Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. ~ Pubilius Syrus, Maxim 847 In theory, the seller sets price(s) which makes him the most profit or value. Perhaps a particular seller values market penetration over pure money, so he is willing to reduce the price so that a greater number of units are sold. With region based prices, the established price takes into account only the people of that country
[quote who="coreimpulse" reply="139" id="2713347"]I have only tried one game with GFWL, and being in a non-supported country the game launched. DOW II doesnt rely on GFWL for online does it? This was expected, given Relic's complete Steam fanboism. Reactor needs to be released yesterday.[/quote] DOWII, at least the base game, requires GFWL for multiplayer. They may have changed it for Chaos Rising, but I don't own it (Chaos Rising), so I can't say for sure. <
[quote who="CrusaderScott" reply="3" id="2712733"]Good thinking, nonetheless. I wonder if such a system is possible?[/quote] When we were talking about diplomatic capital I ended up brainstorming a multi-turn negotiation sort of thing - first, the idea, necro'd from this thread : [quote who="Sareln"] Additional Thought: If you want to g
Canonical answer to the %SP to %MP is "a ton" to "a little". [e digicons]:D[/e] That said, I would like mechanics to be flexible and able to handle any kind of player on either end of the window (eg. gameplay shouldn't change gianormously playing vs. humans or vs. AIs or some combination thereof).
Pulling out of the other thread and refining: [QUOTE who="arstal"] With Diplomacy- why would the player want Diplomatic Capital in return for giving up resources? If you can bribe the AI with Diplomatic Capital, there needs to be a reason for the player to offer something for Diplomatic Capital from the AI, and the AI needs to offer such trades. Maybe Diplomatic Capital should be spendable to get minor civs to join your empire peacefully, and the AI should do thi
[quote]Frakkin' sweet! I wasn't aware you'd implemented Damiansky's idea for diplomatic capital. You're my hero, Brad! [/quote] It's got potential. Great for dealing with AIs, now why would a human player ever use it in Human-to-Human interactions, other than to sic an AI attack dog on your friend, fun as that is?. If we can answer that question with mechanics, I think it'll really flesh out the diplo system.
Longer answer from here . Same concept applies as both gamestop and amazon are not-stardock. [QUOTE who="Sareln"]Longer answer: Like most things in life, it all depends upon how you look at it: Gamestop and Stardock mean different things when they say "Pre-order". Gamestop is offering you a pre-order in the traditional sense. You pre-order the game, the game comes out, is shipped
Elemental Forums
If you have n types of resources and then spend all of a resource so that you have n-1 types of resources, the box resizing works funny. debug Going to another screen forces a refresh and then the box looks fine again. <img src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4995277/Elemental%20Beta/Res
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="4" id="2691687"] That might easily cause issues, especially for people with eyesight problems. The text is black, and if the infocard is semi-transparent against the Fallen's dark terrain, there's going to be little contrast to the black text.[/quote] Maybe just make it so that we can click under the card then? EDIT: Alternatively, make it so that if you click on something's infocard, you select it. That way you don't have folk hunti
Elemental Forums
Maybe make the infocard semi-transparent and let us mouse under the card? We can't click through an infocard anyways, so I don't see why we shouldn't be able to mouse under the infocard.
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="14" id="2690861"] Another note is how small the sample size is. Games are a multibillion dollar industry, you can't get an accurate representation even by 180,000 people even if it was not an online survey (which as you mentioned is strongly biased towards digital already). Bottom line: NPD doesn't actually have any real data, they're just talking out of their collective asses [/quote] You can take a decent poll with a relatively small
Alpha Centauri did something similar for mindworms - they ate population instead of taking "control" of the base. It's a solid idea and definitely deserves a good looking at.
