官网论坛魔典限制相关讨论信息

httPS://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/the-fact-that-you-can-unlock-every-single-tome-ruins-any-uniqueness-that-a-facion-might-have.1589539/
只贴有官方人员答复的部分：
——————————
玩家 rulesred123 说:
　　1. Why is there no limit on the amount of tomes you can unlock. This is pretty much gamebreaking. In the three random games I played, I was unlocking extra tomes that I didn't need and they completely ruined all immersion and roleplay. There should be a hard limit on the number of tomes you can have. I was able to research over 20 tomes in a single game which makes me wonder what was even the point of this system. The max tome limit should be 9 and you should only be allowed to have two tomes from a single tier.
　　为什么没有限制可以解锁的魔典数量，这绝对是对游戏的破坏。在我玩的三场随机游戏中，我一直忙于解锁那些我并不需要的额外魔典，这完全破坏了所有的沉浸感和角色扮演。当一场游戏中能够研究超过20本魔典时，这让我怀疑这种机制的意义何在。应该对玩家所能拥有的魔典数量做硬性限制，魔典应该限制T1～T4每级2本，最多9本。
　　2. The fact that you can unlock every single tome ruins any uniqueness that a facion might have
　　玩家可以解锁所有的魔典，这破坏了让一个派系拥有独特性的可能。
官方（Triumph Jordi）答复：
　　1. We had something like that, it wasn't fun and it went agAInst what we try to achieve with Age of Wonders 4. The thing is that the game is balanced around you getting your 9 needed tomes plus 1 or 2 more by Games End. Just everybody and their Grandma is getting knowledge income to the degree that they are unlocking more tomes and much faster than we expected.
　　我们曾做过类似的限制，但这并不有趣，并且这与我们在《奇迹时代4》中试图实现的目标相悖。实际上，当玩家在每次游戏结束前只获得9～11本魔典的情况下，游戏是处于平衡状态的。只是每个人和他们的奶奶都在快速地获取知识，解锁更多的魔典，以至于达到了超出我们预期的程度。
　　2.This is definitely a problem but you also were never meant to actually get that many tomes in a typical game.
　　这绝对是一个问题，不应该允许玩家在一次游戏中获得那么多魔典。
——————————
玩家 Sadorhael 说:
　　If somebody wants this, make it a possible setting when configuirng a realm, then it can be a player’s choice.
　　能否（把魔典做硬性限制）做成地图选项让玩家自选？
官方答复：
　　You can't do something like this. You can't have a game with two different rulesets and ensure a balanced experience for both.
　　不可能，我们没法做到让一场游戏有两个都能达到良好平衡体验的规则设置。
——————————
玩家 tcat2437 说：
　　My question, as it was in another thread, is what is more valuable after you research your Tier 5 tome, more research income or gold/mana? Going through the story realms some of my games went long and after obtaining my Tier 5 tome I am generally converting research posts to something else. Anyone else doing the opposite? Why?
　　我的问题在另一个帖子里提过，在研究完T5魔典后那种策略更有价值？研究更多的东西？还是（获取更多的）金币或法力？打剧情世界时，有些游戏在我获得T5魔典后还持续了很长时间，这时我一般都会把研究站（行省）转换为其他类型，有没有人用相反的策略？为什么？
官方答复：
　　For Most people it is more so delaying the later Tomes to grab the earlier once. While we accounted for Enchantment Stacking in the design of Unit Enchantments, when picking quite literally every single one Units tend to be rather strong. That stacking is basically the ultimate goal they're targeting.
　　对大多数玩家而言，为了获得前期的魔典而推迟后期魔典的情况更多。我们在设计单位附魔时就考虑到了附魔叠加的问题，每一次附魔都会让单位变得更强大，这种叠加基本上是他们的终极目标。
——————————
玩家 Mesudaraon 说：
　　What is the difference between designing the game around 10-11ish tomes at the end of the game and actually having a system during scenario creation to limit number of tomes (default value being 11 or 12, but can be set to any number by players)?
　　通过游戏设计来实现让玩家在游戏结束时大约获得10～11本魔典，以及通过地图选项来硬限制魔典数量（缺省值可以是11或12，玩家可以自定义），这两者有何区别？
