That got me thinking. But [quote who="Satrhan" reply="7" id="2830630"]Being able to give your troops abilities, regular or magical, could add a lot of fun. The magical abilities should be very expensive however[/quote] adding magical abilities to mundane troops is something I would be very wary of. I'd much rather have magical abilities cost mana and only be usable by casters, but have a large variety of mundane abilities that are nevertheless fun to use, be this steal
onomastikon
That was a very good read, thank you for that. [quote quoting="post"] The schedule is what breaks game developers. There is never enough time. So much we would love to do, but the weeks slip by so quickly. [...] To be of any real use a beta must be full featured. [/quote] My only hope/concern is that you handle idiosyncracies of Stardock beta scheduling and iteration with a LOT more transparency this time around. I say thi
Remove targeting computer. Trust in the Force.
Seems to be fixed. Thank you.
There are some texts that I cannot read in their full length because the pop-up window which displays the spell description http://elementalgame.com/contest is too small, that is, it extends above and below my screen with no way to scroll. I am sure that mine will be amongst these.
I too receive the same error and have been unable to find a solution anywhere. This is for a first-time submission; I have filled out all "required fields", have less than 5000 characters in the description field, and am using IE8 on a windows machine.
I too have been unsuccessful in submitting. I receive the error that I should contact support (Code 3) with the error message File 404, Resource not found. I use IE8 on a windows machine.
Well, since there's no such thing as Essence anymore, this idea is shot. I'd just like to change it to: Make founding a City COST, both in terms of initial investment and upkeep; the only thing that would make sense now would be to have it cost gold or cost mana. I'd still like us to be, at some point, able to settle just about anywhere without the need for the "fertile land" tiles in certain circumstances, but that's probably going too far.
Heh, I mistakenly thought we could do that already! We can't? Really? We should be able to at least learn how to forge some items (by performing the appropriate prerequisite research), even if not all.
I think it is time for a new poll. I cannot see the date of this last one here ( https://www.elementalgame.com/journals ), but it must have been around since the beginning of September. Would you want to talk about what kind of things should be in this poll?
Thank you. In general, I'd like to see unit statistics play a much larger role with standard troops (as opposed to merely heroes or sovereigns), because these statistics will also be used in other forms of interaction, such as resistance to magic or other certain effects (suggestion: agility to resist things like spider webs or traps). One could also imagine improved versions of certain abilities, such as Riposte in my quick example above. I mean this: Units may be trained wit
As is, certainly not. 1.09 would still be a 5/10 in my book, while 1.1 looks like it could make it to 6/10. By mid 2011 this game could be reccommendable. Buying it now for the "free" expansions is, in my book, insane. There is no such thing as "free". (I would understand if someone were to write "without additional funds required", but "free" is far from the mark, since you will need to invest $50 as an initial investment. For those of us who struggled through beta and continue to give valua
I'd like to see this: With an additional pricetag, and more importantly, with an additional training time required, troops can have not only their armor and weaponry improved, but their statistics as well. All troops start with base 10 statistics. But with additional cost and training time, they can be trained to come out of the barracks with an agility, for example, of 11. So what? you ask. Because now we can make certain special trainable abilities be dependent on statistics. <
[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="21" id="2825512"] Quoting onomastikon, reply 15 Looks very promising, thank you! But ... why did you remove morale? Even if you were dissatisfied with the way it was currently working, it would have been excellent to at least have the mechanics in game to tweak (perhaps later, perhaps post 1.1). Now, there will be no use for such wonderful spells such as Fear (there goes my spell contest idea), and an interesting option i
Looks very promising, thank you! But ... why did you remove morale? Even if you were dissatisfied with the way it was currently working, it would have been excellent to at least have the mechanics in game to tweak (perhaps later, perhaps post 1.1). Now, there will be no use for such wonderful spells such as Fear (there goes my spell contest idea), and an interesting option in tactical battles is gone. While I am sure Morale was far from ideal, it didn't seem terrible or broken, or at
I like what I see a lot -- great! Thank you! -- with the exception of this [quote quoting="post"] 1. Spellbook Re-evaluation: There were several problems with the way spells have been organized in Elemental thus far, the most damning being the selection of Elemental based spells when designing your Sovereign. We’ve now moved these out of customization and into the tech tree, so you can make the choice to grab those books as shards are discovered. In their place, players can
The only really bizarre thing I see about the contest is the first prize: graphics card (ok) AND spell will be implemented into Elemental (woo). But wouldn't you want to implement ALL of the spells into Elemental that are at least quite good (if not the winner)? So assuming you have about 1000 entries, wouldn't you want to implement a couple dozen? I just cannot imagine the first place making the cut and the rest not. But be that as it may, it's a nice idea.
Most of what you have written seems to indicate excellent improvements. I also liked the way that you two have replied to many of the comments here. If I may ask three small questions? 1. Will tactical combat be optimized so as to allow more than 1 friendly unit per tile? 2. I would have liked to have seen Charisma also have some sort of "leadership" bonus (e.g. boni to morale, perhaps to accuracy if high enough); are the current changes set more or less in stone?
Don't forget, this isn't Iran, where they cut off your hand for stealing. Oh wait.... It's America, the land of draconian punishments, the #3 committer of capital punishments in the world -- no surprises here, really. I suppose she could sell her children into servitude, there is probably some clause in Californian law somewhere by which the children have to pay the debts of their destitute parents, why not? Ah, America, land of the free....
1. Terrain should matter more on the strategic map. 2. Tactical battles could feel better with improved unit footprints / tile selection (allow friendly units in tactical battles to enter tiles with other friendly units IF they fit: Let one tile hold up to e.g. 12 friendly human-sized units or 1 large squad, 4 mounted, 2 giant, 1 huge unit like dragon). 3. make city spam less of a no-brainer with <a href="https://forums.ele
I'd still like to see an additional race in an expansion, like I suggested above. It wouldn't have to be something like a giant space slug race (which I envision as the cause of the original Vasari exodus) but I think it would make thematic sense. Care to add that to the list?
I disagree. I liked phase lanes, because without them, you have no strategic variance to maps. Take GC2 for instance. Rarely have I seen more repetitiveness in "maps". While open, this makes for uniform, bland maps without strategic choice-generating elements, such as choke points. I would discourage open maps on this ground alone (besides the fact that it would make Vasari's raison d'etre moot).
Thank you, that was very interesting. Sadly, i think the greatest problem involved with this topic is that ZOC, no matter how you implement its mechanics, is largely moot in the current build because it has an insignificant gameplay impact. If my ZOC is twice the size or half, rhomboid or mandelbrodian, encompasses 10000 tiles or 100, it really doesn't matter, because the only significant terrain modifiers in the game for which ZOC has a use are shards.
[quote who="Yarlen" reply="157" id="2812102"]Well, more ships/capital ships aren't going to appear in a patch. That stuff costs mucho bucks to make. Besides, pirates having capital ships or even shields is against Sins' canon. I don't think there needs to be specific anti-pirate ships, just better implementation. Right now they are grossly overpowered (in one of my tests this weekend, 53 fleet points of Pirate ships took out 150 fleet points of upgraded Vasari ships ).
I'd really like to see "additonal race" mentioned, please. It wouldn't have to be the one that I suggested, but I would still like it mentioned. [quote who="ShotmanMaslo" reply="6" id="2811365"] Quoting onomastikon, reply 5 Quoting ShotmanMaslo, reply 3- Temporary cloaking for ships and anticloak technology (tiberian sun anyone?) Yes, I can't believe I forgot to say "cloaking". Cloaking. Not like there will be an expansion, but hey, talk is cheap