Homm2 Ultimate Artifact bug - Please reply!
Dean Christopher Farmer
Hello All,
I have written about this before, but have not received a response.
So I would please ask George, Phil or anyone else that knows about this
to please answer my question.
I would be greatly appreciative!
Q: Has there been, or is there (ever) going to be a fix for the HOMM2
problem where the old ultimate artifacts (same ones as in homm1) are
mysteriously 'disappeared' when you conquer the hero who has it, whereas
the new UA's (only found in HOMM2) are transferred.
Now I don't mind one or the other here folks, but what I would like to
see is a little bit of consistency. Even a certain 'chance' or probability
of it being lost/transferred would be OK (that could be the price you
pay for not getting to it first.) Has the expansion pack done anything to
fix this, or the latest patch???
Anyone know the answer to this, George???
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Dean Farmer.
d...@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
--
************************************
Dean C. Farmer.
3rd Year Info. Systems Science & Eng.
RMIT University. Melbourne Australia.
George Ruof
d...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Dean Christopher Farmer) wrote:
>Q: Has there been, or is there (ever) going to be a fix for the HOMM2
>problem where the old ultimate artifacts (same ones as in homm1) are
>mysteriously 'disappeared' when you conquer the hero who has it, whereas
>the new UA's (only found in HOMM2) are transferred.
In the 1.3 patch that I'm working on I will probably make all of the new
ultimate artifacts behave like the old ones. They will disappear when
the hero carrying them is defeated.
Comments anyone? Good idea or bad idea?
George
-----------------------------------------------------------------
George Ruof gr...@pacificnet.net
Senior Programmer gr...@nwcomputing.com
New World Computing http://www.nwcomputing.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John M Clancy
I think we should get to keep the artifact! We defeated
the opponent, so why not get the spoils? It's not much
of an Ultimate Artifact if it can't hold up to a battle
loss now and again.
--
John M Clancy
"Macs are better than PCs" So? Beta was better than VHS.
And your point is......?
Descent Win95 Desktop Themes: http://members.aol.com/mefent/descent
George Ruof
John M Clancy <jmcl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>George Ruof wrote:
>>
>> d...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Dean Christopher Farmer) wrote:
>>
>> >Q: Has there been, or is there (ever) going to be a fix for the HOMM2
>> >problem where the old ultimate artifacts (same ones as in homm1) are
>> >mysteriously 'disappeared' when you conquer the hero who has it, whereas
>> >the new UA's (only found in HOMM2) are transferred.
>>
>> In the 1.3 patch that I'm working on I will probably make all of the new
>> ultimate artifacts behave like the old ones. They will disappear when
>> the hero carrying them is defeated.
>>
>> Comments anyone? Good idea or bad idea?
>I think we should get to keep the artifact! We defeated
>the opponent, so why not get the spoils? It's not much
>of an Ultimate Artifact if it can't hold up to a battle
>loss now and again.
Ok, fair enough. So should I make the original ultimate artifacts
survive battles as well? (probably not an option, but for discussion's
sake let's consider it.)
Normally the ultimate artifact is not terribly easy to find. You need
to visit enough obelisks to find it, and then you need to get there and
dig for it all before the computer does the same thing. It seems to me
that if they are treated just like any other artifact then there is no
need for me to even try and dig up the ultimate artifact anymore. I can
just watch the computer do it and then kill him. The computer is better
at finding the UA anyway.
Maureen Grady
br...@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III) wrote:
>From article <42832109F516F616.07E9DE1F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, by gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof):
>] John M Clancy <jmcl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>]
>]>George Ruof wrote:
>]>>
>]>> d...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Dean Christopher Farmer) wrote:
>]>>
>I would like to see consistant handling of all ultimate artifiacts more
>than anything else. I would prefer that they disappear for the reason
>of making them more special that you have written below.
I agree that they should be consistent. I would opt for not
disappearing. If you do manage to defeat a hero with the UA you most
likely will suffer heavy losses to do so; having the UA disappear on
top of that is a bit of a slap in the face.
