict exactly what the consequences of their actions will be. I dunno, being that this is a strategy game, I could see a lot worse things happening than this. Usually games that go this route (see something like Vantage Master as an example) go to lengths to keep things interesting by having lots of subtle factors that are worth considering, like terrain effects, height effects, a unit type wheel (W->X->Y->Z->W kind of thing), unique temporarily unit buff skills and debuff skills, stuff of that nature. Not saying this is necessarily the way AoW3 should go mind you, just that it's perfectly viable for a strategy/rpg kind of game to have extremely few random factors and be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
Am I the only one that liked the chance to miss stuff? I liked some units in AoW 1 being tankier because they had more hp and others were tankier because they could block/parry hits. Just flavorwise I liked guys with shields being able to block the first hit of a round or being able to parry etc. Also, leprechauns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
bamhand posted:Am I the only one that liked the chance to miss stuff? I liked the chance to miss stuff, but I can see how much easier it would be for balancing reasons if everyone just hit. I suppose it's not out of the question to just do a flat x% chance miss on stuff like leprechauns or shield guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Removing chance to hit also doesn't remove their ability to have stuff like Leprechauns since they can always use skills that have similar effects. Like say, Leprechauns could always avoid the first attack a unit makes against it in a turn, so you have to use multiple strikes to do anything to them. Stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Leprechauns are jerks and need to all die. drat those happy little bastards as they dance on the corpses of my best army.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
quote:Leprechauns are jerks and need to all die. drat those happy little bastards as they dance on the corpses of my best army. Leprechauns are wonderful. Except when they get attacked by a goblin swordsman and die in one hit. Seriously though the sheer hit/miss randomness of SM was the worst thing, so happy to have it gone. I still want my Lizards and/or Draconians though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
bamhand posted:Am I the only one that liked the chance to miss stuff? I liked some units in AoW 1 being tankier because they had more hp and others were tankier because they could block/parry hits. Just flavorwise I liked guys with shields being able to block the first hit of a round or being able to parry etc. Leprechauns No, you're not the only person. This is a very divisive subject, I'm afraid. The presence of multiple figures in each unit also influenced the decision, it's believable that single goblin will miss and a single elf, but it gets very weird when you have 6 goblins who all miss 6 elves. I think what we have now is a bit of a compromise, some things are hit/miss, some things are more reliable. If you take a risk with the hit/miss stuff, the rewards tend to be a lot better. Gwyrgyn Blood posted:I dunno, being that this is a strategy game, I could see a lot worse things happening than this. Usually games that go this route (see something like Vantage Master as an example) go to lengths to keep things interesting by having lots of subtle factors that are worth considering, like terrain effects, height effects, a unit type wheel (W->X->Y->Z->W kind of thing), unique temporarily unit buff skills and debuff skills, stuff of that nature. Not saying this is necessarily the way AoW3 should go mind you, just that it's perfectly viable for a strategy/rpg kind of game to have extremely few random factors and be a lot of fun. Oh, I agree with you. I think "deteriorated" was the wrong word to use. In my experience, games without random chance tend to be a lot more hardcore, since the decisive factor is always player skill. By adding randomness, we make it so that a player's ability can be mitigated by bad luck, giving weaker players more of a fighting chance. Another reason people have wanted to keep randomness around is the sense of tension it adds to the game, where someone knows they can win, but only if this webbing touch actually succeeds a 50% roll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
bamhand posted:Also, leprechauns. They'd be my perfect example of why this is a great change. Leprechauns were literally unkillable by low-attack units. Not "very difficult", but unkillable. But it didn't scale, meaning that vs high attack units (or medium ones who got a lucky shot) leprechauns were nothing but speedbumps. The Tigran Mystic was the far superior dodgey assbag of a unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:Leprechauns I think MoM's system actually has each individual figure roll for a chance to hit? That way on average you'll always get a few hits in. It'd be extremely unlikely to have all 6 figures miss. This would actually sort of allow you to have both systems. When a squad attacks it's highly, highly unlikely that you'll get a complete miss but single units would have chance to whiff completely. Splicer posted:But what you're failing to take into account is gently caress leprechauns. Seriously, gently caress leprechauns. Actually in AoW 1 the defense bonus capped at 10% chance to hit so if you didn't have high attack guys your best bet was to swarm the leprechaun with as many cheap, low attacking units as possible and you'll get lucky eventually. Plus who doesn't enjoy the image of 12 dudes trying to jump a prancing green midget in a suit? bamhand fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:There's actually a very big difference that you might not realize. In AoW:SM, it was possible for units to miss, so low attack units were essentially worthless against high defense ones. In AoW3, this isn't the case, Attack and Damage have been merged into one value, a low attack unit striking a high defense one will always hit it, it will just do less damage. RIP Doom Bats, I will/won't miss you. thread posted:Leprechauns  But just lookit him dance 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Gerblyn posted:Oh, I agree with you. I think "deteriorated" was the wrong word to use. In my experience, games without random chance tend to be a lot more hardcore, since the decisive factor is always player skill. By adding randomness, we make it so that a player's ability can be mitigated by bad luck, giving weaker players more of a fighting chance. Another reason people have wanted to keep randomness around is the sense of tension it adds to the game, where someone knows they can win, but only if this webbing touch actually succeeds a 50% roll. Yeah, it also helps the AI. The more the outcome depends on high player skill the weaker the AI tends to get. Kinda like how the AI in Civ V is much weaker at combat, because the one-unit-per tile maneuvering is much trickier then just piling all your guys into a doom stack and throwing it at a city.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:RIP Doom Bats, I will/won't miss you. Kanfy posted:
