NTJedi

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="7" id="2080541"] I don't see why any experimental new feature that Stardock might want to try out should be made optional in the beta. The point of the beta is for Stardock to get players to test what Stardock wants us to test. Really if you want my opinion there should be as few options in the beta as possible (while there should be lots in final release), that way Stardock can keep the feedback as focused as possible to the major things they'

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="5" id="2080183"] This game will have a beta test, and if a feature they try out fails, no biggy. Either they fix it or remove it and no one dies. The finished product should never be used to test out or trial run features - that's why betas exist. If Stardock implements a trade system like the one I've been proposing, and in the beta process it becomes clear that it isn't going to really work, it can still be fixed or removed. [/quote]<b

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="5" id="2079272"] Oops, guess we should take out channelers. And essence. And individual units capable of wasting entire armies. And a rethought 4X economy model. And fully customizable units. And a physics engine. Wow the list just goes on of brand new untested features and mechanics planned for this game. They should just drop them all and replace them with the same old tried and true stale ideas. So set it up so that you are

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="3" id="2079251"] Um, airplanes are designed with brand new engine designs all the time (well, not all the time - new planes aren't designed all the time). If no one ever built a new plane with a new engine, we'd be stuck with WWI era planes. The point is they are tested until they are determined to be good and safe and efficient. Yes, have a major feature of a game be revolutionary, something that's never been done before, is like making a new

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="25" id="2079037"] And secondly, the trade system I'd like to see is a sort of fusion between NTJedi's 2 and 3. A caravan-based foreign trade system controlled by a 3rd party merchant's guild. [/quote] I'm strongly against the idea of having all trade between players exist within caravans moving on the map due to the following problems: 1) There's way too many possibilities for exploits, bugs, abuses, cheats, etc

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="1" id="2078996"] Not doing something because people might find exploits or cheats is THE WORST reason ever. Seriously. The trick is to find potential exploits and address them, and not to put in cheats that can be used if cheats are disabled. If you scrap every idea that could be exploited, don't try to make a game - you'll end up with a blank screen. [/quote] Having something completely new for a critical piece of any game such as trad

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="20" id="2078884"]I am (and I'd say it is reasonable to say that others are as well) curious about foriegn trade. How will that be handled? Will it be done primarily using the same caravan system that characterizes internal trade, or will it be exclusively bilateral party to party trade through negotiation (a la Dominions 3)? Just curious, because while much has been made of domestic trade and how that will be handled, next to nothing has b

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="24" id="2078588"] Also, perhaps more importantly, you are chronically ignoring that all my suggestions have included some mechanism to make disrupting other people's trade have severe consequences. Blocking/stealing someone else's trade should be a very major decision, one that you will have to pay for in some way. [/quote] As I wrote earlier the disrupting of trade can be done indirectly via independents. And people are b

I hope some internal testing is done on large maps even before the beta arrives. Problems can be easier to identify on the XL maps during late game as compared with TINY maps. I hope the game will also include some fun optional features where we can adjust the percentage of activity such as:</spa

[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="20" id="2077562"] I guess it does, at that. I hated corruption in Civ 4. But there is one major difference - in my proposal you can actually compensate for the 'penalty' if you want. It'll cost you, but in the end what you gain by spending to make your lands safe for trade might more than make up for it. [/quote] I recall CIV_4 had options for changing your government for removing and reducing corruption, but there was a cost here too.

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="19" id="2077525"]Personally I don't see having a player surrounded by another player only being able to trade through that territory as a problem. That is what happens in such situations, today just as much as in the past. And insofar as trade, I was recommending a situation where trade largely happens on its own between centers of production and population. As a ruler of an empire your contribution to anything other than specific intersta

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="18" id="2077484"] NTJEDI QUOTE:Nearby themselves because they're large?? The more space someone takes on a map the more likely they will be next to multiple players. ah, you're looking at the boarder of the nation. I'm just talking on a per-city basis. Only the boarders of the nation would be next to another nation, and likely it would only be one or two. &nbs

