[quote who="Wintersong" reply="2" id="2772429"] Master of Magic is the best game ever. The above statement is fact, not opinion. It's an opinion.[/quote] When factoring in the manner in which it was stated, the technicality becomes irrelevant. What actually happens is that a new and parallel world is instantiated upon completion of that statement, wherein Master of Magic is indeed the best game ever. I travel there often.
I asked at GAME today and was told that they have 30th September as their release date on the system. I put $10 down on the pre-order which I'll now use as store credit, as I just purchased the LE version on Impulse. That makes this purchase $50 dearer than it would have been. Oh well.. [e digicons]^_^[/e]
Please make a Lord of Sorcery Mod. All the specifications for this mod are available in great detail if you just find a synonym for Lord and then a synonym for Sorcery. [e digicons]:P[/e]
[quote who="IronKaiser" reply="3" id="2767997"]I like this idea. One thing that everyone seems to agree on is the fact that the AI nations need more personality, and this would be one way to give it to them. My only question is this: how exactly would "calmed" and "suspicious" and etc. affect the game? Other than the conversation itself, it seems that the only thing the attitude results would do is change your diplomatic standing with the other nation, which I don't think is significant enoug
I like this idea. The global and combat mana are separated as in MoM, which I think works well. The combat mana regeneration sounds like a good improvement, as it would give you the flexibility to design a unit that shouldn't ever have to rely on physical prowess. [e digicons]k1[/e]
I don't think this would be a difficult thing to implement even at this stage, though I could be wrong. I just think it would make the game feel more real.
I like the one-on-one duel option between sovereigns. It's an all or nothing gambit, high risk high reward. Makes things interesting, but I think there should also be the option for Sovereigns to elect champions to fight on their behalf for these one-on-ones. As far as Diplomacy goes, I had another idea that got lost in the swarm of the Elemental Army point-grabbing rush. It was about having RPG-like conversations between sovereigns that were more than one comment deep.
I personally don't mind the limit. I think in MoM it was something like 9 units. I think that a smaller limit provides for better strategising in manually fought battles, and less tedium in trying to assign commands to a large number of units per turn, per battle. It just means you have to think about your unit grouping. I think the only strategy this really disallows is battle swarming. That is, a player with high economy but weak military, mass manufacturing cheapy units to
I like this idea. I think it would help with the balancing side too. I disagree with some of the accuracy stats and the ammunition though. I think all bows should have the same base accuracy, unless it's something like a 'Superior Bow'. Also, I can't see why a shortbow user would have less ammunition than a greatbow user.
[e digicons]k1[/e] Thank you for that. That would give them around 4 days to make good. I don't mind too much, it will give the game a chance to have some more patching done. Cheers.
Do we have anything more solid than just 'Sometime in September'?
[quote who="seanw3" reply="20" id="2763214"]So if polls only represent a certain percentage of a specific type of user, they should put a small team together to figure out how much that group represents the feelings of the whole community.[/quote] Well, not exactly. As far as I understand it, the polls offer a statistic based on a sample of the total population of a set. In this instance, the set is all those people with a vested interest in EWoM (i.e. anyone who has bought or will co
@Tempestwrath Sorry if it sounded like I took your opinion as an attack or something, it wasn't the tone I intended to convey. Again, I'm pretty much in agreement with all that you've said, but I do have one thing I'd like to point out. Regarding who is likely to vote in the polls, these things are only ever going to be a sample of the total population of invested people. From those people who tend to be more vocal, there are plenty who are for and against any given it
[quote who="Tempestwrath" reply="16" id="2763006"] We don't need a poll. Let Stardock do their jobs. And if you aren't satisfied with their design vision or the job they do, there are plenty of other developers willing and happy to sell games to you in the future.[/quote] The fact is, Stardock staff members read through the forums and examine ideas and suggestions, and even go so far as to tally up how many mentions of a particular idea or bug have been made so far t
Given some of these responses, I'm not sure we should have these polls anymore. I've also become reluctant to consider whether we should have a poll on whether or not to conduct these polls. If only there were some way to gauge the community's opinion on poll polling...... [e digicons]:P[/e]
[quote who="Lfseeney" reply="7" id="2762810"]I think the DEVS have a lot on their plates atm. Lets give them a break from the attack of the Zombie Game Designers. We mean well for the most part, and they have our ideas, now it is time for them to decide, not us, where it goes from here. .... [/quote] You're preaching to the choir here. I have noticed a lot of that lately and am of the same opinion. As for the polls, I consider them a useful tool for d
[quote who="Twohawks" reply="3" id="2762762"]dear lord no do not use polls to decide what to focus on... Polls only represent those that bother to take them..[/quote] At the end of the day, the devs are going to do what the devs are going to do, sometimes even if the outcome of a poll shows that the majority are against it. The votes give an indication to be taken under consideration, but not as the only factor in making the decisions. A poll is like any election, so w
[quote who="empire2008" reply="1" id="2762750"]you guys wanna poll this to death .. there are about three active polls with this one [/quote] Lol, you're right. But I think it would be more useful if the choice was between what the devs are actually willing to do.
I have been out of it for a while, but I have noticed that there are a number of issues in strong contention among the community here regarding the direction of some game systems and features, i.e. MP, Tactical Combat, Race & Spell Book Distinctions, Unit abilities, etc. To help get the game moving forward in a way that the community might support, can we possibly get a set of polls for the most discussed or controversial issues to save the devs the time and effort it takes to sco
Given the recent reactions to dev posts as an example, I think that a less than solid MP release will only give many people more to complain about. Personally I'm fine with trying it out and watching it improve, but I can't speak for anyone else. Then again, I have no idea how solid or problematic the MP would be if released soon, so it could be that it works about as well as the single player currently does, meaning that it doesn't introduce new major problems.
Just adding my vote that the combat system would be improved by having both to-hit/attack as well as damage, as seperate stats. Also wondering if this is something modifiable by the community. Maybe just take MoM as an example for unit and tactic diversity and build on that? I'd be very excited if we were taking a page from that book. Here's hoping.
@Nick Danger. I think most of what you said there is quite fair. I do disagree on one technicality and two small points. Firstly, while people are responsible for trying to manage how they are affected, there are still causes for these effects, and other people to whom responsibility still applies. i.e. said management would be less of a concern without the causes. Like you and your father, I don't expect everything I wish for, but I will still make an effort to put a
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="92" id="2759541"] Pretend this is twitter, and we can both limit ourselves to twitter-sized posts, starting with my first point, then if necessary, for my second. I'll start: My first point is: I think your concern regarding SDers allowing unhelpful criticism to adversely affect their work is so unlikely that it's not even worth considering. My second point is that if it is worth considering, you'd be better off addressi
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="90" id="2759319"] Quoting Istari, reply 89Again, I said that some of them may or may not... I took your statement "The negativity of these complaints can contribute to a decrease in the morale of the community and the development team, and may encourage others to post similar fruitless comments." -- which your above quote acknowledges that it means that you think it's possible the SDers might allow unhelpful criticisms to adversely affect their
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="88" id="2758680"] Quoting Istari, reply 86Again, I never said that they cannot be affected by all the negative comments.Can they or can't they? It's a simple yes/no question. Not "can" in the theoretical sense, but "can" in the actual sense. In your opinion, is it actually possible -- is there some even remotely likely chance -- that the sd team might let their work actually be adversely affected by unhelpful comments