Here's an idea for A, B, and C: Make a suggestions box that lets people anonymously send ideas in. That right there will stop 90% of these retarded posts that read like spreadsheets because without an audience and the resulting +Karma circlejerk, most people would't care enough to offer ideas. An anonymous box also lets you hear feedback without having to go through the automatic, totally human process of "he's a jackass, I don't care what he thinks" or "h
lord ebonstone
[quote who="kaiapo" reply="8" id="2776163"] From what I understood this expansion/megapatch would be for around November or so.[/quote] [quote who="frogboy"] [b]B will be a new Elemental title (an expansion pack ala GalCiv II: Dark Avatar).[/b] It is important that B come out sooner rather than later. Users who like/enjoy A can stick with A but [b]users who find the combat in Elemental too simplistic[/b] or are unsatsified with some other core game element wi
[quote quoting="post"] B will be a new Elemental title (an expansion pack ala GalCiv II: Dark Avatar). It is important that B come out sooner rather than later. Users who like/enjoy A can stick with A but users who find the combat in Elemental too simplistic or are unsatsified with some other core game element will hopefully have much of this addressed in B. [/quote] So... Elemental's combat is going to suck for another year? I feel like I've just been told th
No bro, we can't wait. Civ5 next week is likely to decimate (most likely literally, as in reduce to 1/10th), the general Elemental community. Patches need to be consistently cranking out in order to keep Elemental relevant.
OK, I didn't realize you wanted real-time Total War combat, RavenX. I though you just wanted a bigger tac combat field and cooler animations. I don't want Elemental: Total War of Magic. It seems that most of us don't want that. You idea is idiotic, and I'm pretty offended that you had the gall to speak for the "Official Player Community." It makes you sound arrogant and pretentious.
[quote who="Darvin3" reply="111" id="2773717"] [quote]If a unit with X power -always- wins against unit Y, the player will feel less involved; the game won't be rewarding their skill at commanding units no matter how good it is.[/quote] I disagree and believe the opposite is true; that less randomness gives the player more control, more involvement, and better rewards skill. [/quote] Darvin3, I agree with you entirely. You're in a game with Magic.
The progenitor 4X's, Civilization, Master of Orion, and Master of Magic, didn't have campaigns. The origins of this genre eschewed campaigns. The genre would eventually move on to scenarios, which I think was a fine idea, but those were either special rules or special condition matches. Story? I think Sid realized that stories come from individual sandbox matches, not some poorly written hackjob script. Reynolds came along and realized
[quote]What suggestions or preferences do you have?[/quote] Right now with 1DN you're rocking (something similar to) the age-old problem from Civilization 2: a Spearman can kill a Panzer. 1DN does bizarre things. I've said this before, but it's my opinion that every strategic combat system should have these five logical, statistical premises: 1.) Attack. Chance to hit. The very first principle o
Something needs to change in Tactical Combat. Right now the setup looks like electronic football: (Really, it plays kind of like electronic football too). A more isometric default angle would help (if you want a King's Bounty/HOMM look). Or, a change from a rectangle to an isometric square (for
[quote who="solidsmooky" reply="11" id="2768182"]It's okay. People have bad taste in games all the time. I mean people like CoD. You don't have to like MoM, just people who like good games do.[/quote] ^ this. MoM is [b]fun[/b]. That's more important that AI and balance combined. And then multiplied. And then raised to a healthy power, like 10 or 12. (NOTE: Please notice the present tense in "MoM is fu
[quote who="Nack210" reply="10" id="2767577"]- All units behave the same regardless of their equipment. Spearmen act the same way as swordsmen, macemen, and even cavalry. The only difference is the damage they inflict, and how much they can move. Spearmen aren't better against cavalry, cavalry is just a faster unit, no charge hability or anything of the like, etc. This means you can just make 1 type of units with high attack and high defense and just spam the hell out of it. Attach some skill
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="103" id="2765685"]We agree with you. It's going to be modified coming up.[/quote] Good man.
