There was some discussion of the save thing back in the 'what every game should have' thread.   Many turn-based strategy games these days (at least inteligent systems games and Civ 4) have it setup so loading the game won't change the variables.  So like if you attack somebody and lose, then load your game, you will still lose if you attack them.  I don't think in a TBS game you can really take away the save feature entirely, you'll just have to except that some people will take advantage of this to beat a computer AI.  You can't really do it in multiplayer anyway, and in player vs. computer there isn't a problem in cheating (I mean, what are they cheating?  themselves... thats it)

I agree and Dominions_3 by default prevents the save-load cheat.  Unfortunately there are those singleplayer gamers who are spoiled and live off a crutch of reloading a previous save which changes it from being a game into being more of a storyline where you know you'll win. 

To satisfy both groups a HARDCORE mode should be introduced as seen within some other types of games.  The developers could include special features(spells, items, etc.,)  within the HARDCORE mode as a way to encourage those sp gamers who cheat by reloading to become stronger and give up their cheating habit.

Singleplayer is the foundation for Elemental, and I just don't see why it is anyone's business when or how often I save or re-load. The whole idea of calling it "cheating" is pretty silly to someone like me who might go a year or more with a game like GalCiv2 before I even pay attention to the fact that I can earn a score while I'm playing.

If there is to be any hard-coded effort to encourage players to "become stronger" (and I question the implied value judgement there strongly), it should be simply a scoring system, perhaps with an option to form leagues via opting in to some draconian save-murdering code twist.

Not that I have a strong opinion or anything...

What you're asking for is to preserve the random number which is used to calculate battle results.

CivIV for example had the option in the game creation menu to preserve this seed during saves or to generate a new one when the game gets loaded.

Personally I always played with that option off, since I just hate it when I lose something because RND thought it was a good day to be mean against me.

 

That said, an-always-possible-to-save option is something which I'd rather not lose for pc games, just because console games needed to use a checkpoint system in the past and it is encroaching into other pc games (or rather, console ports) doesn't mean it's a good system.

Also the cheat argument is ridiculous, as for single player games it doesn't matter how other people want to play their games and calling it cheating doesn't make any sense. You can't really cheat yourself in any meaningful way.

And how I play my games is nobodies else business after all.


So yeah, add it as an option to the game creation screen for people who want it to have. But asking for it as a standard setting is a bit ridiculous.

I'm singling you out because of all the counter arguments against being able to save/reload at-will in the single player game, yours was the least ridiculous and not quite as presumptuous as others'.

I think it's important to understand that when you suggest that I "...am denying myself the challenge of a good game..." you are making two unsupported - and in my case, inaccurate - assumptions.

First, it assumes you understand what it is about a given game that I find challenging.

Second, it presupposes that what you enjoy about a game is what I or anyone else enjoys about a game.

The double flaw is that you believe everyone plays according to your desires and preferences and you base your suggestions regarding game saves on that flawed premise.

I can support my statement that I don't play or enjoy games the same way you might with several examples from my own gaming experience, but I trust that you can as well, so I hope we agree.

Again, for multiplayer we do in fact need to consider the needs of others, so save game limitations there are fine by me as is any other mechanisms that provide a balanced and fair playing field.

As long as I can save and reload at will in single player, I'm happy. If there needs to be some RNG seed option to appease someone in this topic that is going to be watching over my shoulder while I play, save and reload, I'll survive - though I'd probably rather see development efforts allocated elsewhere.

I will violently argue against that proposal.  Again, it presupposes that I'm cheating and tbh, I don't want to be encouraged to play exactly like someone else.  I'd rather play the game according to my own preference.  Not that this suggestion has a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting implemented, but on the off-chance that someone at SD is considering it, I'd propose an alternative suggestion that is at once easier, faster, and cheaper to develop all the while pissing off fewer players.  The suggestion is this:

Disable the Save button on NTJedi's game client. 

By the words, seems like there are sightly offended people just because they do it, know how it always made the games so easier for them, but don't like to admit it. I said nothing against people who do this, you guys didnt liked it because yourselves don't like to do this, exacly why I ask for discouragement of it. I used to do that for long especially when I didn't knew or wasn't experienced in the game and still I always had in mind that is wasn't the exacly way to be playing it but never had problems with myself to be doing it, since it's only a game. The difference is that I have no problem admiting it, and I know it used to make all matches to me, not only easy, but win guaratee. The game challenge? Very small and short lived with the game itself.