>]
>] Normally the ultimate artifact is not terribly easy to find. You need
>] to visit enough obelisks to find it, and then you need to get there and
>] dig for it all before the computer does the same thing. It seems to me
>] that if they are treated just like any other artifact then there is no
>] need for me to even try and dig up the ultimate artifact anymore. I can
>] just watch the computer do it and then kill him. The computer is better
>] at finding the UA anyway.
I'm very curious why the computer is better at it. Especially because
there never seems to be more than one hole dug (ok, sometimes two or
three, but usually just one) even when the CP has not found nearly all
the obelisks. Given that the "X" can appear in any one of several
spots around the middle of the puzzle map, the AI should have no
better chance than I do of guessing which spot to dig in when the 4
center puzzle pieces have not been revealed.
>If people really want them (in 1 player games), they can watch were the
>computer gets the ultimate artifact and then go back to a previous
>saved spot in the game and go right to where the object is.
Yuk. And besides, when the computer gets it, it usually does so long
before I reveal that part of the map so I never see it happen.
>The current situation is kind of pointless. I always seem to have some
>gopher leaders who wouldn't mind carrying the Fizbin item around, since
>if they get into combat they are usually toast anyway. The other problem
>with cursed items is that you normally shouldn't pick them up (except
>in combat) since each item has a distinctive graphic on the map. It
>probably would have been better to have cursed objects for many of
>the artifacts that had the same picture, but a related negative effect
>instead of a positive one.
>--
Usually I get the Fizbin, et. al. from shipwreck victims or chests;
obviously, I never pick it up on purpose.
Taking away the ability to hand it off is just not fair, especially
because the CP's seem to magically never pick up chests or survivors
that have cursed items.
Bruno Wolff III
] Usually I get the Fizbin, et. al. from shipwreck victims or chests;
] obviously, I never pick it up on purpose.
]
] Taking away the ability to hand it off is just not fair, especially
] because the CP's seem to magically never pick up chests or survivors
] that have cursed items.
HOMM 2 is loaded with random events that can have a large effect on your
chances of winning a particular scenario. Getting stuck with a cursed
item isn't the worst, by far.
Why do you consider cursed items especially "unfair"? Are resource
limitations that make it hard to build particular upgrades of your castle
unfair? Is getting Hypnotize instead of Armageddon as your 5th level spell
unfair? Is having a tough wandering monster group generated in a key
location unfair?
I think it is possible to use cursed items badly, but that it is also
possible for them to be used in teresting ways as well. If you can't be
stuck with cursed items, what is the point of having them available to
map designers?
--
I no longer accept email from all places. Some email to me may result in
automated replies to the sender and to direct and indirect providers of their
internet service.
Paul Schaaf
On 10 Jun 1997, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The current situation is kind of pointless. I always seem to have some
> gopher leaders who wouldn't mind carrying the Fizbin item around, since
> if they get into combat they are usually toast anyway. The other problem
> with cursed items is that you normally shouldn't pick them up (except
> in combat) since each item has a distinctive graphic on the map. It
> probably would have been better to have cursed objects for many of
> the artifacts that had the same picture, but a related negative effect
> instead of a positive one.
Personally, I like the idea of having the artifacts all look the same on
the map so you don't know what you're getting. As it is, I just bypass
the ones I don't consider very useful.
---------
Paul Schaaf
sch...@u.washington.edu
Paul Schaaf
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Maureen Grady wrote:
> >] Normally the ultimate artifact is not terribly easy to find. You need
> >] to visit enough obelisks to find it, and then you need to get there and
> >] dig for it all before the computer does the same thing. It seems to me
> >] that if they are treated just like any other artifact then there is no
> >] need for me to even try and dig up the ultimate artifact anymore. I can
> >] just watch the computer do it and then kill him. The computer is better
> >] at finding the UA anyway.