[quote who="cephalo" reply="63" id="2764465"]MP is the way to fix the single player game most quickly and thoroughly.[/quote] I have no idea where you got this idea from, but it's just horribly, offensively wrong.
Oh god, all this mea culpa nonsense needs to stop. Everyone wanted this game to be great. Everyone was really excited thanks to Brad. The game was released and sucks. Now everyone is mad in some flavor. It falls in three camps: -Emotional disappointment. Typically the type that expected MoM2 and is crushed that, fifteen years later, the thing touted as the spiritual sequel is a failure. You see
Rolling chance to hit and damage together into one stat is silly and unbelievably stupid. Separate them or you tac combat will always suck. I hate to say it because it's bandied around so much on this forum, but in this case you absolutely should have copy/pasted the core principles from, well, Age of Wonders, or Heroes of Might and Magic, or King's Bounty, or Master of Magic, or any other 4X I can think of right now, or every RPG that I can think o
[quote who="searro" reply="11" id="2762581"]How about a + b ,since 'a' can serve 'b', 'b' could serve 'a' and vice et versa ? [/quote] b does not directly serve a. You fix your house's floors before throwing a dance party. [quote who="GaelicVigil" reply="12" id="2762590"] I don't think that's a fair question. The "bugs and performance" will probably never be completely gone - ever. They have been addressing these issues sin
I think a fair reward from a monster is (average cost of a force with a 85% chance to beat the monster) * 1.25 ~ 1.50. Play well and you can do it with a weaker force, making the return better (well, once tac combat is challenging). Steamroll it and you've gotten (some of) your money back from buying the force required to kill it, but in exchange you risked your stack, spent time training, spent time moving, spent materials, etc. Example: If you want t
[quote who="FutileEmotion" reply="4" id="2762146"]I would like teleport to scale with the number of troops transported, or perhaps the distance travelled. Seems to make the most sense, and this way it would scale late game. As it stands it is a huge crutch that you can use to defend your territory.[/quote] ^ This.
Just a weekly cut-and-dry changelog please, and maybe one preview of 1.1. I think it's a very wise move to stay away from the journals for now, Brad. General opinion outside these boards is that you were starting to dig yourself out of a hole.
[quote who="solidsmooky" reply="7" id="2762562"]what else do you have to lose?[/quote] Time to actually fix the game, time to re-design the game, time from throwing netcode and all kinds of other crap on top of code that doesn't work particularly well as-is, the time required to deal with the massive chance for a deluge of bugs and side-effects (yes, in single player too) from a hasty implementation. Multiplayer is a minority. You can tell d
1.) The game needs to be working, well-documented, and fun to play in single-player before multiplayer is even a twinkle in anyone's eye. Rushing MP ahead of everything else results in a buggy, poorly documented, boring multiplayer game. 2.) Polls are next to worthless. 3.) A poll might distract Stardock from re-designing the game because they've proven to have some odd compulsion to follow their customer's design ideas (wh
[quote who="JamesMoriarty123" reply="24" id="2758434"] And yet I'm beset by self-important pricks like you who can't just read a comment and take it for what it is without resorting to insults. The fact is, AoW is a great game, it was on release and still is now, my original points hold true and if all you can muster is some adolescent insults you ain't gonna go far buddy, but seeing as you've opened the door, I don't mind getting a little verbal here. Ever a
[quote quoting="post"] So coming to the faults and solutions :- [/quote] AoW's magic was mediocre and GalCiv2's tech was about as exciting as watching paint dry. Really your whole post is just farcical, considering you overtly say Stardock should have just made Elemental: Age of Wonders 3 and then completely mis-identify AoW's strengths (hint: it's the tactical combat and unit diversity, everything else in the game is ho-hum). &nb
I've heard nothing but bad things. Well, actually, there's one 5-star review on Amazon that's (apparently) written by Brad's wife. I very much doubt that it's actually his wife, but it's a pretty damn funny troll.
Oh, one more thing. There is no reason to "invest" in Elemental. You don't get anything special for it. Just buy the game when it's done or when it's dirt cheap. Unless you want to play it RIGHT NOW, just wait.