for a game like this game to work, i basically want to enjoy trying to play optimally/strategically (without exploits) instead of trying to play badly on purpose (i.e. building something that isn't a paladin) to make things more "fun". like if i want to use archers, they basically do 0 damage unless i lower the difficulty as long as variety in tactics is encouraged through the game balance, i think it can work. the stuff about making units/cities more interesting sounds like a ste
The_Biz
i have the #2 score on the metarealm i have no idea what that means
i like the basic idea of the game, but the balance seems way off. usually making the game harder can fix things, but i don't think the difficulty levels are well-designed in this game. i already feel that most of the spells/units are useless on insane difficulty. making the enemies even stronger just makes the game even more restrictive because the same tactics are too strong / too weak every single time since there's no variety in the opponent. </
i think one of the minions has some retreat ability. no idea why the AI likes to use it so much
the problem when the game has so many bugs is that you don't know whether you are misinformed about how something works or whether it's just broken the game is hard enough to learn even without all the flaws
there are things that increase it but I don't see it listed in any unit details/stats
i think the issue is that many of the more advanced strategy gamers have been around way too long to invest time in learning/mastering the beta or 1.0 version of games when they know it's just going to change and improve over time it's kind of unfortunate because it's better to get feedback early, but almost nobody knows how to ship a complete & finished game at release anymore so the veteran players are conditioned into waiting for patches + expansions
in a world where the developer has infinite resources... exploits are things that they would remove from the game strategies are things they would not remove
some developers put this as an option in the settings menu. i see no downsides with that
might be fun to play 4x-style empire-management gameplay with tower defense objectives. eventually you should get overrun, but the goal is to see how long you can survive.
some people reload a lot because nobody knows the detailed rules of the game until they have hundreds of hours of experience with it. 4X games are generally full of hidden mechanics and poorly explained gameplay systems. i'd say for most "competitive" strategy gamers (i.e. people who like adversarial games), the major difficulty in most 4X games comes from understanding the rules because tutorials cover a small fraction of what goes on. actually figuring out which decisions to mak
when an AI gets bonuses that humans don't, it's not as hard to make it a challenging adversary. it can even be better than "perfect" if perfection is defined by how well you can do without any bonuses. i personally wouldn't rate anything that doesn't play fair too highly, but it can still be fun to play against as long as the cheats/handicaps are designed appropriately. i do think that the personality and character of opposing empires becomes mor
is there something to prevent people from abusing save/reload functionality?
it was more challenging than any other civ-like game I had played i don't know how much of that is because of cheats or because of intelligence. but from what I recall, it needed pretty heavy bonuses to stay challenging. RTS games didn't need to cheat anywhere near as much galciv2 had much more customization than regular civ games, so humans still had tons of interesting choices to make even when the AI cheated
for a lot of veteran strategy gamers "not worth playing" is the expected conclusion after spending enough time with most games strategy gaming nowadays is like chasing a mirage everyone has fond memories of some old game that was really fun when they were a novice and didn't know how to find the optimal tactic or play better than an AI. they remember it having a pretty hefty learning curve, so they will spend dozens of hours learning the systems in t
for a game like this, you kind of want people who will stick around. the best chance of that happening is if the game is 100% complete before going on sale also the game probably needs some really fun team-based mode i haven't played more than 2 hours, but i'm not sure the game will be deep enough or popular enough to survive off some 1v1 or free-for-all mode
[quote]Why is the bar set low for a game like this? Is anyone else disappointed? [/quote] the bar is low because all the strategy game developers have set it low. until customers expect competent AI, they won't ever get it because developers are lazy (translation: seeking profit instead of quality) chess has good AI because chess is ridiculously easy and simple, but also because tons of smart people have put a lot of effort into it</p
it depends on what type of game you want it to be if it's a strategy game, then the player needs to be making informed decisions randomness is ok, but it needs to be informed randomness (eg. 50% chance of outcome A. 25% chance of outcome B. 25% chance of outcome C) if experience gives you more information, then by definition a player is not making informed decisions from the get-go and the strategy part of the game is worse &nb
[quote]There are people who want a improved game from a previous game without too much changes (i.e me, and some others) There are people who want a fresh new 4X games. Especially those who got burned by the first Elemental. Sorcerer King does not satisfy either groups for obvious reasons. [/quote] does it have to? while it would be nice to get a vastly improved version of LH, I don't see how they&#
[quote quoting="post"] Greetings! Today I would like to ask you guys some questions about strategy games. 1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most? 2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number
do you have a RSS feed?
tachyon sounds neat I can count the number of conveniently playable multiplayer strategy games on 1 finger
It's easy to call something outdated and leave it at that it's much harder to point to another 4X game that gets it right. "today's standards" are half-assed games like civilization 5 that are more like a simulation of empire than a strategy game that is interesting to play for people who know what they're doing you mention that other games have 'better ideas'. how many of them are intuitive and easy for the player to start making
what's the adversarial setup of the game? like would it be played as a 2v2 or 1v1v1v1? I'm wondering how players should respond to sabatoge if it's a 2v2 I know who to retaliate against. if it's a 1v1v1 I don't, and it sounds like that might get frustrating/random if I'm playing a PC game with strangers on the internet instead of a board game with a group of friends on the same table i