>
> I'm very curious why the computer is better at it. Especially because
> there never seems to be more than one hole dug (ok, sometimes two or
> three, but usually just one) even when the CP has not found nearly all
> the obelisks. Given that the "X" can appear in any one of several
> spots around the middle of the puzzle map, the AI should have no
> better chance than I do of guessing which spot to dig in when the 4
> center puzzle pieces have not been revealed.
All it really takes are two obelisks revealed if there aren't any other
spots on the map that have those two types of landmarks spaced in the same
way. I wouldn't be able to find it like that, but the computer would...
---------
Paul Schaaf
sch...@u.washington.edu
John M Clancy
> >problem where the old ultimate artifacts (same ones as in homm1) are
> >mysteriously 'disappeared' when you conquer the hero who has it, whereas
> >the new UA's (only found in HOMM2) are transferred.
>
> In the 1.3 patch that I'm working on I will probably make all of the new
> ultimate artifacts behave like the old ones. They will disappear when
> the hero carrying them is defeated.
>
> Comments anyone? Good idea or bad idea?
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> George Ruof gr...@pacificnet.net
> Senior Programmer gr...@nwcomputing.com
> New World Computing http://www.nwcomputing.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
I think we should get to keep the artifact! We defeated
the opponent, so why not get the spoils? It's not much
of an Ultimate Artifact if it can't hold up to a battle
loss now and again.
--
Maureen Grady
Paul Schaaf <sch...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
Why should the computer have any better luck than me at guessing which
of the "centerish" hexes it's on when we both postively identify the
absolute middle of the puzzle? With those four middle pieces
unrevealed, it's still pure guesswork as to which hex it really is.
Brian30343
In article
<C6B1B9A209E85C7F.B15FE25F...@library-proxy.airnews.
net>, gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof) writes:
>In the 1.3 patch that I'm working on I will probably make all of the new
>ultimate artifacts behave like the old ones. They will disappear when
>the hero carrying them is defeated.
>
>Comments anyone? Good idea or bad idea?
>
>George
>
I think all UAs should dissapear when the hero is defeated. I also think
the CP should not be able to find it so easily, I usually have to reveal
at least 60% of the puzzle before I can guess where it is, they should
have to have at least that. I also don't see anything wrong with cursed
artifacts and think the game wouldn't be the same without them. I have
never had a problem working around the curses, especially the fizbin, all
you need is leadership to undo it's bad moral penalty. I like the idea of
having the cursed artifacts all look alike but having different
attributes, perhaps they should look like the medal of courage or some
other positive artifact untill you pick them up.
Brian
Juris Baidins
In article <5nlavi$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
Maureen Grady <q...@spamshield.mindspring.com> wrote:
>Why should the computer have any better luck than me at guessing which
>of the "centerish" hexes it's on when we both postively identify the
>absolute middle of the puzzle? With those four middle pieces
>unrevealed, it's still pure guesswork as to which hex it really is.
For real guess work by the computer, try the Dominion scenario
in the expansion pack.
More often than not, the UA ends up in the Barbarian's backyard and
once you get there the place is full of pits, indicating where the
computer dug for the UA.
--
Juris Baidins
bai...@udel.edu
Paul Schaaf
The computer shouldn't really have any advantage in deciding which of the
center squares the artifact is in, but it seems like it would take the
computer less time to narrow down which squares are the center ones as the
map is revealed unless you get lucky and get some easy landmarks, or if
you're into jigsaw puzzles.
One complaint I have is that I have a really hard time figuring out if the
land I'm about to dig on is clear. Am I missing something? It's really
irritating to end my turn on a spot that I think it's at and then find out
the ground isn't clear. If I could figure out which spots are not "clear"
then I could just skip these.
---------
Paul Schaaf
sch...@u.washington.edu
Maureen Grady
Paul Schaaf <sch...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>One complaint I have is that I have a really hard time figuring out if the
>land I'm about to dig on is clear. Am I missing something? It's really
>irritating to end my turn on a spot that I think it's at and then find out
>the ground isn't clear. If I could figure out which spots are not "clear"
>then I could just skip these.