　　You yourself claimed that players aren't supposed to research that many tomes in a typical game. If players aren't suppose to research that many tomes, then having a system to limit number of tomes is not against your design philosophy, because according to your game vision players should have on average certain number of tomes. This doesn't create two different rulesets to balance, because you'll be balancing the game around players having 10-11 tomes by the endgame anyway regardless. As such, putting a hard limit on this during the scenario creation is not against this philosophy but actually in-line with this design philosophy.
　　根据你们的说法，你们不支持玩家在一场典型游戏中研究那么多魔典。如果是这样，根据你们设想的愿景，玩家拥有魔典的平均数量是确定在某个数的，那通过系统来硬限制魔典数量并不违背你们的设计理念。这并不需要创建两个不同的规则设置，因为无论用哪种方法，都是围绕玩家在游戏结束时大概有10～11本魔典的情况来做平衡设计。因此，在地图创建选项中增加（魔典数量）硬限制不但不违背，反而是相当符合这一设计理念的。
官方答复：
　　A hard Tome Limit like that goes against the idea of Player Fantasy. Only allowing X amount of Tomes immediately means that there are builds and fantasies/roleplays that would no longer be possible to achieve.
　　对魔典进行硬限制与玩家幻想背道而驰，只允许特定数量的魔典意味着有一些梦幻build、角色扮演不再可能实现。
——————————
玩家 Jolly Joker 说：
　　So now Jordi comes in telling us that the game is designed around a limit of tomes anyway. But that means it's designed around Magic Victory then, doesn't it? Which would still leave a lot to desire, if you don't like that way to win the game. After all, there ARE the other VCs.
　　所以现在Jordi告诉我们，无论如何，游戏都是围绕着魔典限制而设计的。但这意味着它是围绕魔法胜利设计的，不是吗？即便你不喜欢以这种方式赢得比赛，这依旧会留下很多想象空间。毕竟，还有其他的胜利方式。
玩家 Leyrann 说：
　　The game is designed at a pace where it ends when you have 10-12 tomes. Whether that's trough magic victory, expansion victory or conquest victory doesn't matter. If expansion victory consistently comes online only once people already have 12-16 tomes unlocked, that just means the tuning is off, and it should require fewer provinces. If conquest victory consistently only happens once people are already at that number of tomes, that means conquering others should be easier, or building a dominant army should be quicker (note: that lever is harder to adjust in a way that does this because by nature both the offensive and defensive player benefit from it).
　　游戏节奏的设计是，当你拥有10～12本魔典时游戏就会结束，无论是通过魔法胜利、扩张胜利还是征服胜利都是如此。如果扩张胜利总是发生在玩家解锁12～16本魔典之后，那就意味着（扩张胜利条件）存在不平衡，达成扩张胜利应该需要更少的行省数量。如果征服胜利一直只发生在玩家拥有这个数量的魔典之后，那就意味着征服难度应该下调一些，或者让玩家建立优势军队的速度变快（注：这个调节方法更难平衡，因为从本质上讲，攻方和守方都从中获益了）。
　　……
　　By definition, a game is designed for all victory types (excluding, usually, a score victory) to occur at around the same time. If that is not the case in practice, that does not mean the game is designed only around the quickest victory. It just means the balance of the different victories is off.
　　根据定义，一个游戏被设计为所有的胜利条件都会在差不多的时间内达成（通常不包括得分胜利）。如果实际情况与此不符，并不意味着游戏设计方偏向某种胜利方式，只意味着不同方式的胜利条件还没有达到平衡状态。
　　官方认同上面玩家的说法：This is a pretty solid answer/explanation.  这是一个非常赞的答复/解释。
——————————
玩家 Jolly Joker 说：
　　3) Research cost should increase with # of tomes after some time. That makes sense anyway and no matter what.
　　（游戏开始）一段时间之后，研究消耗应该随着魔典数量的增加而增加。道理就这样，没有为什么。
官方答复：
　　I know people have been experimenting with scaling research costs, but personally I'm not convinced by it. You'll end up with Skills from a T1 Tome that takes as long to research as a T4 Tome Skill while the effect of the Skill is still the same.