Seriously, I hear it every time I read the word "leprechaun" in this thread. Every. Single. Time. bamhand posted:Actually in AoW 1 the defense bonus capped at 10% chance to hit so if you didn't have high attack guys your best bet was to swarm the leprechaun with as many cheap, low attacking units as possible and you'll get lucky eventually. Plus who doesn't enjoy the image of 12 dudes trying to jump a prancing green midget in a suit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Oooh, game design philosophy. Have some words. I hate missing in almost any game where a miss represents a significant portion of your 'force'. The games that smooth it out by having a larger number of 'rolls' that can miss with a lesser impact are a lot more tolerable (Warhammer 40k the tabletop game is the literal ideal example of this, with whole handfuls of dice being used in any given attack). A situation in which you have, say, three or four units that can perform one action a turn and those actions have a chance to miss - I don't find that fun. If I have ten or twelve units and a few miss, that's ok - I can compensate by adjusting how I use the rest of my actions. Compare Final Fantasy Tactics to Tactics Ogre. That aside, I definitely agree that having some chaos present is good for the game, and makes combat more memorable. The random factor is more interesting in tough battles, and almost irrelevant in fights that are wildly lopsided. Hopefully autobattle can take care of the easy fights intelligently. Having to waste your time slogging through a ton of pointless battles in the mid to late game is one of the worst parts of just about every 4x game out there. You already mentioned having spells/abilities that still have an effect if they miss, just a lesser or different effect. I like that approach a lot (and I usually really dislike binary spells/abilties) - I'll almost always gravitate towards effects that are guaranteed to work, because if I have the choice, it's almost never worth risking a catastrophic situation when I can rely on 100% effects, even if they are weaker or less interesting. This might seem like a weird tangent, but I'll point to two games that handled RNG in a very good and very bad way, both match three bejewelled style puzzle games. And they have almost entirely to do with player psychology. The first is Puzzle Quest, the second is Puzzle & Dragons. PQ is legendary for pissing players off and you can search and find people who will swear up and down that 'the computer cheats!' despite the lead programmer coming out and saying directly that not only does it not cheat, it acts dumb in the players favor in a lot of cases. P&D on the other hand, has almost exactly the same basic match three mechanic, but it has no computer opponent on the same board. The funny thing is that you're still at the mercy of the RNG in terms of new drops, but because you never get to see your opponent 'getting lucky', you feel a lot more in control of your success or failure. Tactical battle games are in the PQ camp, because you are up against a computer opponent. Even though over time, your successes and failures will be matched by the AI, humans are hilariously, hilariously bad at understanding random numbers, and are always going to feel hard done by the AI 'getting lucky', even while they ignore similar streaks in their favor. If you make effects that are flat binary success/fail relatively rare, they'd be more memorable simply for their scarcity, and depending on their power, might be worth using if you have enough 'actions' (of whatever form) on your turn to afford sparing one or more to a bad roll. One last thought somewhat related to the rng issue - in general, I don't like it when 4x/strategy/tactical games have situations that make you more inclined to simply reload your game than to play through the pain. There are a lot of mechanics that need to be tinkered with to allow 'acceptable losses', but I think they almost always make the game better. I hate coming out on the other side of a tough, fun battle and realizing that the losses sustained rendered the victory entirely pyrrhic. At that point you either reload your last save game or you spend a lot longer losing the overall war. I find it much more interesting if I can come out of that same battle and have to adjust my overall strategy, but still have a realistic path to victory, even if it might require a drastic change in tactics or a greater struggle (either is interesting!). (This is why Kohan was the best 4v4 RTS ever, and why Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 inheriting retreating was a great thing - unit morale and routing or shattering a unit but being able to rebuild it changes combat from an absolute victory/loss to a softer push and pull that is engaging.) (if you give me a few minutes I could probably throw an FPS in here somewhere, but I need lunch)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Just wondering if there is any chance of a Linux port for this game? I think it would really stand out in the list of Linux games on Steam that's up right now. Eador apparently is getting ported, but AoW III is THE REAL DEAL and I am very excited about the prospect of playing it. I'm kind of sad this game never got a Kickstarter because it seems like a Linux port would have been more likely in that case. If it doesn't happen I'll hope for good Wine compatibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