Ah yes, I forgot about that. There are an awful lot of places that
look just as clear as the ones next to them, yet you get the dreaded
"try searching on clear ground" message.
Kurt Reisler
In article <C6B1B9A209E85C7F.B15FE25F...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
George Ruof <gr...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
>d...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Dean Christopher Farmer) wrote:
>
>>Q: Has there been, or is there (ever) going to be a fix for the HOMM2
>>problem where the old ultimate artifacts (same ones as in homm1) are
>>mysteriously 'disappeared' when you conquer the hero who has it, whereas
>>the new UA's (only found in HOMM2) are transferred.
>
>ultimate artifacts behave like the old ones. They will disappear when
>the hero carrying them is defeated.
>
>Comments anyone? Good idea or bad idea?
>
>George
>
Why not make it a 25% chance that the conquering hero would retain the
ultimate artifact, and make that percentage increase as the player's
luck parameter increases?
--
Kurt Reisler (UNIX SIG Chair, DECUS US Chapter)
Captain, UNISIG International Luge Team
Only a guest at k...@umbc.edu
<*> Moderation is for monks, and some news groups <*>
Stephen Lee
In article <5nkgls$5...@camel4.mindspring.com>,
Maureen Grady <q...@spamshield.mindspring.com> wrote:
[on finding the UA]
>I'm very curious why the computer is better at it. Especially because
>there never seems to be more than one hole dug (ok, sometimes two or
>three, but usually just one) even when the CP has not found nearly all
>the obelisks. Given that the "X" can appear in any one of several
>spots around the middle of the puzzle map, the AI should have no
>better chance than I do of guessing which spot to dig in when the 4
>center puzzle pieces have not been revealed.
Well, the computer knows which squares are suitable for digging (it
appears to be impossible to tell this just by looking at the map for
clear terrain); that speeds things up by about 50% right there. "Try
searching on clear ground" is such an annoying message.
Also, sometimes the computer has a hard time finding the UA. I once
watched, in a freshly scouted area, one CP AI digging holes like crazy.
Seven or eight holes were dug before I got my troops in and dispatched
them. It turned out the actual location was quite far to the northeast
(about one screen). It certainly isn't ludicrous as it was in HOMM1.
Some people have actually complained that the computer AI for finding the
UA sucks, and backed this claim up with their search technique.
--
Stephen S. Lee (ssj...@netcom.com), prospective molecular biologist
Note: this message has been protected from prying eyes by the application
of two rounds of the ROT-13 encryption technique.
Rick Haan
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Paul Schaaf wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jun 1997, Juris Baidins wrote:
>
> > In article <5nlavi$u...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
> > Maureen Grady <q...@spamshield.mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >Why should the computer have any better luck than me at guessing which
> > >of the "centerish" hexes it's on when we both postively identify the
> > >absolute middle of the puzzle? With those four middle pieces
> > >unrevealed, it's still pure guesswork as to which hex it really is.
> >
> > For real guess work by the computer, try the Dominion scenario
> > in the expansion pack.
> >
> > More often than not, the UA ends up in the Barbarian's backyard and
> > once you get there the place is full of pits, indicating where the
> > computer dug for the UA.
>
> The computer shouldn't really have any advantage in deciding which of the
> center squares the artifact is in, but it seems like it would take the
> computer less time to narrow down which squares are the center ones as the
> map is revealed unless you get lucky and get some easy landmarks, or if
> you're into jigsaw puzzles.
>
> One complaint I have is that I have a really hard time figuring out if the
> land I'm about to dig on is clear. Am I missing something? It's really
> irritating to end my turn on a spot that I think it's at and then find out
> the ground isn't clear. If I could figure out which spots are not "clear"
> then I could just skip these.
