Luckmann

[quote who="xthetenth" reply="5" id="1938832"] Wheras these fallen, in the world of Elemental, sounds more like Ascended beings, superior to the average mortals they share the world with. I think it's because they're called that from the human perspective. Also, why do I think I know what race you're playing? I see them as a necromantic/undead faction, and am not really sure enough in my conception to make a comparison.[/quote]Oh, no. I'm almost certainly playing Human.

[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="5" id="1931208"]It was indeed too powerful. Those beasts should have a big big big upkeep (mana and/orgold/any currency ( like sanity? ) that can be in) When you got a worm you were almost indestructible. They ate five or six heroes for their lunch.[/quote]I LOVE that idea. How about summonable creatures, limited to the Channeler's sanity rating? Research or Channeler levels could increase the

[quote who="McFungos" reply="7" id="1938447"]@Luckmann The UI always offer you to apply or not a Doctrine. You can always refuse it. [...] [/quote]I know. You mentioned it in the first post.

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="2" id="1938282"]Sanity is relative. We should call them "rationally challenged."[/quote]To me it sounds like they're nothing but rational, to the extreme. Why are they called "The Fallen", anyway? Fallen is usually a derogatory term associated with degeneration or devolution of one form or another. Wheras these fallen, in the world of Elemental, sounds more like Ascended beings, superior to the average mortals they share the world with. &nb

[quote who="McCracken76" reply="15" id="1938349"] "That's right, Norgoth, Terror of the East gets lonely...*depressed sigh*" Norgoth's troubles aside, what really catches my attention is this; "There are other creatures in the world (lots of different types) that you can make use of either in terms of domestication or easier to recruit." Domestication, eh? I certainly that applies to more than just horses. I'd love to outfi

[quote who="RisingLegend" reply="3" id="1938294"] I don't think the city just rises out of the ground because of a spell, I think the settlers still build it like in Civilization, but you have to imbue the land with power to make it "habitable" again after the cataclysm . At least this is what I have mustered from it all. I actually agree with you both, thinking that your idea is a neat one, Polistes but considering it is turn based and not an RTS I would ha

[quote who="Polistes" reply="16" id="1938190"] [...] As long as I can lead an army of animals I would be happy LOL Dragons dont need to be included Though giant spiders, scorpions, centipedes would be just awesome![/quote]I couldn't agree more. While I'm not a fan of having random animals suddently deciding to join armies, I'd really like there to be some way, through magic or magical technology, to field animals that are befitting my armies.

It -was- mentioned somewhere that from the start, you'll be absolutely dependant on your Channeler. All land is devestated, and even to build your first settlement, you'll have to cleanse/imbue that piece of land. I'm not sure wheter or not you start with any settlers or such, though. I'm not sure I like the prospect of having to find a settlement, because depending on your luck, it could take many turns before you actually get to start to play the actual game. This could be a decidin

I do hope that there's nothing like this, since it sorta adheres to the "puppy-kicking"-evil dichotomy. Just because I'm "evil" doesn't mean that I don't value nature, for example. Just because I think that all humans should be murdered in violent ways, reanimated as undead to work in my mines, and then be tortured to RE-death, doesn't mean that I don't have a soft spot for cuddly rabbits. Especially since I enjoy playing what's generally percieved as "evil", but try to keep e

[quote who="goodgimp" reply="5" id="1933633"]Brad stated on another site that there are 2 Races but 12 playable factions among those races. Each faction will have it's own unique tech tree and spellbook.[/quote]Oh, I must've missed "unique tech tree and spellbook", that's bloody excellent! Where was it mentioned? [e digicons]:drool:[/e] Edit: Nevermind, I found it . It was apparently mentioned earlier in

[quote who="RisingLegend" reply="11" id="1937834"]Oh I see, Luckmann, stealing my profile pic idea, well... this shall not be tolerated, channeler! War against you and your people. You will rue the day you ever challenged Ragnarok and mine's might. We shall barrel down upon your cities, crush your people and their wills, and turn your land into the ash from which you raised it! For I am the Rising Legend, born of the Earth, Sea and Air, to do the will of the gods... Upon my dr

Extensive Channeler customization or choices (á lá Dominions 3). And a lot more that I can't think of right now.

