I'm sorry having a category fire is just another way of saying damage type. Either have the different damage types or don't this is just a convoluted way of accomplishing the same thing, it's like saying instead of having damage types and resistances to those we will have one damage type but we will have all these categories and then we can make various resistances or immunity to categories - a rose is a rose is a rose....

So we are going to be taking down fire elementals with fireballs - that's intuitive and fun.

I understand this is a strategy game not an RPG, but so much of what I am hearing lately leads me to feel that all the different elements are just going to be visual and of course some unique spells in each category such as flame swords and snowstorms etc etc etc but I really feel like the damage is damage approach is not very intriguing even if that was how MoM did it. I guess this was an area where I was expecting better than MoM. But you guys have actually played it and if it isn't fun it isn't - I'll take your word for it.

I just don;t want to end up with a really stupid game with really cool graphics and tons of mod-ability. It's frankly hard to stay positive because granted - you guys are seeing internally a much more advanced game than the rest of us - so it seems like decisions about fun/not fun are not waiting for fan input. We are told to wait for different pieces to come out via the beta process before making suggestions or passing judgment, yet here things that a lot of people were really excited about are being stripped before we see it - does that mean when it comes out in the beta process we can ask to have this stuff added back in so we can see how unfun it was, or is it just gone?

Sorry to be so whiny/bitchy - I'm not intending to come accross that way - I am just kinda feeling taken aback by the decision, I'm not exactly sure whether you want opinions on it or if the decision has been made. Not sure how to make constructive criticism of something I haven't seen yet.

It sounds to me like they're looking at spells be more like they are in demigod. Where each skill does a certain amount of damage and can have special effects but the damage is all the same no resistances to different types. I see advantages and disadvantages to the system. Demigod definitely needed to have this type of system because otherwise your demi might become totally useless against an opponent that was say immune to poison (Sorry Unclean Beast). That said I think it would give you more freedom in how to play because you don't have to worry about your opponent pulling out some fire immune units after you've sunk all your research into fire magic. The thing I worry about is that if magic schools don't have vulnerabilities to other magic schools then there will be a best school and by the nature of how the game works it will have no effective counter.

This is the same problem I fear with physical damage types being all the same and no armor typing. The question of what weapon to use simply becomes what gives me the best DPS for my money? Which is rather dull I think. Where would Sins of a solar empire be without armor types? Everyone would be spamming LRMs again (Ok. With the last patch I played with I think they were doing that again LRM and Flak ftw *snore*)

Well, that was my point.

The thing that threw me is that he said "it will be like MTG, in that FOO" where FOO bears no resemblance to how MTG works, meaning that either the analogy was wrong or I misunderstood FOO.  From what you and others are saying, it sounds like it really was the analogy that was wrong -- a better one would probably be research bases in Sins of a Solar Empire, where having more doesn't give you faster research, it just unlocks more powerful techs, and the requirements for a tech depend on having particular types of bases.

I'm sorry to say this, but I've begun to regret pre-ordering the game. Not because I know the game will suck or anything, but because I'm afraid it may, yet I've already paid for it.

The direction the game design is heading is troubling. I get that they want a game that's simple to play, and hopefully as fun as possible. On the other hand, I'm honestly worried that in the pursuit of simplicity and fun, they'll do away with suspension of disbelief and depth of strategic choice. The lack of damage types is an example of this phenomenon; taken alone, I'd be puzzled but not unduly worried. Taken together, however, it paints a picture I'm not finding very reassuring. A strategy game that's too simple ceases to be about strategy quickly and instead turns into mechanical repetition of one formula for success or another. And that's as boring as games can get.

Hoping for the best and fearing the worst and not yet decided on which end of the scale the game is going to be closer to.

Then probably they'll avoid that: maybe one school has area damage spells and another single target spells, maybe some spells cause friendly fire and others doesn't, maybe some spells do less damage but are harder to resist,... Is not like damage type is the only thing they can do to make damage spells different, and this depends also on how they distribute spells in the different magic schools.

Wow...I feel the same way at the moment.....

Wow...I feel the same way at the moment.....

Glad to know I'm not alone...   But we have to realize its just the beginning, and by pre-ordering we have given ourselves a final say in the game. Stardock won't let us down, i have faith, we just need to band together

The elements are just like the different weapon systems in Galciv2, ie worthless and could be called anything.I thought with added tactical battles in this game you would have actual tactical choices.The design is pretty clear that the game is not going to please hardcore strategy gamers.