"Also the cheat argument is ridiculous, as for single player games it doesn't matter how other people want to play their games and calling it cheating doesn't make any sense."

It is a form of cheating. In the game you are playing against an AI, and you are using of a manner out of the gameplay to have advantages over it. Same way has using codes. Facts are different from what you want it to be. If you see that has something negative (I don't, anyone play anything has they want to) than you shouldnt be doing it.

"You can't really cheat yourself in any meaningful way."

You deny yourself how advantegous that is and that is it out of the game play? So you think it is part of the game? See my point why I say it's important to discourage that then. Cheating youself is exacly what you are doing. But it's of commom knowledge that it happens I guess, regarding this issue. Like I said, you cheat over the AI, you don't play the game against yourself.

"That said, an-always-possible-to-save option is something which I'd rather not lose for pc games, just because console games needed to use a checkpoint system in the past and it is encroaching into other pc games (or rather, console ports) doesn't mean it's a good system."

This got nothing to do with consoles. Many PC games want to simply disencourage that, and its just FPS that offer checkpoints for that. But most systems allows for saving at any time, like I cited Mount&Blade that you just can't leave without saving the match if you choose Realistic Mode. I agree strategy games need to be saved at any time, since there is more micromanaging, and the player may need to leave.

"And how I play my games is nobodies else business after all."

And why are you saying that? I think they should allow save-load, but it shouldnt even be the default system but a system apart. Same way cheats are apart of games and at least offer a option to remove the effects of that. If players want to do save-load as of interfering gameplay, there should be in the options if not a code for that, but I think you wouldn't want this way just because, even tough it's the same thing, it would affect your ego right?

"What you're asking for is to preserve the random number which is used to calculate battle results."

That too is very important. But it's the player decisions in general. Exemple: If someone choose to atack faction B, then you get into trouble by that and regret, you could just load an backup save and remove that, while the player should deal with itiby default system. But a game giving room for infint saves, the player might has well think it is for that, some games feel like they are almost telling the player to do it.

I can control myself out of that, but still I do like an incentive to don't be able at all. Still, I say it firstly because most players, while not all of them but many, would get a better experience not being encouraged to do it. After all it is the way a game is meant to be played. And by default everything should be leaded to that rout, and show that that is the rout. Like I said, why they don't put the cheat list to take money already in a section of the game UI also? So anyway, just uses it whomever wants to and is of easier access. It's of the same reason. I lost enjoyment of many games before because of it till I skiped, It's like cheat being there to me but without telling it is a cheat. It just got overlooked with time by producers but is certainly to change somehow ust like they are doing with the numbers. But is not just it still.

To cheat is also to break rules, but many games do not show rules against that, while it interferes in gameplay dramatically.

Score lost helps it's a nice idea, has it is at least telling the player to not resort to that if wants to follow the normal gameplay. Still maybe a complex system would be needed to know whenever the player is loading a game to go back to it or to make changes. But ideal, I think a Realistic Mode like was suggested, a system to really counter it, is better. And if there would be scores, you also get more by going Realistic Mode so both seems nice and then its easier for the score aplication. I just dont call it hardcore mode, because its the normal way to play not a hardcore one, tough it doesnt matter the name much.

In Realistic, maybe the game could have just one save where the game or the player always save over it whenever he left the game. You cannot load a game during play, to load you need to go to the menu and thus your game is automatically saved, it is meant just to go back to where you were in case od existing. And the game can also auto-save there for the player to not forget, has an option (in case of crashs etc) but also makes a backup save in its game archieves only, with like 50minutes minutes before lets say, to allow the player to go back in any gamestoping possible bug he may bump into. Even if the game would have just 2 or 3 saves possibilities for each match would already help it generally.

but NTJedi, the point is "who cares that it is cheating"  its in SINGLE PLAYER, he or she the right to do what they want if he or she is the only player in the game.

I don't think anybody can argue that it is not taking advantage of a system in ways that were not intended.   But your game isn't affected by it.  Its like in Demigod (even the beta) you have a big box for multiplayer that says "cheating on or off" and you can turn it on or off.  If everybody in a game wants to cheat, they can turn it on and cheat.   They can enjoy it however they want.   In single player, there isn't even that need for everybody to agree.  1 person can do whatever he well pleases, its his game game.