[quote who="lwarmonger" reply="22" id="1938155"]Isn't that the way it worked in Galciv 2? I've been playing a game over the past few days, and the more advanced my weapons get the smaller and more powerful they become. I don't see how advancing tech wise in galciv is bad for you in any way when it comes to your weaponry.[/quote] https://www.galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Ship_design_strategies#Further_analysis_of_weapons The problems I mention is mostly a function of s

A variety of ridables , and not just the average horse (which would be there, of course). They would all come with their distinct advantages (and disadvantages). Depending on what resource(s) you find in the start of the game, this could have far-reaching consequences. Imagine having Paladins, just like the traditional paladins of fantasy, riding bears or chickens, without it being in the least bit strange. Ridable bears, and as a consequence; Bear Paladins . R

Wait, didn't we briefly discuss this on the IRC today? I'm just going to say that I do like the idea of player-influenced "civics" (or Doctrines, whatever we choose to call them) but I just don't see them being realized properly. I hate to be the nay-sayer, but I just don't want to wake up one day in the game, and wonder "Why the hell am I set to "Giant Space Hamster Doctrines" ? I'm very much more in favour of a Civ4/SMAC/X-approach, where I choose my civics as I see

I've only got one thing to say on this subject. Please, oh please, please dear god, please don't do it like in GalCiv2. When I research "HaxxOr Weapon 18" I want it to under all circumstances (except, arguably, expense/cost) be better than "HaxxOr Weapon 17" or "HaxxOr Weapon 15". Some would argue that the way it works in GalCiv2 is "intricate" or "advance", but when I have to look up weapon efficiency on a chart; my fun ends right there and then.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="2" id="1937531"]In Elemental, dragons are a very very big deal. For most players, they're more like forces of nature. You won't be easily able to get them on your side because they're just too powerful. 1 Elder dragon could wipe out 1000 soldiers easily. Until you've built up your charisma/diplomacy skills, best to stay the heck away from a dragon. There are other creatures in the world (lots of different types) that you can make u

I don't usually like custom smilies, but when they are all consistant across an entire site, they can be great. In this case, they're bloody awesome! [e digicons]|-)[/e] (and yes, I did this post solely to try out my new avatar)

I don't really have much to add, except repeat some of the things I think is a must: Dragon-pimping. Upgrading your new dragon ally/pet. Wheter it's plating it in adamantium or adding serrated blades to the wings, tail(s) or claws. Dragon-riding. The chance to ride the dragon, either as your own (the Channeler's) or as a minion ("granting" the dragon to heroes). This'd work like pimping out the heroe(s) or channeler, granting abilities (dragon breath?),

Oh, I'm definately in favour of the SMAC research model. Given that Magic Research and Tech Research are two different things altogether, maybe one of them could be SMAC-like and the other CIV/GalCiv-like?

I haven't Pre-Ordered yet, but as beta gets closer I'll take the time. So I'm here for the long haul. :)

I think the maps should be donut-shaped.

I'm still hoping that "I" don't have to be in the game at all. But I'm all for RPG elements, I'm just saying that whomever "I" am, "I" won't be in the game. :p

Oh, that's how it's going to work? :( I was really hoping for the "Wizard" to be "You". As in, the guy that is sitting somewhere, controlling everything through a crystal-ball or something. No in-game representation, short of casting world-spells. :o

[quote who="mittens" reply="6" id="1926236"]The developers are typically in the channel a great deal. A number of us are already on IRC anyway, so one channel certainly doesn't hurt. Your best bet for a lively discussion is probably "business hours" (which for a number of developers is around 9am-6pm).[/quote]Oi! Shouldn't you be WORKING on business hours? :D