[Suggestions] Barriers to my Enjoyment

On  your points

1) Unit stats

I disagree or rather only partly agree. I don't really get the benefit of the stats intelligence and spell mastery - 50% spell damage hero perks seem much more effective. Strength, Initiative, Moves, Accuracy and Dodge all make sense. Constitution is boring.

2)Heroes overpowered

Having thought about it for a bit, I feel the problem is more that normal units are nerfed too much relative to monsters (and heroes). A level 1 or level 2 unit is completely useless versus a pack of drakes. Even level 10/11 5-person units gets completely wiped out. The only viable strategy for those 2-3 umberdroths or those 6 obsidian golems appear to be using a pack of leveled heroes.

3) City micromanagement

Agreed. That and caravans - a waste of click time. I would perhaps a system similar to MOO1 (yes, I know it is an old game).

4) Quest consequence

Partly agreed. For me it ties into my comment on #2. I end up having to use a single pack of heroes - which means that questing takes much longer. Also the mechanic of giving everyone the full experience bonus also encourages "packing heroes". Split the xp - makes it worthwhile for the player to consider not going in with overwhelming force -> in order to level a particular hero faster. Also hero army bonuses probably shouldn't stack - but be "best of". 

5) Faction differences

Too early for me to tell

6) Tactical combat

Tactical combat is much better than WoM but can still get better. Often my primary reason for tactical combat is to preserve mana. It would be nice to have a slider next to autoresolve allowing me to set how freely mana may be used.

I think the terrain bonuses in WoM were OK and should perhaps be reintroduced. Also many spells should be cheaper to cast (just not fireball) to buff magic in tactical battles.

7) Research tree

.... in small world games it certainly takes too long to research stuff.

I agree with pretty much everything (except for the stats, I like stats...).

It's a mix of design flaws and lack of content that keeps me from playing more. If I have played one sandbox game I never have to play another one because I will recruit the same people, go on the same quests, build the same buildings etc.

The whole questing thing is good on paper but you need to have hundreds of quests to make it interesting. I really don't want to escort a noblewoman in every game I play.

Cities. I'm building every building there is to build. There are no interesting choices to make.

And heroes... where to begin. I know it's cool and macho and all that to have heroes that can take out entire armies, but as a game design it is a complete failure.

The game needs to be seriously rebalanced and cleaned up. I would not mind pushing the release date, because this is WoM all over again.

I am working on 300+ quests right now. I think it is a good place for user created content. My theory on quests is to have several with the same opening, but clicking on an option will have a different result. That way instead of Accept/Decline, we get a series of Risk/Benefit options. Hope that makes things more interesting for you guys. 

I agree, I'd add that the lack of faction differentiation ties in heavily with your points about imba heroes and unit stats feeling insignificant - a lot of the faction traits affect unit stats, so when the optimal strategy is always gear up heroes, you won't notice all the faction differences. 

As for quests, I just hope that the AI is there to compete for them and carry them out just as well as a human, or at least close to.

Actually my feelings are : i research a tech so i get new constructions.

I builds those, without noticing much difference and so on...

I dont see real impacts. On this point i will compare to Civilization where building a colosseum increase your happyness, you see the result and actually you built it and researched for a good reason.

Here i build stuff just because they are available, not because i really need them.

I agree, there is huge potential for user generated content here. The problem is that the success or failure of the game initially will be driven by the game itself. No user base from engaging vanilla game = no user generated content or not as much as would be present if the vanilla game were up to par. There are a couple decent mods for Elemental, but it never really got the player base to get up to the level of something like civ in terms of sheer amount of mod content. 

User generated content is great, but Brad and the devs need to know if the level of the vanilla game is acceptable. Right now its not. It's a minor improvement from EWOM, but minor meaning that now there are 5 level one quests instead of 2. There need to be 40, 50, 60 or  more. If you, alone and not being paid, can come up with 300+ interesting and varied quests, then they should have someone at stardock cranking up to the same number and level of excitement or in all honesty this game is going to flop just like elemental.