[quote who="arstal" reply="11"] Quoting arstal, With Diplomacy- why would the player want Diplomatic Capital in return for giving up resources? If you can bribe the AI with Diplomatic Capital, there needs to be a reason for the player to offer something for Diplomatic Capital from the AI, and the AI needs to offer such trades. Maybe Diplomatic Capital should be spendable to get minor civs to join your empire peacefully, and the AI should do this also. ... <
[quote who="TheBirthdayParty" reply="1" id="2690713"]That's a good idea. Something that would make champions a lot more useful also would be to give them spell casting capability. Right now they're just a slight bonus i drag around with me to get them experience.[/quote] All spellcasting is supposed to come from the sovereign (channeler). There are systems in place where sovereigns should be able to imbue their champions with spellcasting abilities at the cost of essence (?
Elemental Forums
I too would like to see some sort of talk/writeup on Elemental's AI at some point in the distant future. It can help inform those of us trying to mod the thing.
[quote who="Star Adder" reply="1" id="2689881"]Actually it would be nice if his Essence would add to one's own. At least to a certain degree. Something similar to the effect in Highlander...[/quote] I'd worry about it creating a cascading effect if it was purely additive. Maybe only part of the vanquished essence is claimed by the victor?
Here's a brainstorm for you then, italics are the current names naturally. Empire: Create Caster Empower Enforcer Empower Agent Empower Proxy Imbue Agent Mark Agent Imbue Proxy
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="11" id="2687201"] You find no problem with Dungeons/Crypts/Temples/Quest_Locations_In_General popping out of thin air when you get a Quest? Or should all those locations be spawned also at World Spawn? There are some reasons why Spontaneous Generation is good for Inns and Quests Locations.[/quote] I found inns to be the rawest point, so I aimed to address that first. I do think that if you're adding a location to the map, you should have
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Tasunke" reply="25" id="2687044"]And indeed, Sareln, your ideas are interesting. I only wish there was time to test them all (my 3 rough ideas, Larienna's 2 ideas, and your 1 idea) My first idea was basically to first assume that Cities WILL cost maintenance (and to state that they should), and then to have various ways that large empires can lessen their maintenance fees at a loss of research. 2nd Idea was to have "free cities"
[quote]Well, I find it interesting that you couldn't simply disagree with the OP, but instead needed a "reason" to latch onto. And that reason was whatever "X" I inserted into Reply 3.[/quote] What can I say, I'm a goal-oriented kind of guy... [quote]That being said, my current preference is the Dark Horse Candidate ... where your primary Research City produces at 100% capacity, and your secondary produces at 50% capacity .... third at 25% ... decreasing exponentially. <b
Elemental Forums
Larienna, thank you for putting together a clear and concise analysis. I don't buy your scenario, namely because I have not experienced my 4x games that way. Rather, I have had to be clever to orchestrate a come-from-behind win against AIs, especially in CIV IV, where the outcome was most certainly in doubt the entire time. I know that that kind of experience is not necessarily common, but to say that your three stage scenario is the only way, or even the most typical way,
[quote]Again, I think the main purpose veiled behind my secondary suggestion is to remove an undue advantage in the realms of Knowledge and Arcane from Larger empires.[/quote] Aside: You changed the thrust of your initial response (reply 3) twice, I responded as if you had given the second. Please, if you're going to edit your posts, at least leave some indication that you've done so, so it doesn't look like we're talking quite so far past each other. I have no way of hittin
[quote]Agreed. In terms of tactical combat, I really think AoW:SM had it done well. Had cover, high-ground, movement penaltys by terrain or spell... And takes care OK of the retaliation without abusing...[/quote] pedroente, how did the AoW:SM system work?
[quote who="Tasunke" reply="3" id="2686783"]to avoid steamrolling[/quote] How are you defining steamrolling? If I plan and expand smartly and then decide to crush a smaller kingdom, is that steamrolling? [quote who="Wylaryzel" reply="4" id="2686785"]I can only speak for myself: Currently it gets very costly if you try to build a lot of cities by your own. If you have a decent income because you were lucky and have a good amount of gold mines this is not an issue and
What problem are you trying to solve? I have a decent idea of what it might be, but I think it'd be good for you to clarify what you see as a problem.