Alstein

[quote who="Jafo" reply="9" id="2962118"]Google is just struggling for supremacy against Facebook..... 2 corporate megaliths trying to be on top of the pile.[/quote] True enough. One corporate entity has earned by distrust and disrespect, the other hasn't. I mean, Stardock's a corporate "megalith" also, but they've earned my trust in terms of not trying to screw me over. This is why now with legi

Apparently they changed the policy recently, but I didn't see what to.

I wish they'd make a wired trackball. There isn't a good one on the market now.

Even though I kinda put in a critical post today on what I feel is still incomplete, you have improved things so far, to the point of respectability. That said, the AI's ability to use their abilities, in both tactical and quick battles, will be crucial. If the rest of FE reaches the promise that has been shown so far, the AI work will make or break this game. I have no idea how you'll be able to do this without some scripting though, and

The current beta seems to have fixed the issues with the last beta, and is now in a playable state, based on about an hour of testing it. However, Elemental still has some fundamental issues, and I'm not counting AI here, but actual game mechanics. I think there is one recurring theme in this: Gradual, not exponential. The core problem is that many things in Elemental gain exponentially, when they need to gain gradually. </

[quote who="CdrRogdan" reply="26" id="2960892"]Found another bug with this (though minor). When selecting the pioneer the cost involved is that of building 4 pioneers. However when exiting the town and reselecting it, the cost drops back to one. I think the issue is that the default is of the last selected unit, so selecting an army unit and then selecting a pioneer will assume that you want to build 4 of them, but when you exit the town and start off selecting a pioneer the default switches

http://jdsawyer.net/2011/07/02/put-it-in-the-cloud-are-you-nuts/ Since Stardock encourages the use of Dropbox in their betas, this may have some legal implications for Stardock, unlikely but possible. Might be a good idea for Stardock to develop their own version of the service, maybe as part of their application side. I would pay a small amount for such a service

The population bugs alone right now make the game unplayable. Probably needs a hotfix over the weekend for anything meaningful to be done from this.

I'm glad on the use of magic in combat now. Will likely have to be adjusted to avoid use in unwinnable situations though.

Honestly, the improved tactical battles are nice, but I'm more concerned about this: What about quick battles. In WOM, quick battles were pointless because the enemy sovereigns refused to cast magic. With all these new abilities added, I think making sure quick battle works is very important, as I feel tactical battles ends up being a way to cheese the AI 10 times out of 10, and quite honestly, I don't think any company, even Stardock , can prevent t

I think Gamestop is failing with Impulse right now- Impulse is actually inferior in terms of sales/content/focus to what it was when Stardock had it. They needed to make a splash on the transition day, but the pool was empty. I'm hoping Stardock moves to SDC when the exclusivity period is up so I can ignore Impulse in the future- it's just becoming a waste of time.

There's been a lot more info on FE lately- has made me think that we're starting to get closer. I'm also thinking the AI work in WOM will help with FE some.

I'd settle for a good siege system. If you're walled in your town, you should be able to refuse combat until the siegers break though, or the sieging units should have a penalty abstracted for breaking through (HP loss)

It's WAD I believe, not a bug, unless you can use it for healing purposes.

[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="7" id="2957265"]Who says we don't? [/quote] I so miss the wired version of that trackball. They discontinued it. I hope my last one doesn't break. If I had known it was going to be discontinued last year I would have bought 8 of them.

[quote who="jecjackal" reply="58" id="2956844"] Quoting Ploeperpengel, reply 57I'm all excited about the new unitdesignoptions but really you guys must stop using male armor pieces on females - that just looks odd. I know this is ressourceheavy to have two graphical representations for each piece of armor but is there a chance for that? Please? Edit: if not - maybe a gender switch in the armor related xml so that proper female armor accessoires could be e

That might be more difficult then it sounds, and might be a waste of resources that are being spent on FE. Also, while SD is giving away copies of FE to the WOM folks, they do want to sell some copies of FE but not giving away FE features on WOM. WOM will likely go to bargain bin prices once FE is out.

I'd say 2E could work, if combined with an efficiency penalty reduction for higher level cities, and higher level buildings that aren't inefficient. fact is: you're going to have spam no matter what, even Civ has building spam to a degree. The only other option would be to make pioneers cost food again if spammed over a certain amount, and pioneers costing food is unpopular. Or a "food" efficiency penalty based on number of cit

The tech is still in the civ tree. At least on the Empire side of things.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="17" id="2954317"] Quoting scifi1950, reply 14Agree with both Murteas and jecjackal, forcing us to make choices about which champions to keep instead of just hiring everyone that comes along because I've got too much money & nothing to spend it on sounds like a good thing strategy wise. Also want to add my vote to fixing training time. Question: Are you using the player lag as a way to make the AI tougher, i.e. they get traini

Maybe have int be a cap on the amount of MP a unit can spend in tactical spellcasting again, and make tactical spellcasting free. I prefer the pre 1.10 system of magic for tactical, and post 1.10 for strategic. (1.10 was when it was changed I think) That would also massively help the AI , as they'd be able to use tactical spells again.

Neat. I'd like to see a few wandering sorts around still though. Also, one other thing. I really can't see players keeping their sovereign in the city initially. It's more fun to explore. I think people always will choose the fun option , especially since when it goes bad you just save and reload. ^_^

On #2 I think the best solution would be to make more buildings that have higher level requirements. The City level mechanic would be a more elegant solution, and creating new building shouldn't be too hard, just art assets+ xml I think. That does move it to spam at higher levels though, so it's not a perfect solution. Have these buildings require some higher level Civ tech. Another thing is some of the really

The real issue is that players are compelled to spam one type of building (studies) , because the effective value of the buildings aren't equivalent at all. Maybe the problem is that instead of increased costs, you should be getting diminishing marginal returns per building in city, until you build a high-level building that reducess those diminshing marginal returns on a per-city basis, or gives you a second building to spam. The capturing issue is r

One idea Put a hard limit on buildings of the same type equal, with the exception of housing, at 1 per city level. Have techs give a second building that requires a lvl 3 city, so schools would give +1 tech, +10% research but you can build 3 of them in a lvl 3. This would force a tech choice. Maybe reduce the rate tech costs expand since research amounts will be lower initially There's also a side problem from the exploding specialist c