　　我知道玩家一直在试验扩大研究消耗，但我个人认为没啥用。你最终会发现，研究多个T1魔典技能与研究1个T4魔典技能花费的时间一样长，而技能的影响依旧是一样的。
——————————
玩家 Ita Bear 说：
　　From reading these posts I'm increasingly getting the impression that fantasy 'roleplay' is the #1 focus for this game; strategy and decision making seems to be coming in a distant second. Any and all proposals to limit the absurd combinations in game are shot down with claims it will destroy the roleplaying and fantasy in the game.
　　通过阅读这些帖子，我越来越感觉到，梦幻的 "角色扮演 "是这个游戏的第一重点；战略和决策似乎排在了第二位。任何限制游戏中荒谬组合的建议都会被否决，并声称这将破坏游戏中的角色扮演和幻想。
官方答复：
　　It's not the #1 but all games have a set of core Game/Design Pillars that they use to test decisions against. You would be correct that the Player Fantasy is one of them, amongst a couple more. Anyways, not all proposals are shot down, they're barely shot down. In most cases I explain why the proposed solution wouldn't work or indeed go against our goals for the game. Just implementing a hard limit or going back to a system we already tested and didn't work would be nothing more than shifting the problem. We need to lock down where the core of the issue lies.
　　它并不是第一位的，但所有游戏都有一组用来测试决策的核心游戏/设计支柱。你说“玩家幻想是其中之一”是正确的，但（除此之外）还有其他的（目标）。总之，并不是所有（玩家）的建议都被否决了，它们差一点就被采纳了。在大多数情况下，我都会解释为什么（玩家）建议的解决方案不起作用，或者确实违背了我们对游戏的设计目标。仅仅加一个硬性限制，或者回退到我们已经测试过确认行不通的方法，那属于是跑偏了，我们需要锁定问题的核心所在。
——————————
玩家 Mesudaraon 说：
　　Furthermore, stuff you tested before was tested with small internal testing team, and you guys implemented design decisions which you thought was good according to feedback from internal testing team. However, feedback from small sample size is not very reliable (surely you are aware of this already).
　　此外，你们之前测试的东西是由小型内部测试团队测试的，你们根据内部测试团队的反馈实施了你们认为不错的设计决策。然而，来自小样本量的反馈不是很可靠（你肯定已经意识到了这一点）。
官方答复：
　　Well not just the Dev Team but also our Beta Members, who come from various different experiences. We also don't disagree that some things need to change, but the question is how things will be changed.
　　（我们）不仅有开发团队，还有我们的Beta成员，他们各有不同的经验。我们并不反对有些事情需要被改变，但问题（重点）是这些事情该如何去改变。
——————————
玩家 Mesudaraon 说：
　　Umm.... Only Jordi's first post talked about why it would be problematic to balance two different rulesets. I already shared my thoughts on this and explained why I think this wouldn't be an issue and he didn't bring this up in his further replies.
　　嗯……Jordi只有第一个回帖谈到了为什么平衡两个不同的规则设置会有问题。我已经分享了我对此的看法，并解释了为什么我认为这不是问题，而他在后续回贴中没有提到这一点。
官方答复：
　　So I tackled that bit elsewhere. While you can make changes to your game experience, changing Game Speed to slow f.e. still derives from the default balance. Disabling a Victory Conditions doesn't change the rules of the game, only a method of victory. Something like a setting for (Hard) Tome Limit and No Tome Limit changes things quite fundamentally. Tome Skills now need to be balanced while keeping in mind that it needs to work in both scenario's and depending on the ruleset a change can have very different effects.
　　其实我在其他某处提到了这一点。尽管你可以对游戏体验进行改变，例如把游戏速度改为慢速，但这依旧源自于默认平衡。禁用胜利条件并不改变游戏规则，只是改变了胜利的方法。但提供“魔典硬限制”和“魔典无限制”两种设置会从根本上改变事情，这需要对魔典技能进行平衡，需要同时确保一个技能在两种情况下都能发挥作用，而且根据规则设置的不同，这种改变会产生无法预料的结果。
　　Changing Game Speed or Victory Conditions doesn't fundamentally change how the game is played, while a Tome Limit setting like that would. That's kinda what I meant with it.
　　改变游戏速度或胜利条件并不从根本上改变游戏的玩法，而像“魔典限制”这样的选项则会，这就是我的意见。