I could go into more philosophical debates with things that should be allowed because they doesn't hurt others, even if they don't agree with it.

Many players and the game itself can loose from not having another way that do not allow save-load. Many players use it and yet would be calling an AI dumb or something. If a naval fleet comes from the north and takes you unprepared has you are playing, you load that save some minutes before, and trow all defenses there just to see it get crushed. So, how important is to have an optional mode that protects the gameplay and thus everybody? A huge Advent fleet came from that phase line, let me load and trow a bunch of beans there. That way you never loose a planet and the AI is poor and the game is to much easy easy, and you can also predict things.

About facing a lost game, I'm going to let something I noticed recently by playing a game. Its kind of psychological tough. Not saying elemental should use it at all, but just a player feedback for any future project, since it might not even fit it.

I think it can be a nice accomplishment for a game when even when you lose in it, it try to don't let the player frustrated, so I'll give out one thing about that that I noticed. Again citing Knights of Honor, you do not need to be destroyed to loose the game. Usually noone likes to be completly destroyed, no wonder I guess. I believe in games that can be player friendly whenever there is space for it. It's like those games that many dislike when a voice over of any character critizes you when you do something wrong every time, something that you already noticed it was wrong, still they trow that at you or kind of disrepect the player that is the main thing of a game. I've seen it in very few games tough, and well they are going to add a bad feel to the player so thats very bad imo, since a game is meant to offer the opposit.

Well in that game, wins it the one who get the most powerful instead and is nomitaded the emperor of Europe. You can be totaly destroyed of course, but that is a bit unlikely to happen because of some factors (your economy can eventually turn into a big hit if trew to protect just few cities cities, instead of the use that should be to maintain larger empire and win the game), but you have big chances of surviveing and mostly you just didn't got the most powerful to win it. I'ts not a necessity but I think that is something remarkable in that concept. It makes the matches more memorable, or good to remind instead of the player be excluding the memories of lost games for their being necessarily bad. A game you lost could just a be game were that other faction close to you, got immensilly powerfull and won but you also don't exacly lost or got destroyed, you just didin't won and thats all; instead of win or then get vanished from the face of the earth. Matchs that are going to make the player necessarily get vanished everytime he don't win, are not that pleasant to remeber, and most time a player will stop that and start a fresh game instead before getting destroyed when that is an inevitable end. That concept remembered me of physical board games were is always pleasant to play, winning or not, just because you were part of it. The process was fun and matchs you lost also fun and not invalid or bad in memory (something you'd like to exclude). So, it's not only winning matchs that deliver the pleasant experience and a game can be even harder or more complex.

This is just something I found quite curious and I think is a good way to lead some games, but not used much. You may not be the utmost winner, but still you could win that city you wanted in that match or you could destroy that faction that was a threat, or you won at defending hard that city they wanted to take from you. The big winner was just one, but still many small victories maked part of that match even by the end but once there, you just didn't had enough strategies to win the game, but you didn't had to be crushed has the only other option either.

I want a 'make-dragons-dance' spell!    Man, that makes me think of the jack-pots in Dungeon Keeper 2 where everybody in the dungeon starts dancing to "disco inferno".  What an awesome game, that is next on my list after Master of Magic of games that needs to be remade into a playable-on-modern-system format.  (that or startopia, which needs to be made into a playable-on-any-system format.  Dungeon keeper has higher priority I say though)

The spell would need some 80s hairmetal or something to go with it though.  I'd cast it all the time (everytime I saw a dragon anyway)

That definitely isn't the point.  The point is that you can't force someone else to play the game you like to play.  Think this through:  Let's say they put in an at-will available any-time save function.  How does that mess you up?  That's right: It doesn't.

But if you are like me and want to be able to recover from being called away to RL, power outages, or doing something stupid that results in your army/city getting demolished, then removing that capability is definitely going to piss you off.  I probably wouldn't be thinking about experiencing joys of being the underdog at all - mostly because I'd be ticked off that I didn't get to see how a modification to my plan/strategy would have worked out.

I don't need an in-game score or iron man mode to tell me that mine is bigger than yours.  I'm sorry that you need that reassurance for when I'm playing my single player game, because it's potentially coming at the price of screwing up my gameplay.  If you worried more about your game, we'd probably all be fine.  You can whip out your three inches of dangling fury for all to see in multiplayer mode.  Isn't that where the real gladiatorial test is?  Where you challenge the person who says they're strats are better than yours?

