First time I tried this level, I get a success without changing a line of code.
Ok, I don’t have the bonus, but the main goal was ok.
The code was not running because of the error of missing findNearestEnemy().
What is funny, is that if I correct the code to run (replace by this.findNearest(this.findEnemies())), then the level fails (that is correct).
Another point : a comment state that "// A basic attack loop isn’t going to be enough to keep you alive."
In fact, a basic attack loop is enough to keep me alive, but not the peasant.
Yes I understand, but the other levels scale pretty well to whatever the level of the player is. I just report the problem, I let the author decide if it’s needed to update/correct or not.
I suppose that with the subscription, even beginners could have big armor. So they should not succeed a level because of their armor, but just because they learn how to write correctly the code.
Yeah, I think the comment is a little misleading, or the level is easier than intended. With decent armor and sword “attack nearest enemy” was all I needed to stay alive and also keep the peasants alive, because the two enemies that come in from the bottom entry went after my hero instead of the peasants. Should those two be going after the peasants?
Even with minimal armor (505 health for Tharin) and a long sword all you need to do is move around with flags a couple of times to stay alive and save the peasants. Based on the comment, it sounds like something more is expected?
Hmm; it was balanced towards a hero with 300 health and the long sword, so I’m not too surprised that you had an easy time of it, coming back to play it later. It would be better to get it to scale a bit, but it was one of the Chief Artisan audition levels, player-created, so we weren’t thinking about that at the time of designing it.