题外话，另一个讨论提到的自动战斗的bug，自动战斗时有些标志性技能是负收益：


除了最下面的复活、闪烁、群体回春、魔法奔放、暗杀、召唤亡灵、悲哀幻景这6个技能以外，其他标志性技能自动战斗时都是负收益，有还不如没有。
——————————
该bug跟行动点数有关，3耗行动点的技能估计是英雄放完原地不动，其他小兵不管英雄自己先冲上去了，导致实际战损变大。把3耗技能改成1耗技能以后变成下图这样，召唤元素和召唤动物马上排到前面去了。

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/the-fact-that-you-can-unlock-every-single-tome-ruins-any-uniqueness-that-a-facion-might-have.1589539/
只贴有官方人员答复的部分：
——————————
玩家 rulesred123 说:
　　1. Why is there no limit on the amount of tomes you can unlock. This is pretty much gamebreaking. In the three random games I played, I was unlocking extra tomes that I didn't need and they completely ruined all immersion and roleplay. There should be a hard limit on the number of tomes you can have. I was able to research over 20 tomes in a single game which makes me wonder what was even the point of this system. The max tome limit should be 9 and you should only be allowed to have two tomes from a single tier.
　　为什么没有限制可以解锁的魔典数量，这绝对是对游戏的破坏。在我玩的三场随机游戏中，我一直忙于解锁那些我并不需要的额外魔典，这完全破坏了所有的沉浸感和角色扮演。当一场游戏中能够研究超过20本魔典时，这让我怀疑这种机制的意义何在。应该对玩家所能拥有的魔典数量做硬性限制，魔典应该限制T1～T4每级2本，最多9本。
　　2. The fact that you can unlock every single tome ruins any uniqueness that a facion might have
　　玩家可以解锁所有的魔典，这破坏了让一个派系拥有独特性的可能。
官方（Triumph Jordi）答复：
　　1. We had something like that, it wasn't fun and it went against what we try to achieve with Age of Wonders 4. The thing is that the game is balanced around you getting your 9 needed tomes plus 1 or 2 more by Games End. Just everybody and their Grandma is getting knowledge income to the degree that they are unlocking more tomes and much faster than we expected.
　　我们曾做过类似的限制，但这并不有趣，并且这与我们在《奇迹时代4》中试图实现的目标相悖。实际上，当玩家在每次游戏结束前只获得9～11本魔典的情况下，游戏是处于平衡状态的。只是每个人和他们的奶奶都在快速地获取知识，解锁更多的魔典，以至于达到了超出我们预期的程度。
　　2.This is definitely a problem but you also were never meant to actually get that many tomes in a typical game.
　　这绝对是一个问题，不应该允许玩家在一次游戏中获得那么多魔典。
——————————
玩家 Sadorhael 说:
　　If somebody wants this, make it a possible setting when configuirng a realm, then it can be a player’s choice.
　　能否（把魔典做硬性限制）做成地图选项让玩家自选？
官方答复：
　　You can't do something like this. You can't have a game with two different rulesets and ensure a balanced experience for both.
　　不可能，我们没法做到让一场游戏有两个都能达到良好平衡体验的规则设置。
——————————
玩家 tcat2437 说：
　　My question, as it was in another thread, is what is more valuable after you research your Tier 5 tome, more research income or gold/mana? Going through the story realms some of my games went long and after obtaining my Tier 5 tome I am generally converting research posts to something else. Anyone else doing the opposite? Why?
　　我的问题在另一个帖子里提过，在研究完T5魔典后那种策略更有价值？研究更多的东西？还是（获取更多的）金币或法力？打剧情世界时，有些游戏在我获得T5魔典后还持续了很长时间，这时我一般都会把研究站（行省）转换为其他类型，有没有人用相反的策略？为什么？
官方答复：
　　For most people it is more so delaying the later Tomes to grab the earlier once. While we accounted for Enchantment Stacking in the design of Unit Enchantments, when picking quite literally every single one Units tend to be rather strong. That stacking is basically the ultimate goal they're targeting.
　　对大多数玩家而言，为了获得前期的魔典而推迟后期魔典的情况更多。我们在设计单位附魔时就考虑到了附魔叠加的问题，每一次附魔都会让单位变得更强大，这种叠加基本上是他们的终极目标。
——————————
玩家 Mesudaraon 说：
　　What is the difference between designing the game around 10-11ish tomes at the end of the game and actually having a system during scenario creation to limit number of tomes (default value being 11 or 12, but can be set to any number by players)?
　　通过游戏设计来实现让玩家在游戏结束时大约获得10～11本魔典，以及通过地图选项来硬限制魔典数量（缺省值可以是11或12，玩家可以自定义），这两者有何区别？