I shouldn't really worry, there's not a snowballs chance Stardock is going to put this in to anything other than the multiplayer parts of the game.  They'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

Lets not distort things out shall we? I'm all for everyone playing a game has they like too and they should. I talking about the importance of having a protection against it and be it apart then if some strongly want the default method. And I know that many people used to do that and changed because it was constraining their enjoyment. I'm not generalizing that everyone would like the game without it. One of the most important things in human relationship that I see, is to respect one's individuality. It's non-sense to say if someone should use it or not or play a game and some comments just aren't what they may sound like at first, they are often opinions. I said it is cheat because it is, but cheats are part of games and use it whomever wants too. And I stick with the opinion that many would prefer to not be using it for good games, just because me and other went trought that period, but*not*all*of*them if that is necessary.

And some players here are ginving an opinion based on their own experience and not criticizing someone that do it like you are taking it.  People do use of it to take advantage it is because they don't like to loose eg stick with the error you can comit in a game. If you enjoy more going that way then stick with it, you don't need to give explanations, but some people would like a mode that don't allow it. It do remove the enjoyment of some, most players do know they can get advantages from it, any experienced game player know that and used it. So anyone that do not use it anymore, its because noted that it constrains his enjoyment somehow. So there are people that would like to be away from it, and some games allow a system to protect that. So, see your side but see others too.

Imo that is like games drug, it's something many can't get away even tough some wanted too. It gives great advantages and most games do not explain their positions regarding it. Most players used it one day and I think more than 50% of players does for many kinds of games. Some in almost a compulsory way.

"let's say many players do say the AI sucks.  What impact does that have on you and your games?"

I was talking in a company stand point and for player reviews. Many players do think that is normal or part of the game, everyone can see it cleary even here I guess. Producers knows that it was not ment to be part of the gameplay, so that they are making systems against that. That do not impact my games, answering your question, tough I like a mode that do not allow that because it guaratee me I will not do that during the match.

Anyway I used it a lot back there, and I can safely say it is cheating. Experienced players know about it, and none would say that is a normal to the gameplay of a game (they using it or not being another thing that does not matter), that it is part of it, no good producer either, just because it is not. You saw that JTJedi proposed an optinal mode right? In the beggning of the topic. You guys are just creating turbulence, has noone is saying to remove that completly or giving order to players to not use that. But not that if a player wanted to propose the end of it, he would be wrong, he would be at the same right to argue as anyone have to ask for it to stay. But most see it better as an optional mode. Most people posting here just want to defend their egos for using it instead of being objective to the topic, noone is leading a exclude-it-totally-away-from-the-game kind of proposing for the discussions of the "standing of it" to arrise. I can't avoid it sometimes, so even personally I know exacly that many players can't avoid it and we might has well avoid player frustration right? So both systems have it's importance, so player can also try both or stick with the way they like to.

It will not really affect my games since today I make only 1 save while playing some games and save over it, not doing loads too. Tough, I don't think about things only for myself, I asked it based on my own experience and some previous knowledge I had about it and because companies are making up systems against it. Now if some of you really enjoy doing that than lets hope it will always be there but I also hope for the other mode. Now, another mode there or not, will not affect me much tough helps a bit. It would have helped me back in time when I thought I was pretty smart for descovering I could always load to change something, I just didn't do that for ~3 of my strategy games (the best ones). Tough, I like always having both modes, because when you don't like a game that much, it will never be fun to be taking it's gameplay seriously; but I think it's good when a game is really enjoyable.

Playing games using the save/reload to change the future and provide yourself a benefit is cheating.  Even singleplayer gamers should be discouraged from cheating for several of the previous reasons I've already mentioned.  Many game companies have introduced a "hardcore" mode because the gamers want the feature thus there's no reason this feature cannot be included for this upcoming fantasy game. 

This is a Turn-Based Strategy game so it will be saving the game at the end of a turn and will probably include a save option to prevent a bad click or power outage being painful.  However anytime an individual changes the future via save/reload to provide themself an advantage it's cheating.  Cheating even in singleplayer should be discouraged which is why Hardcore mode has become more and more popular with games. 

No need to cry your save/reload crutch will be in the game... us other gamers here are asking Stardock for a "hardcore" / "iron man" setting which will have no impact on your games.  In fact one day you might be brave enough to try playing this setting.