You know, once we get some insight into how the AI works, this is possible to implement in a mod. Or, it's been suggested to me that it is, anyway. I'm still learning the files, honestly.
[quote quoting="post"] I don't know if I like the way that global population works, though i think that specialists are really cool. I think I am going to play around with a mod to see if I can make it local. I think that this will be better in general. [/quote] I would pay at least one karma for instructions on how to do this, if you get it to work. Obviously, I agree completely.
I'm also not very keen on turning essence into a boolean. I don't really have a problem with global mana, but without an upper limit on maximum mana usable per turn there's no feeling of a relative scale of power (intelligence restrictions aside). Even a very intelligent Joe the Farmer who I've recruited and imbued shouldn't be able to channel anywhere near as much mana a turn as my sovereign without lots of experience. Other than this, I'm pretty happy with the proposed changes.
[quote who="Gwenio1" reply="8" id="2826401"] For requirements to cast the really big spells that can change the course of the game with one casting... or win it out right. [/quote] Yeah, believe it or not, I can read (almost!) as well as the next guy. While I'm a big fan of the direction the game is going in general, I wonder how much I'm going to like an arbitrary restriction like that once I get a chance to play. Why would I be able to cast a snowstorm wit
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="5" id="2825833"] 1) A sovereign generates 3 mana per turn. A shard generates 1 mana, and gives you the ability to build an improvement that produces another 1 mana per turn in the nearest city if it is above level 3. Effectively, each shard allows you access to 2 more mana per turn. In addition, some shards boost the output of some spells (mostly unknown at this point). 2) It is entirely possible, and quite easy, to add additional res
Played AoWSM. I'm not sure I see your point?
So, I'm not sure exactly why, but I had assumed that, when Mana went global, that each shard would produce the appropriate mana type. Fire mana, air mana, etc. I've been disabused of this silly notion in the past couple days, which leaves me with two questions. 1) Why would I care about shards at all, given that my soveriegn and a variety of buildings generate mana, and only a couple spells are affected by them?</s
[quote who="psychoak" reply="261" id="2825563"] The game isn't lacking in tedium, in need of a huge shot of pain in the ass to get it going. It lacks actual resources that can be stockpiled locally, refined products ready for use. It lacks supply lines that allow for strategic depth in deployment, as your almighty stack of doom has no counter but another stack of doom or, some retarded counter added in a pathetic attempt to fix a broken mechanic in some way other than the obv
[quote who="econundrum1" reply="65" id="2822094"] Quoting Trojasmic, reply 28 Was there any mention of 20-30 new quests in 1.1? No that's your private obsession, they never suggested at any point there would be new quests in 1.1, so know they haven't added what you asked for last week, shocking. [/quote] This was actually mentioned in a dev. journal earlier. No need to be rude.
To quote an earlier poster: Why wasn't essence kept as a cap on how much mana can be spent by a unit during a single battle? Kinda like the casting points in Age of Wonders. I'm curious about this, as well. The problem is that, without a per turn limit, there is no feeling of relative power. What fun is it to have my newly-imbued champion channeling the same amount of mana per turn as my sovreign? It's not. Barring a cap, what about a %mana increase for imbued ch
Remember when you launched the planet busters in Alpha Centauri? That just didn't make anyone happy.
Elemental Forums
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="43" id="2816280"] It would be dangerous to assume that Men = Good and Fallen = Evil. This will become more obvious as we go forward.[/quote] One word: Awesome.
Yeah, I think this is a great idea, in theory. To put it politely, I certainly don't agree with the posters that think the game is already too complex. But, it's hard to comment on a system when details are so vague. Could we possibly get a little more along the lines of what you all are thinking here? [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
[quote who="Alstein" reply="15" id="2806761"] Spell requirements: Maybe do it this way INT: this will determine the spellls that can be cast (as suggested above), and have an effect on negating resistance to spells. WIS: Determines amount of mana that can be consumed in a turn by the unit. Allows for higher resistance to spells. (Wisdom is traditionally the save vs spell stat) Spells can take 2 turns or more to cast in some cases,
I personally think it's kind of bland right now, but I expect it will improve substantially with v1.1 (released later this month/early November). I'd wait for the demo which will be released with 1.1.
Fantastic comments. This is probably the most important thread I've seen this month (brewing off-topic semantic debate about the word "balance" notwithstanding).
[quote who="Istari" reply="11" id="2797987"]I love the way things are going. My only real gripe is with the proposed sharing of the mana pool. It hasn't been explained yet in a way that makes sense to me, so I'll have to wait and see. But if you have your sovereign and other spell casting units all draw from the same source of mana, it takes away the individuality of the caster, and it becomes more difficult to differentiate the power and limits of each magic user. I have stated th
[quote quoting="post"] Let me tell you a terrible truth you learn with age. You look around and great things you take for granted are suddenly gone and you can't get them back. You have a core group of complainers that edge out those that don't agree and are not willing to spend their time to be heard. Don't let them get you disgusted with what you have accomplished. Modding for those that like what you already have would be nice before you bow to those that ha
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="3" id="2795161"]October-ish? That could be now! *checks impulse* Nope...maybe now! *checks impulse* Nope...maybe now! *checks impulse* Nope...maybe now! *checks impulse* Nope...maybe now! *checks impulse* Nope...maybe now! *checks impulse* Nope...maybe now![/quote] Ha! That made me laugh.
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="63" id="2795150"] I never understood why so many folks early on seemed to dislike the original idea of requiring a sov to spend essence to restore lands that could support a settlement. My only gameplay problem with that in the early betas was that it made the luck of finding randomly-habitable land extremely advantageous. That problem could have been easily solved by simply removing already-good land from the map, and I'd still rather have my sov req
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="12" id="2794602"] Ive been thinking of requiring food to construct an outpost. Thoughts?[/quote] Yes, please! I also wouldn't be heartbroken if caravans generated gold, exclusively, and not food. Doesn't food as a global resource kind of model distribution through trade? How would caravans increase global food supply? I've never understood this.
[quote who="ElanaAhova" reply="5" id="2794550"]I agree wholeheartedly. I really enjoy EWoM. I see it going in a very good direction under SD's development. However, I imagined a world that was an "after the holocaust" type of place: A vast wasteland. It is too easy to generate food. I know many players ask SD to add more food. Irrigation was added. Mods add food (fisheries, for example). BTW, I use fisheries, and i am happy players make mod
Awesome. Thanks!
Also, scripting support for random events (with "response choices") a la FFH2!
He said "this week" here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/398019 My guess is tomorrow/Saturday.