　　You yourself claimed that players aren't supposed to research that many tomes in a typical game. If players aren't suppose to research that many tomes, then having a system to limit number of tomes is not against your design philosophy, because according to your game vision players should have on average certain number of tomes. This doesn't create two different rulesets to balance, because you'll be balancing the game around players having 10-11 tomes by the endgame anyway regardless. As such, putting a hard limit on this during the scenario creation is not against this philosophy but actually in-line with this design philosophy.
　　根据你们的说法，你们不支持玩家在一场典型游戏中研究那么多魔典。如果是这样，根据你们设想的愿景，玩家拥有魔典的平均数量是确定在某个数的，那通过系统来硬限制魔典数量并不违背你们的设计理念。这并不需要创建两个不同的规则设置，因为无论用哪种方法，都是围绕玩家在游戏结束时大概有10～11本魔典的情况来做平衡设计。因此，在地图创建选项中增加（魔典数量）硬限制不但不违背，反而是相当符合这一设计理念的。
官方答复：
　　A hard Tome Limit like that goes against the idea of Player Fantasy. Only allowing X amount of Tomes immediately means that there are builds and fantasies/roleplays that would no longer be possible to achieve.
　　对魔典进行硬限制与玩家幻想背道而驰，只允许特定数量的魔典意味着有一些梦幻build、角色扮演不再可能实现。
——————————
玩家 Jolly Joker 说：
　　So now Jordi comes in telling us that the game is designed around a limit of tomes anyway. But that means it's designed around Magic Victory then, doesn't it? Which would still leave a lot to desire, if you don't like that way to win the game. After all, there ARE the other VCs.
　　所以现在Jordi告诉我们，无论如何，游戏都是围绕着魔典限制而设计的。但这意味着它是围绕魔法胜利设计的，不是吗？即便你不喜欢以这种方式赢得比赛，这依旧会留下很多想象空间。毕竟，还有其他的胜利方式。
玩家 Leyrann 说：
　　The game is designed at a pace where it ends when you have 10-12 tomes. Whether that's trough magic victory, expansion victory or conquest victory doesn't matter. If expansion victory consistently comes online only once people already have 12-16 tomes unlocked, that just means the tuning is off, and it should require fewer provinces. If conquest victory consistently only happens once people are already at that number of tomes, that means conquering others should be easier, or building a dominant army should be quicker (note: that lever is harder to adjust in a way that does this because by nature both the offensive and defensive player benefit from it).
　　游戏节奏的设计是，当你拥有10～12本魔典时游戏就会结束，无论是通过魔法胜利、扩张胜利还是征服胜利都是如此。如果扩张胜利总是发生在玩家解锁12～16本魔典之后，那就意味着（扩张胜利条件）存在不平衡，达成扩张胜利应该需要更少的行省数量。如果征服胜利一直只发生在玩家拥有这个数量的魔典之后，那就意味着征服难度应该下调一些，或者让玩家建立优势军队的速度变快（注：这个调节方法更难平衡，因为从本质上讲，攻方和守方都从中获益了）。
　　……
　　By definition, a game is designed for all victory types (excluding, usually, a score victory) to occur at around the same time. If that is not the case in practice, that does not mean the game is designed only around the quickest victory. It just means the balance of the different victories is off.
　　根据定义，一个游戏被设计为所有的胜利条件都会在差不多的时间内达成（通常不包括得分胜利）。如果实际情况与此不符，并不意味着游戏设计方偏向某种胜利方式，只意味着不同方式的胜利条件还没有达到平衡状态。
　　官方认同上面玩家的说法：This is a pretty solid answer/explanation.  这是一个非常赞的答复/解释。
——————————
玩家 Jolly Joker 说：
　　3) Research cost should increase with # of tomes after some time. That makes sense anyway and no matter what.
　　（游戏开始）一段时间之后，研究消耗应该随着魔典数量的增加而增加。道理就这样，没有为什么。
官方答复：
　　I know people have been experimenting with scaling research costs, but personally I'm not convinced by it. You'll end up with Skills from a T1 Tome that takes as long to research as a T4 Tome Skill while the effect of the Skill is still the same.
　　我知道玩家一直在试验扩大研究消耗，但我个人认为没啥用。你最终会发现，研究多个T1魔典技能与研究1个T4魔典技能花费的时间一样长，而技能的影响依旧是一样的。