Stats I agree are a personal taste, and I like them as much as the next person.  Technically all the stats make sense in their own way but the question I am asking is if you can accomplish the same thing gameplay-wise with less stats, then what purpose are they really serving except for some flavor?  I feel a lot of it can be streamlined.

I'm more interested in having to specialize my champion into either combat, magic, command(army bonuses) or Governor(city bonuses) or a mix inbetween than just scouring the land for the best items to turn them into "a might stack of epic doom".

I haven't seen all that many quests (only couple games worth) but if you break them down into abstract terms they all turn into just a few flavors such as kill monsters at location and get item/reward(Glorified goodie huts from other 4x games).  I find that its very difficult to have meaningful quests for champions when the scale of the game revolves around armies of soldiers and/or magical monsters.  ALSO quests should be naturally limited by their inherent difficulty and not by researched technologies!  Researching techs for quests just feel like an artificial speed bump to compensate for lack of balancing.

Personally I'd like to see them develop quests to be more about helping developing my kingdom/champions than just getting loot.  Like having a Governor Champion learn a unique method of architecture that allows them to construct superior City Defenses, or my Combat Champion learns monster slaying techniques for a perma bonus vs. monsters(quest unique champion perks (not only loot)) etc... (something with semi-long term implications...not game winning, but when used properly give you a leg up for your troubles(risk vs rewards kinda in the same vein of killing the Orion guardian from MOO2))

To clarify on factions... this has improved greatly form WoM but just giving technologies that anyone can research or unit % bonuses is only halfway there.  Some technologies should be unique to a faction or just unavailable in order to give them more character.  For example maybe a faction can have larger unit sizes but not train them as well to illustrate their background "horde tactics".

I am looking forward to see how this game develops over the next few months!

@jpmcconnell,

What they need to do is make a quest editor and use it to create tons of quests with Risk/Reward style options. It is currently a headache to make any quest as it has to be done in xml format only. I agree that one of the devs should be tasked in the next few months with some serious quest expanding. 

@Johnius5,

The technology is really scribes going over historical accounts and journals to allow safe entrance into ruins and lairs. I think it makes sense as long as you actually get some info about the quest from research. Right now we only get a vague idea of difficulty. So, I am for your idea unless they want to polish the current system to make more sense. 

It would be really cool if you could enter any quest and have a chance to get caught in a trap if you haven't researched it yet. So you might get a random negative effect before entering the battle. But I am not counting on something that cool just yet. Maybe Elemental 2 though. 

It seems that after the initial positive reaction, things have cooled a bit.  What can be done now to significantly change FE into a better game?

I would say that new people are commenting that are just now starting to play the beta. I am holding back alot of my positive feedback. Don't want to look like a fanboi. 

The more constructive criticism the devs get, the better that Monday meeting will go. As long as no flames pop up, it's a good thing. 

Yeah, I guess so.  But I am looking forward to the first patch.

Yeah I agree with OP on most points.  There are just still so many clicks of the mouse that don't represent an interesting strategic or tactical decision. 

So I've laid out a more complete opinion on some initial thoughts a few posts back but here's the gist:

1. Faction differentiation. They're all still boring with no real noticeable difference.

2. City development. I'm still just building everything. Only real question is in what order and even that doesn't seem to matter that much.

3. Meaningful terrain. The terrain yields only matter at city placement. Other than that terrain is still meaningless other than a few resources scattered about. Still feels like a space game with a different skin. Where are the units with significant bonuses in forests or swamps? where are the concealment traits? where are the decisions about how to develop you land? etc. etc.

4. World eventually gets boring. Still no random events, new rampaging monsters, high level hero that suddenly wish to join you cause, etc. Basically the world is what you see is what you get upon generation, and that's it.

These ones are new but I'll include them as well.

5. Tactical combat is much better but still boring. Just not enough special abilities, interesting counters, etc. It's still just line up, wail away at each other without any real decision making necessary.

