Thank you Southern! I didn't know we could do that! :)

@ Southern

We should remove all the 'change names' requests in your spreadsheet.

Right now, the list looks a bit confusing with extra entries...maybe it's time to clean it up = leave just the submissions that have group consensus. Place the 'failed agreement' submissions in their own section at the bottom.

Just a suggestion.

So looks like Marksmanship and Movement Points are figured out now?

And also in response to Alcedes1611's new Fury proposal of +2 DMG / -2 DEF (as a risky offensive curse type spell on enemy Leaders etc), I've countered with +2 DMG / - 2 RES ? I agree with added damage instead of attack, but feel it should remain as more of a standard unit enchantment (for one's own units). But I would change my vote to agree with whatever is the consensus for Fury, I just want to see it improved in any way.

Yeah, Fury should be +2DAM/-2RES!

All the other spell sphere basic unit enchants are actually worthwhile.....it would be strange for Fury to be a NET ZERO enchantment.

*By 'Net Zero', I mean if the enchantment gives +2 DAM (20 skill points) but subracts -2DEF (20 skill points) = no net gain....but you still have to spend mana to cast and upkeep it. Why would Fire Magic get a unit enchantment debuff, while all the other spheres don't?

Solution = +2DAM (20 points) / -2RES (-10 points) = +10 points in the green!

EDIT ADD ON!

@ Southern

Okay, I see you want something more for Fury....but I want the enchantment to be about the same skill point worth as the other spell sphere enchantments for balance reasons.

So, how about +1ATT, +2 DAM, -1 DEF, -1 RES? This would give Fury a positive skill point worth of +10.

*personally, +2 DAM and -2 RES is what I prefer...but I'm fine with the above as well.

EDIT ADD ON #2!

@ Southern

Okay, I thought more about what you are going for....I guess I can go along with it as well. I approved your last suggestion for Fury.

So, we are all agreed? We can submit the latest spreadsheet?

@ Southern

I notice you put 'compromised' for Burning effect....but then didn't mention what you wanted the compromise to be. Are you okay with Burning giving (2 combat turns for -2DEF/-2RES & 6ATK/1DMG fire damage)?

I have another proposal that I've just remembered: reverting ranged attacks to have multiple attacks (except ballista), and making them low ATK instead.

My proposal:
Archery: 2 attacks, 2 ATK, 2 DAM
Hurl Stones: 4 attacks: 1 ATK, 1 DAM
Poison Darts: 3 attacks: 2 ATK, 1 DAM

Take a look at the second page of the proposals spreadsheet and you'll see what this would mean in practice - against low DEF targets, it would mean much more damage than AoW+ but less than TS136. Against DEF of 5-6, it means about the same or even slightly less DAM than AoW+: and at high DEF of 8+, it means damage is back up to TS136 levels, ie double the AoW+ values.

Because +ATK is more powerful when you have low ATK to start with, this change makes Marksmanship more impactful, helping to improve these ranged attacks for heroes and higher-tier units like the Rogue, Assassin, Ranger etc.

IIRC the current 1-shot, 5/2 archery was aimed at a perceived need to make archers weaker against high DEF enemies, but I actually like the idea of ranged attackers being strong against high-DEF enemies, as long as they aren't strong against everything like they are in TS136. I envisage a rock-paper-scissors relationship where archers are weak against medium-def units, but strong against low-def and high-def. 1-shot 5/2 Archery was also aimed at making archers equal to 2-DEF swordsmen, but I'd like to see swordsmen have more DEF than that via ruleset.

I will post these in the spreadsheet, please reject/approve/compromise them.

These changes may be especially desirable if And G reports that he can't alter Marksmanship.

Thanks, my idea for Fury is that it's good versus high DEF units, but still has the serious DEF debuff. Via ruleset I'd still make it pretty cheap.

Also on burning, I feel there's already quite a few effects which reduce DEF and RES, so I'd rather Burning only dealt damage, just to be more distinct. 6/2 for 4 turns would work. But I don't care enough about this to throw a spanner in the works, so have approved your idea.

I've added to some ability changes to the proposals list too.

Mmmmmm.... that archery calculations sheet is a thing of beauty.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DBvrja80Tj1p7wDVi8kkw-XksWqsAljYnIxub3cPxgw/edit#gid=416962497

I actually like your archery proposal.....not sure what you want to do with the Marksmanship levels though....

Nicely done, very useful information. I actually really like this now that I've read the spreadsheet so I'm gonna change my Marksmanship proposal. I would propose +1/0, 0/+1, +2/0, +1/+1 for the following reasons:

Marksmanship I / II: remain unchanged from 1.36 as I like how the spreadsheet plays out

Marksmanship III: Buffed so that Archery/Hurl Stones/Poison Darts have 1 ATK less than 1.36.

Marksmanship IV: Buffed so that Archery/Hurl Stones/Poison Darts are equal to 1.36

Of course there are other units who can get Marksmanship, but Mk1 / Mk2 would remain unchanged. Mk3 / Mk4 would become more powerful, but I think that would be a good thing for specialty units and heroes.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DBvrja80Tj1p7wDVi8kkw-XksWqsAljYnIxub3cPxgw/edit#gid=0

I added a bunch of minor ability changes, can people rate them too?

I'm looking over your add ons. Looks good so far, but I want to think it over for the next 24 hours.

Cheers!

Hi all,

I've added some mechanics ideas that have nothing to do with balance like all the others, but that are what it'd take IMHO to make this patch worth pushing people to install for any given game. And I mean any of them realised, not all of them of course ;)

Plus some balance ones from things that seriously irk me.

I've made green all existing lines but two, explaining why in the doc.

I am fine with banning haste/WW/FM transports/warships on a per-game basis, but I don't want these things removed from the game engine. They're fun in SP, and as long as access to them was equalised, they could be cool in multiplayer as well - if everyone had one shipyard and freemovement, could be a unique map concept.

Similarly with long-range Warp Party, sure there might be concerns about it being abusively useful or wacky in some maps, but it's fun, as are land-movement ships or hasted transports. So I rejected those four proposals, sorry - they make sense for balance, but I don't want to see extreme/unique mechanics removed.

I'm doing the same with all of your crazy power ups then lol