Agreed on this last. One nice thing would if, when you tried to dig,
you would first be told whether it is clear ground or not, then, if it is,
that you need a full movement turn to dig (if you didn't have one). A
suggestion for HoMM III, George and Phil!
Rick Haan
University of Arizona
rh...@u.arizona.edu
Keith Rohrer
George Ruof wrote:
> Normally the ultimate artifact is not terribly easy to find. You need
> to visit enough obelisks to find it, and then you need to get there and
> dig for it all before the computer does the same thing. It seems to me
> that if they are treated just like any other artifact then there is no
> need for me to even try and dig up the ultimate artifact anymore. I can
> just watch the computer do it and then kill him. The computer is better
> at finding the UA anyway.
random potholes since I got the expansion pack (every now and then, the
enemy seems to dig for an artifact, even in a no-UA scenario?), I
usually had little trouble winning the scenarios with finding the UA as
a goal...
Oh, 'nother buried bug report: I had some (water?) elementals, and the
computer hero cast a spell on them which they "resisted". Two rounds in
a row (it might've gone on, but I won the fight) it did this. AFAIK, a
human player wouldn't've been allowed to cast that spell--or any other
the appropriate targets are immune to--even if I have no way of knowing
it won't work (e.g. the enemy has an artifact which prevents the spell
I'm considering)! The computer player therefore shouldn't be allowed to
waste the spell opportunity or spell points.
Somewhat similarly, the computer let me cast Meteor Swarm agaist Air
Elementals.
A design misfeature: Air and Earth Elementals are immune to their
opposite element and vulnerable to their own; Water and Fire elementals
are immune to their own element but vulnerable to the opposite element.
Keith
George Ruof
Keith Rohrer <kwro...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>George Ruof wrote:
>>The computer is better at finding the UA anyway.
>I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. Though I've seen
>random potholes since I got the expansion pack (every now and then, the
>enemy seems to dig for an artifact, even in a no-UA scenario?), I
>usually had little trouble winning the scenarios with finding the UA as
>a goal...
I should probably qualify my statement a little bit. With my style of
playing the computer is usually better at finding the ultimate artifact.
The computer will always try to have 8 heroes running around the map
while I won't usually have more than 3 or 4 that are actively moving
around so the computer generally tends to uncover more map quicker than
I do and visit more obelisks than I do. The computer also seems to be
better at me in matching up the puzzle and the actual map. Based on
these two things I think it is more likely that he will locate the UA
first.
>Oh, 'nother buried bug report: I had some (water?) elementals, and the
>computer hero cast a spell on them which they "resisted". Two rounds in
>a row (it might've gone on, but I won the fight) it did this. AFAIK, a
>human player wouldn't've been allowed to cast that spell--or any other
>the appropriate targets are immune to--even if I have no way of knowing
>it won't work (e.g. the enemy has an artifact which prevents the spell
>I'm considering)! The computer player therefore shouldn't be allowed to
>waste the spell opportunity or spell points.
>
>Somewhat similarly, the computer let me cast Meteor Swarm agaist Air
>Elementals.
>
>A design misfeature: Air and Earth Elementals are immune to their
>opposite element and vulnerable to their own; Water and Fire elementals
>are immune to their own element but vulnerable to the opposite element.
I'll look at the resistances and who is allowed to cast what at them.
I'll also ask the designer about the way the resistance is supposed to
work.
George Ruof
q...@spamshield.mindspring.com (Maureen Grady) wrote:
>Paul Schaaf <sch...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>One complaint I have is that I have a really hard time figuring out if the
>>land I'm about to dig on is clear. Am I missing something? It's really
>>irritating to end my turn on a spot that I think it's at and then find out
>>the ground isn't clear. If I could figure out which spots are not "clear"
>>then I could just skip these.
>
>Ah yes, I forgot about that. There are an awful lot of places that
>look just as clear as the ones next to them, yet you get the dreaded
>"try searching on clear ground" message.
Okay you complainers... :)
I made it so that when you right click on a ground tile it prints
whether you can or cannot dig on that hex. Is that better?