——————————
玩家 Ita Bear 说：
　　From reading these posts I'm increasingly getting the impression that fantasy 'roleplay' is the #1 focus for this game; strategy and decision making seems to be coming in a distant second. Any and all proposals to limit the absurd combinations in game are shot down with claims it will destroy the roleplaying and fantasy in the game.
　　通过阅读这些帖子，我越来越感觉到，梦幻的 "角色扮演 "是这个游戏的第一重点；战略和决策似乎排在了第二位。任何限制游戏中荒谬组合的建议都会被否决，并声称这将破坏游戏中的角色扮演和幻想。
官方答复：
　　It's not the #1 but all games have a set of core Game/Design Pillars that they use to test decisions against. You would be correct that the Player Fantasy is one of them, amongst a couple more. Anyways, not all proposals are shot down, they're barely shot down. In most cases I explain why the proposed solution wouldn't work or indeed go against our goals for the game. Just implementing a hard limit or going back to a system we already tested and didn't work would be nothing more than shifting the problem. We need to lock down where the core of the issue lies.
　　它并不是第一位的，但所有游戏都有一组用来测试决策的核心游戏/设计支柱。你说“玩家幻想是其中之一”是正确的，但（除此之外）还有其他的（目标）。总之，并不是所有（玩家）的建议都被否决了，它们差一点就被采纳了。在大多数情况下，我都会解释为什么（玩家）建议的解决方案不起作用，或者确实违背了我们对游戏的设计目标。仅仅加一个硬性限制，或者回退到我们已经测试过确认行不通的方法，那属于是跑偏了，我们需要锁定问题的核心所在。
——————————
玩家 Mesudaraon 说：
　　Furthermore, stuff you tested before was tested with small internal testing team, and you guys implemented design decisions which you thought was good according to feedback from internal testing team. However, feedback from small sample size is not very reliable (surely you are aware of this already).
　　此外，你们之前测试的东西是由小型内部测试团队测试的，你们根据内部测试团队的反馈实施了你们认为不错的设计决策。然而，来自小样本量的反馈不是很可靠（你肯定已经意识到了这一点）。
官方答复：
　　Well not just the Dev Team but also our Beta Members, who come from various different experiences. We also don't disagree that some things need to change, but the question is how things will be changed.
　　（我们）不仅有开发团队，还有我们的Beta成员，他们各有不同的经验。我们并不反对有些事情需要被改变，但问题（重点）是这些事情该如何去改变。
——————————
玩家 Mesudaraon 说：
　　Umm.... Only Jordi's first post talked about why it would be problematic to balance two different rulesets. I already shared my thoughts on this and explained why I think this wouldn't be an issue and he didn't bring this up in his further replies.
　　嗯……Jordi只有第一个回帖谈到了为什么平衡两个不同的规则设置会有问题。我已经分享了我对此的看法，并解释了为什么我认为这不是问题，而他在后续回贴中没有提到这一点。
官方答复：
　　So I tackled that bit elsewhere. While you can make changes to your game experience, changing Game Speed to slow f.e. still derives from the default balance. Disabling a Victory Conditions doesn't change the rules of the game, only a method of victory. Something like a setting for (Hard) Tome Limit and No Tome Limit changes things quite fundamentally. Tome Skills now need to be balanced while keeping in mind that it needs to work in both scenario's and depending on the ruleset a change can have very different effects.
　　其实我在其他某处提到了这一点。尽管你可以对游戏体验进行改变，例如把游戏速度改为慢速，但这依旧源自于默认平衡。禁用胜利条件并不改变游戏规则，只是改变了胜利的方法。但提供“魔典硬限制”和“魔典无限制”两种设置会从根本上改变事情，这需要对魔典技能进行平衡，需要同时确保一个技能在两种情况下都能发挥作用，而且根据规则设置的不同，这种改变会产生无法预料的结果。
　　Changing Game Speed or Victory Conditions doesn't fundamentally change how the game is played, while a Tome Limit setting like that would. That's kinda what I meant with it.
　　改变游戏速度或胜利条件并不从根本上改变游戏的玩法，而像“魔典限制”这样的选项则会，这就是我的意见。