On the Luck talk: This talk by the designer of Magic the Gathering is really a must see. He talks about the difference between "Luck" and "Skill", and how they're not the same axis of design and reducing one does not automatically increase the other. There's also a good bit about how you can reduce the impact of Luck in a dice-roll game without just removing the dice rolls. One of which is increasing the amount of dice rolled, so it evens out more quickly. Making an attack roll for every single unit in a multi-person squad means the damage isn't as swing as if you rolled one collective attack for the entire unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
victrix posted:Oooh, game design philosophy. Have some words. I agree with you here, one of the issues I had with the hit/miss in AoW:SM was that often, you could only move 2 or 3 units per turn, and having most of them miss was just so frustrating. If you compare that to something like NWN, where your character will miss quite frequently, it doesn't have the same psychological effect because you're taking a swing once a second anyways. There's a similar thing in FFXIII; normally in JRPGs I never try to debuff enemies, but a Saboteur will just keep spamming debuffs, automatically ignoring the ones the monster is immune to, so it feels more like a matter of time rather than an exercise in futility. DatonKallandor posted:Making an attack roll for every single unit in a multi-person squad means the damage isn't as swing as if you rolled one collective attack for the entire unit. It would also involve a huge rewrite of a lot of systems, including parts of the AI and the combat interfaces. It's a nice idea, but beyond the scope of what we're really able to do I'm afraid. MaterialConceptual posted:Just wondering if there is any chance of a Linux port for this game? I think it would really stand out in the list of Linux games on Steam that's up right now. Eador apparently is getting ported, but AoW III is THE REAL DEAL and I am very excited about the prospect of playing it. I'm kind of sad this game never got a Kickstarter because it seems like a Linux port would have been more likely in that case. If it doesn't happen I'll hope for good Wine compatibility. Sorry to say I'm not really able to answer this. We're focusing on the Windows release at the moment, where we'll take it afterwards is really beyond what I can talk about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
I'm really glad this is coming on GoG. Also I watched the gameplay trailer and the second I heard the skeleton hiss it was just nostalgia fever all over. Also big thanks to the guy who said he worked on the Dwiggs mod, that thing was great, and I'm going to reinstall it the second I get home tonight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
What was everyones favorite spells? Mine was mass confusion in SM and that death one on AoW1 that let you control random units. Also incarnate was my fav in both. Have him possess some lowly warrior and then suprise your friend with a random ghost We should get some goon multiplayer dwiggmod going. I played a ton of games with Dwigg to help him test his poo poo out and made some maps you guys should download
Genderman fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Is there any really cool mods for shadow magic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Air magic was always a favorite of mine, and was how I managed to beat the final level of the Shadow Magic campaign. Haste offsets your dwarves' main weakness, Seeker and Wind Ward make your cannons nigh unstoppable (until you enter the shadow realm at least), and of course most of the shadow demons are weak to all the lightning damage you're throwing around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Mzbundifund posted:Air magic was always a favorite of mine, and was how I managed to beat the final level of the Shadow Magic campaign. Haste offsets your dwarves' main weakness, Seeker and Wind Ward make your cannons nigh unstoppable (until you enter the shadow realm at least), and of course most of the shadow demons are weak to all the lightning damage you're throwing around. I almost forgot how awesome the final mission in SM was. So much needs to be done, but you are so limited in resources. Thankfully they made your main city is a Dwarf town, which is undoubtedly the best faction in the game  . I just wish your allies did something instead of just dying horribly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Genderman posted:What was everyones favorite spells? Mine was mass confusion in SM and that death one on AoW1 that let you control random units. Also incarnate was my fav in both. Have him possess some lowly warrior and then suprise your friend with a random ghost AoW2? Not sure. Nothing really gave me the sheer manic glee of chain lightning, but Haste Domain and Suffocate were always good solid workhorses, re-animating That rear end in a top hat Elf as a new hero was always funny, Infection was also funny but a bit pricey for what you got. And of course it's not a proper game if it doesn't end in a four-way terraforming battle between Ice, Death, Water, and Boring Grass People. That said, I have a soft spot for blazing comet. Probably because of the animation. That's not to say the spells in SM weren't good, it's just that nothing will ever live up to the fun I had with Original Flavour Chain Lightning. Seconding the fun of incarnates. Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Screw fire storms and turning forests into wastelands, my favorite spell in SM was Stoning. Especially early on the multiple hits really wrecked your opponent if you happened to get good damage rolls. Separating units from stacks with Tornado before attacking was also pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
The best spell was Ice Age and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. I'm not even sure if it actually did a whole lot in the end, but just seeing the whole map turn to ice was neat. Otherwise, I think Sacred Wrath or whatever it was that nuked everyone on the opponent's side was my go to, especially if I had multiple caster heroes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
I always liked to stack Static Shield and Liquid Form on my heroes and watch them single-handedly wreck the other team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
What was the name of the spell that dropped swords on all of the enemy units? I always like that one a lot. That and Firestorm of course. :I
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 22:50
|
|