Maureen Grady
gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof) wrote:
>Okay you complainers... :)
>I made it so that when you right click on a ground tile it prints
>whether you can or cannot dig on that hex. Is that better?
YES!!! Thank you George. (shuffle, shuffle, now where'd I put my
list of things to whine about, we're on a roll)
Ah, I remember one! Clear back in HOMM 1 I believe you agreed that
it'd be nice if the day of the week appeared somewhere on all (almost
all) screens or was at least easy to find without backing all the way
out to the adventure screen.
George Ruof
q...@spamshield.mindspring.com (Maureen Grady) wrote:
I still think it's a nice idea, but now I'd have to write code for it...
The castle screen is where it really bugs me so now while the mouse is
over the hero crest the day is printed in the info window at the bottom
of the screen. Is it important to have the month and week as well?
Maureen Grady
gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof) wrote:
>The castle screen is where it really bugs me so now while the mouse is
>over the hero crest the day is printed in the info window at the bottom
>of the screen. Is it important to have the month and week as well?
Your the best George. Day is fine, just need to plan for the first
day of the week; any week.
Robert Olesen
George Ruof wrote:
>
> q...@spamshield.mindspring.com (Maureen Grady) wrote:
>
> >gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof) wrote:
> >
> >>Okay you complainers... :)
> >
> >>I made it so that when you right click on a ground tile it prints
> >>whether you can or cannot dig on that hex. Is that better?
> >
> >YES!!! Thank you George. (shuffle, shuffle, now where'd I put my
> >list of things to whine about, we're on a roll)
> >
> >Ah, I remember one! Clear back in HOMM 1 I believe you agreed that
> >it'd be nice if the day of the week appeared somewhere on all (almost
> >all) screens or was at least easy to find without backing all the way
> >out to the adventure screen.
>
> I still think it's a nice idea, but now I'd have to write code for it...
>
> over the hero crest the day is printed in the info window at the bottom
> of the screen. Is it important to have the month and week as well?
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> George Ruof gr...@pacificnet.net
> Senior Programmer gr...@nwcomputing.com
> New World Computing http://www.nwcomputing.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
George,
Thanks a lot for these small but extremely useful improvements. Just one
question: You state that "now" these things can be done. Which version
are you referring to? And no, it is not really important to have month
and week, though it would be nice.
Robert Olesen.
Keith Rohrer
George Ruof wrote:
>
> Keith Rohrer <kwro...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >George Ruof wrote:
> >>The computer is better at finding the UA anyway.
>
> >I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. Though I've seen
> >random potholes since I got the expansion pack (every now and then, the
> >enemy seems to dig for an artifact, even in a no-UA scenario?), I
> >usually had little trouble winning the scenarios with finding the UA as
> >a goal...
>
> I should probably qualify my statement a little bit. With my style of
> playing the computer is usually better at finding the ultimate artifact.
> The computer will always try to have 8 heroes running around the map
> while I won't usually have more than 3 or 4 that are actively moving
> around so the computer generally tends to uncover more map quicker than
> I do and visit more obelisks than I do. The computer also seems to be
> better at me in matching up the puzzle and the actual map. Based on
> these two things I think it is more likely that he will locate the UA
> first.
have most of my heroes carrying only a few very fast creatures...I also
don't pay too much attention to development, so I usually win with the
artifact in hand but would be killed by an opponent who decided to try
to crush me before I found it.
If the UA is only an option, I usually spend most of my energy mopping
up the computer, and if they get the artifact they don't have the army
or heroes to get much use of it.
Keith
George Ruof
Robert Olesen <ol...@dnv.com> wrote:
>Thanks a lot for these small but extremely useful improvements. Just one
>question: You state that "now" these things can be done. Which version
>are you referring to? And no, it is not really important to have month
>and week, though it would be nice.
I'm working on a 1.3 patch to be released sometime in the future. :) It
will have these changes and fixes in it.