6. Units are still bland. Traits are a huge improvement, but they just don't really seem to have a huge effect on the game. Bottom line is that its still usually just good practice to load you best gear up on some guys and attack. Maybe this get more interesting further down the research trees, but it hasn't so far

Bottom line is that its most of the same major problems as in Elemental. Unfortunately, there really just hasn't been enough progress made against these goals.

I think that's a pretty good indication of where it's at actually.  It's fun for several playthroughs, it's miles better than E:WoM, but missing that "one more turn" recipe that Fall From Heaven or GalCiv2:ToA, or any of our other all time favorites, have.  

The OP here and a number of other threads, are I think pretty accurate about the problems.  The devs are probably going to have to take the lead on solutions because everyone in the forum is going to be pulling in different directions.  

There are quite a few positives, however I completely agree with jpmcconnell about these being mostly the same issues from Elemental.  Those who love/like EOM should be quite happy.  For me though its still feels like a bunch of game mechanics running in parallel that never fully mesh together to form a full game (at least...not yet  ).

Personally, I'm disgusted that there are still issues in FE that were in WoM, reported on, acknowledged, and apparently, not fixed in a year and a half.

Doesn't instill a lot of confidence in their ability or desire to fix problems. Still a ton of the exact same UI issues that were in WoM. The _exact_ same.

Reading people reporting bugs and ui issues that were reported in WoM is really aggravating.

That stuff really bothers me, and another factor killing my enjoyment even more is the exact same performance issues I had in WoM - and I'm using a new PC. Early game is fine, but my mid/late game, performance in the 3d view is abyssmal. Yes, yes, it's a beta - except it's the same engine as WoM, and the same performance problem, now on three different PCs.

Not real thrilled with the state of the game, I'm waiting to see what and how the patch. Just as I was with WoM At least this time around, they appear to be planning to use the beta as an actual beta, and not push it out the door before stuff is fixed. I hope.

Keep in mind what Frogboy said:

Content

DO NOT judge the final game based on the content of the beta.  New spells, monsters, goodie huts and quests get added in every day.

However: We absolutely want to reduce the number of city improvements in the game. Fewer, more interesting city improvements is the goal so feel free to suggest how we can consolidate what we have to improve on city differentiation.

 

So, it seems more quests are coming. I am not sure if there will be 40, 50 or 60 level one quests though.

I disagree about stats. In a time where EVERY OTHER GAME dumbs it down and makes it simple I'm relieved to actually play a game with some meat on the bare bones. Stats make the heroes and units much more unique. However, there could be more expanded on the units, stats, and abilities to really make them more unique from one another.

I think only some heroes are overpowered and that's only really a lategame issue, IMO. I don't like, however, how so many heroes are very well equipped and high level so early in the game.

City management could use more unique and interesting improvements. However, it's still much better then WoM. Caravans are also better but really need more automation or less micromanagement (diplomacy stuff helps that. ie. Economic Treaty).

For the nay-sayers, this is Elemental and it has to retain some of it's old self to work.

I was thinking tonight about the hero "problem".  I was wondering if / how xp was being split among members of a party.

This mechanic of not splitting xp is a complete game-breaker.  I can't believe SD hasn't figured this out yet.

I really can't emphasize that enough.

I will second this again. I think you are on the right track with this.

And I will third it.   Having all surviving winners being able to get full experience for just being present on a battlefield is a big part of why heroes gain levels so quickly when they are in groups.

I agree too, heroes should only get xp based on what they did during the combat.

I think for simplicity's sake it would be best to give every surviving winner (amount of experience from defeated units)/(number of surviving winning units).  Also, heroes that were defeated in a battle would not get any experience from the battle.

I think for the most part we can all agree that FE is going to be better than WoM in many fundamental ways. Some people may seem overly critical but its mostly because we all want to make sure various things are brought up and pointed out while the game is still in beta and significant changes can still be made