I hadn't realy thought about the magic system yet (given how little information there is), but this seems like a good system for now.  (It would be good to know more about the magic system, though, as opinions will be shaky until it's fleshed out a bit)

I'm happy about the single magic damage type, for reasons people have mentioned earlier, as well as reasons mentioned in earlier threads (More on this later in the post)

My opinion on this will depend on knowing more about the magic system.  (Assuming there is more to know)  Depending on the system, this seems like it could go from fun to annoying, although it's hard to say for sure.

If the diplomacy system works similarly to other games (With A.I. having likes and dislikes), this would be a good thing.  I am wondering, though, what mechanics would be different between single and multiplayer, and how multiplayer diplomacy will be kept important.

I might actually play a campaign for this, sounds cool.  (Depending on how interesting the story and special campaign gameplay elements are, of course.)

Details are important here, but this seems like a good thing.

As for the damage types argument:  I agree with the points about it being tedious to manage lots of different resistances, that different forms of magic are more interesting if they have different effects rather than the same effects with different types, etc. Another point to add:

If you step outside fantasy strategy games, there are a lot of games out there involving units fighting units (or some form of mixed groups fighting mixed groups) that do not use damage types, or at least use them very sparingly, butthe combat is still interesting due to different ranges, movement speeds, etc.

I'll also say again that it would be good to know more about how the magic system works, or is plannedo t work, assuming that has been thought throught enough to share with us.

As mentioned earlier, direct damage magic could have different sorts of aftereffects, or have different AoE's, ranges, etc.  I'll also add that channeler based magic combat doesn't have to rely on direct damage spells at all, it could be that some types of magic turn him into super unit (or more so than before), others might demoralize, slow, reduce armor, et. enemy units ot the point where the channeler has it really easy for the channeler to win, further ones might change the terrain to isolate units, and other types of spells could have effects that I didn't think of.

I also very much agree that it would be far preferable in my mind to have different kinds of damage. Having multiple distinct classes of things (damage types, units etc) leads to many more strategic possibilities and interest. I think having a wide variety of possibilities does not create confusing complexity, so long as it is all intuitive.

For example, it would be intuitive that perhaps nature magic (if there is such a thing) might allow me to cast Barkskin on my troops to make them tougher, but as a side effect they become vulnerable to fire. Otherwise tough knights can be burned to cinders by fire magic, as their armour offers diminshed protection. But an group of salamanders, or fire elementals, have nothing to fear from fire magic.

If there is just mundane and magical damage, there are few variables to differentiate troops. They may be tough against mundane damage (armour), tough against mystical damage (strong wills?), and they may have a high or low damage output. There aren't terribly more options than that, and ultimately there is a finite amount of interest. How much more interesting to have:

Salamanders: Not especially tough in combat but spit fireballs

Ents: Powerful warriors but made of wood and easily burnt to a crisp

Undead: Can see in the dark (making darkness spells interesting) and obviously immune to cold and poison

and so on. There are virtually infinite possibilities.

This is slightly off-topic, but one excellent feature of dominions, which I found surprising at first, is the designers' willingness to add arbitrary new rules for particular spells, just because they are interesting. For example, the spell Petrify turns things to stone, but beings which are already made of stone are immune. In development this presumably required the adding of a #stonebeing tag to around ten creatures in the whole game (gargoyles, living statues, and a few others) - no huge hassle actually, and the effort required does not explode exponentially as more spells are added. The absence of this kind of feature is something we have become accustomed to - in most games, if you cast Petrify on a statue it would still die. Noticing that things like this behave correctly in dominions is incredibly pleasing, and really adds to the depth of the game. I think it would be lovely to include this kind of thing in Elemental.

Well, I say lets try to make the various "types" of spells (aka the elements) as different as possible with only one type of damage first, and then if need be we can add damage types.

In short, I think we will get better over-all spells if we, at least temporarily, have only one type of magical damage.

Okay, you're right.  No more development journals regarding these kinds of discussions because people are reading way too much in.

If Master of Magic or HOMM or Age of Wonders or Civilization or Ascendancy or MOO or GalCiv or what have you were anywhere near as complicated in their battle systems as some of you seem to dream/wish Elemental to be they'd have gone down in flames.

It was probably a bit naive on my part to think that the beta team was able to discuss these kinds of issues.

What we'll do going forward is use development journals to focus purely on coding and things that have been decided because it seems to do more harm than good discussing game mechanics with the users.