Bruno Wolff III
]
] Oh, 'nother buried bug report: I had some (water?) elementals, and the
] computer hero cast a spell on them which they "resisted". Two rounds in
] a row (it might've gone on, but I won the fight) it did this. AFAIK, a
] human player wouldn't've been allowed to cast that spell--or any other
] the appropriate targets are immune to--even if I have no way of knowing
] it won't work (e.g. the enemy has an artifact which prevents the spell
] I'm considering)! The computer player therefore shouldn't be allowed to
] waste the spell opportunity or spell points.
You have to be a little carefull. There are things that provide resistance
some of the time. You would think the computer would not cast spells
at things known to be 100% resistant to the spells. I don't remember
any artifacts that give only a chance of resistance, but there could be
a case where monsters known to be partially resistant are actually 100%
resistant because of an artifact unknown to the caster. Deciding when
to try other spells in such circumstances can be very tricky for humans,
let alone computers.
Bruno Wolff III
From article <5nqo0e$6...@camel3.mindspring.com>, by q...@spamshield.mindspring.com (Maureen Grady):
] gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof) wrote:
]
]>The castle screen is where it really bugs me so now while the mouse is
]>over the hero crest the day is printed in the info window at the bottom
]>of the screen. Is it important to have the month and week as well?
] Your the best George. Day is fine, just need to plan for the first
] day of the week; any week.
In some scenarios events happen monthly or there are time limits on the
secnario that one might want to know. These usally aren't the kind of
thing you need to know when not on the adventure screen.
My suggestion is provide the date information in a way that looks nice.
If the extended date information clutters things up too much, drop it
for that reason.
Sebastien Patenaude
> >>
> >> d...@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Dean Christopher Farmer) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Q: Has there been, or is there (ever) going to be a fix for the HOMM2
> >> >problem where the old ultimate artifacts (same ones as in homm1) are
> >> >mysteriously 'disappeared' when you conquer the hero who has it, whereas
> >> >the new UA's (only found in HOMM2) are transferred.
> >>
> >> In the 1.3 patch that I'm working on I will probably make all of the new
> >> ultimate artifacts behave like the old ones. They will disappear when
> >> the hero carrying them is defeated.
> >>
> >> Comments anyone? Good idea or bad idea?
>
> >the opponent, so why not get the spoils? It's not much
> >of an Ultimate Artifact if it can't hold up to a battle
> >loss now and again.
>
> survive battles as well? (probably not an option, but for discussion's
> sake let's consider it.)
I would prefer not.
> Normally the ultimate artifact is not terribly easy to find. You need
> to visit enough obelisks to find it, and then you need to get there and
> dig for it all before the computer does the same thing. It seems to me
> that if they are treated just like any other artifact then there is no
> need for me to even try and dig up the ultimate artifact anymore. I can
> just watch the computer do it and then kill him. The computer is better
> at finding the UA anyway.
I say to keep things as it stands now concerning the acquisition of
Ultimate Artifacts from defeated enemies. Intermediate artifacts (that
split the bonus on multiple skills... ex: Ultimate Staff, Ultimate
Crown) should still be given to the winner of the battle since they
don't imbalance the game as much as the single-skill ultimate artifacts
(Ultimate sword, Ultimate Wand, etc). I don't really know about the
Golden Goose and whether it should be disappear or not after the battle.
--
\ \
\\---\\ The Quebec Dragon
_\ \ -=(UDIC)=-
_\(o\ \o)
_\/( \ \ "Unofficial" newsgroup liaison of
_\/((( @--@ Phil McCrum's Heroes of Might & Magic 2 site
_\/(((( \V""V/
P.S. I really hope this makes it on the newsgroup. I'm under the
impression that all my posts between June 4th and June 12th never
reached you guys.
Sebastien Patenaude
Maureen Grady wrote:
>
> gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof) wrote:
>
> >Okay you complainers... :)
>
> >I made it so that when you right click on a ground tile it prints
> >whether you can or cannot dig on that hex. Is that better?