感谢分享

这是鸭子死了嘴硬。   死活不承认超过100回合会开始无聊。  一天大几千的科研点数，点低阶魔典一天学五六个魔法，学一个卡一下，简直受罪。

不想限制的话，那应该得把每个魔典的差异性，效果都做到完美，或者把魔典容量和深度做到就算一直玩下去都点不完的程度吧

你不想用可以不用啊，实在不懂一边用拿着几十本魔典虐电一边抱怨的人是什么心态，电脑又用不出这操作

一边酗酒一边推行禁酒令是吧

其他相关信息：
————————————
（龙之黎明）不是第一个资料片，它只是一个内容包，它围绕特定主题提供内容。第一个资料片是将于今年晚些时候发布的《帝国与灰烬》。
————————————
虽然始终建议在重大更新之前完成游戏，但我们尽量不破坏“已保存的游戏”。我们已经对主游戏中的几个存档进行了兼容性测试，这些测试没有遇到任何问题。
游戏创建时，世界基本上被保存了。因此，虽然已经活跃的游戏中不会出现新内容，但这也意味着它是更新证明。只要内部没有删除资源，所有存档（不使用模组）都应该能够加载。
————————————
击杀单位奖励的灵魂获得，从1/2/3/4/5 增加到 2/3/4/5/6，基于敌人的等级。因此飞龙更新补丁之后，击杀1级单位将奖励2个灵魂。
————————————

不明白这些有啥难改的。弄一个地图选项解除高级魔典属性限制让游戏研发魔典顺序变为2本1级2本2级2本3级2本4级1本5级之后研究点转法力不就行了。。

后续发展方向建议出更厉害的boss，比如打完一个厉害的领主再出更厉害的领主

现在不也有魔典限制mod。相信我，在推出限制第二天就会有解除限制无消耗魔典mod。
与其纠结这些限制不限制的多搞些能互相配合与互相冲突数量更丰富的魔典才是出路。
一场战斗最多18个兵，即使全附魔骑兵、法师、动物、亡灵、召唤总归会有抉择的。游戏王所有人都是全牌库不也至少有几个流派都能玩，不可能全带泛用卡。

从一开始的方向就是错的，为了所谓的“种族高自由度”，舍弃了传统的职业派系玩法，导致玩家只想搭配比较强力的魔典附魔，打法反而变少了，所谓的主种族变化毫无存在感，归根结底还是主打各种附魔，之前在开发日志中吹得不得了的随机事件系统也是一坨稀烂，翻来覆去就那么几个，不知道这代制作人脑子想什么，多做几个派系不比现在这个大杂烩香？

这就是制作组尝试了新的思路，但由于现实结果与设计初衷悖离所导致的僵局
只能说，制作组确实勇于试错了，但魔典系统的构建和深度不足以填补该系统天生高自由度的结构
而现在想要往回找补，要是还抱着两全其美的想法可能反而得不偿失
在差异、趣味、平衡上找到符合游戏架构的最佳支点很不容易，往往是需要做出很大的取舍的
希望制作组能真正明白奇迹时代4面临的困局以及在此类游戏上所有拥有的竞争力所在

感谢分享