[quote who="Nights Edge" reply="15" id="2077329"]"Sometimes a player finds an item which is beyond his capability to utilize its power yet" I may have misunderstood, but if you are suggesting a MMORPG-style level requirement for items then I have to say I don't think I'd like that in this sort of game. I don't like the arbitrariness of such restrictions anyway. Other parts of the suggestion look very interesting though. [/quote] Not a MMORPG... fo

PidgeonX2... The internal banditry you mention sounds like another type of corruption as we saw from the corruption within CIV_4. The foreign trade could be introduced and work... hopefully the game will have that many types of resources available for trading and the ability to create new resources. I see lots of players i

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="12" id="2077234"]I agree with Iwarmonger, depending on how you set it up, the larger empire won't have anybody nearby to trade because they will be nearby to themselves. So a town surrounded on all sides by other nations will get better trade than a town surrounded on all sides by the same nation. Also a larger country that has 1 side of its boarder blockaded (or whatever will stop a trade route) something like 5 cities will be prevented&n

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="10" id="2077088"] I disagree. A larger empire would be proportionately more difficult to protect than a weaker empire (thus making commerce raiding and banditry a way to catch up for smaller nations), while at the same time the larger nation steals large amounts of trade from itself (by building up infrastructure and businesses in one area it steals away trade from neighboring locales... who also happen to be a part of the large empir

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="8" id="2076989"]I have to agree that trade routes should be the way to go. Possibly not even set up by the player (trade tended to go where the infrastructure and terms were best). So if you tax the trade coming through your territory too heavily you will find it elsewhere. Or if pirates stick around outside your ports looting ships and you do nothing about it, merchants will cease to come. Trade, for the most part, should be independent

[quote who="CapnWinky" reply="1" id="2076230"]The "Load" button? [/quote] I advise not changing the course of a games history in your favor because that's a huge unfair advantage. I won't go into detail and this topic has been previously discussed within another thread so let's not throw this topic off course with responses. I just wanted to comment on a personal experience where I had the option to quit a game I was losing, yet I chose to keep playing. It was

[quote quoting="post"]It will be interesting to see what mechanisms are in place to help a player that gets behind. It isn't very fun to know that you are out of it because you lose a big battle or key resource. Anyone know what is planned to give a player that is behind a fighting chance? [/quote] Well one multiplayer option would be to the option to disable the graphs progress bars. Within Dominions_3 you have the option to enable or disable graphs which

Here's a list of ideas for improving the trading within Elemental: 1) I've recognized most TBS games involving trading of item(s), service(s), resource(s) and/or location(s) between players can become slow or time consuming. Especially for a game with 30+ players. </

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="21" id="2074008"] I don't think these 'tags' are going to exist. I imagine if they don't then will be messy with a bunch of tags I'd imagine. Stardock really sounds to me like they don't want such labels. [/quote] As I wrote earlier... it would be the easiest way to create spells, items, terrain, etc, which provide benefits and disadvantages to units. Sammual provided a perfect example, simple to understand, w

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="19" id="2073895"] Yeah, thats already been confirmed. We will be able to create entirely new units [/quote] Well I know we can create new units, but can we create new unit tags... I should have been more specific. For example let's say the default game only has a Giant Spider and a Mutated Scorpion as insects which fall into the Beast unit tag. I pray we can create a new unit tag called Insects&n

Yes, the default game should have dragons as very rare. It should still be possible for a map maker to create a custom map where a channeller who's a father of wyverns could battle another channeller who's a father of dragons. I really hope we're not limited to only 4 types of units in a world of magic... and if that is true then I PRAY we have the option to add new types of units as w

Thanks Sammual that's a great spell example and hopefully we'll be able to create spells which can have multiple effects/uses. Whether its from any of the fantasy TBS games such as the Heroes series or Age_of_Wonders series or even the Domini

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="8" id="2070835"] Unit features and unit tags are two completely different categories Well, my point was I didn't think that Elemental:WoM was moving in a direction where such tags would be good to have. I feel like it takes away from what has been mentioned in the developer journals about unit creation. Creating catigories limits the number of ways you create units, even if you get to make more catigories. &nbsp