>
> YES!!! Thank you George. (shuffle, shuffle, now where'd I put my
> list of things to whine about, we're on a roll)
>
> Ah, I remember one! Clear back in HOMM 1 I believe you agreed that
> it'd be nice if the day of the week appeared somewhere on all (almost
> all) screens or was at least easy to find without backing all the way
> out to the adventure screen.
I heartily concur with that suggestion !!! Please put the day somewhere
on the castle screen and other screens too if you can manage it. Please,
please, please...
While we're on the subject of small ameliorations for the HOMM 2 1.3
patch... I hope that George will be kind enough to implement the visible
map for both players in hot seat games. As it stands now, the second
player (my darn brother :-) has a huge advantage since he can see the
enemies coming while the first player (most of the time me) gets
ambushed more easily and often since my explored map does not appear
between turns.
--
\ \
\\---\\ The Quebec Dragon
_\ \ -=(UDIC)=-
_\(o\ \o)
_\/( \ \ "Unofficial" newsgroup liaison of
_\/((( @--@ Phil McCrum's Heroes of Might & Magic 2 site
_\/(((( \V""V/ http://www.wenet.net/~pmccrum/Heroes/index.htm
Keith Rohrer
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> ] Oh, 'nother buried bug report: I had some (water?) elementals, and the
> ] computer hero cast a spell on them which they "resisted". Two rounds in
> ] a row (it might've gone on, but I won the fight) it did this. AFAIK, a
> ] human player wouldn't've been allowed to cast that spell--or any other
> ] the appropriate targets are immune to--even if I have no way of knowing
> ] it won't work (e.g. the enemy has an artifact which prevents the spell
> ] I'm considering)! The computer player therefore shouldn't be allowed to
> ] waste the spell opportunity or spell points.
> You have to be a little carefull. There are things that provide resistance
> some of the time.
the damage, for example) or 100% denial (e.g. artifacts protecting you
from a specific spell). The only thing I know of that gives a partial
all-or-nothing magic resistance is being a Dwarf.
> You would think the computer would not cast spells
> at things known to be 100% resistant to the spells. I don't remember
> any artifacts that give only a chance of resistance
I believe (having visited the website which listed all the known
artifacts and having not seen any others after months of play) that
there are no such artifacts.
>, but there could be
> a case where monsters known to be partially resistant are actually 100%
There's nothing Water Elementals are partially resistant to in the first
place. They have no brains, and fire/cold do nothing or double damage
to them (can't remember which is which).
> resistant because of an artifact unknown to the caster. Deciding when
> to try other spells in such circumstances can be very tricky for humans,
> let alone computers.
Read my original post again. If I try such a thing, the interface
*doesn't* *let* *me* even if I don't know why! That the computer player
doesn't have such protection can be nothing other than a bug.
Keith
Don C. Aldrich
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:03:24 GMT, gr...@pacificnet.net (George Ruof)
wrote:
>I'm working on a 1.3 patch to be released sometime in the future. :) It
>will have these changes and fixes in it.
>
>George
>
And another thanks from here George. I find it amazing that you are
continuing to patch what was virtually a bug free game to begin with,
and the majority of the patchwork is tweaking rather than bug
squashing.
==Dondo
"He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."
Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2.
Keith Rohrer
Sebastien Patenaude wrote:
> I say to keep things as it stands now concerning the acquisition of
> Ultimate Artifacts from defeated enemies. Intermediate artifacts (that
> split the bonus on multiple skills... ex: Ultimate Staff, Ultimate
> Crown) should still be given to the winner of the battle since they
> don't imbalance the game as much as the single-skill ultimate artifacts
> (Ultimate sword, Ultimate Wand, etc). I don't really know about the
> Golden Goose and whether it should be disappear or not after the battle.
the UA, the +12 Spell Power wand...and Armageddon-suicided all over me.
20 SP Armageddon, with no way for me to get the thing that let him do
it, is just so cheezy...
Keith