[quote who="Kuloth" reply="6" id="2078138"]omg those graphics are AWFUL, I hope they're not the final version! Sorry, had to be done cheers, Kul PS that post is totally 40% update 60% teaser [/quote] 5% update, 95% teaser.
Hooray an update! It seems like from what I have heard EWOM will be a little bit Total War, a little bit Master of Magic, A little bit Spore, and a little bit something completely different. It does seem a little bit different that trade kinda happens on its own - does that mean that traders could independently be trading goods from my kingdom with an enemy? Will caravans obey embargoes or will they still sell to your opponent thru a balck market? And are we still on t
I would say knowing how far someone is along on their quest victory condition (or any other victory condition) should depend on how infiltrated into their government your spy network is. I do not think that you should automatically get a warning that another player is about to win "just because". That would just encourage all the other players to dogpile on the player about to win, which personally I think is lame. I tend to not be much of an infiltrator, because I would rather
I am pretty sure I am human, because an AI would not be this impatient for the NEXT UPDATE FROM FROGBOY! [e digicons]:frogboy:[/e] tap, tap.
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="3" id="2067773"]... but even more, I'd like to see a good chunk of basic info on the current plan(s) for the magic system....[/quote] Hear, hear. We haven't heard from Frogboy in a couple weeks ([e digicons]:frogboy:[/e] ), and getting some info of the basic rules that magic is going to work by, and how magic research is going to work (will there be spells that require multiple schools, etc) I think at this point is probably what we are most excited to
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="16" id="2067749"]Yeah, I only played through the tutorial, which was "blow crap up" Gonna give the two battles a whirl later tonight. [/quote] Sorry, my previous reply was supposed to include this quote.
The second half of the naval tutorial was to capture the second ship, not sink it. I hadn't even been watching for this game but it seems like it plays an AWFUL lot like EWOM is going to.
Yes GW in fact as we were discussing this I could not help but think of the player database that Everquest 2 maintains. I mean you can see who has had the top 100 magical hits, top 100 melee hits, who has the most in game wealth, who has the most status, how has the best kill to death ratio, who has died the most, who has died the least, who has created the most tradeskill items for crying out loud! and about 30 other things and you can search either globally or by server. So
[quote who="Luckmann" reply="11" id="2064792"] ... And making the entire game optional is a can of worms I really should get around to create a thread about. Both things - "optionals" and the AI cheating are unnecessary crutches and excuses to avoid taking responsability . The "I SAID OPTIONAL!" claim is not a valid defense. ... [/quote] [quote who="Luckmann" reply="14" id="2065296"] Edit: And I never called
[quote who="Luckmann" reply="11" id="2064792"] You know all the pieces at once, you know the positions, what's in play is finite. In a TBS, you can't think 8 turns ahead of time in the same manner (nor do you always have to). [/quote] I would say this argument proves why a good AI (for a TBS) is MORE difficult to program. In chess, as you say, there are a limited number of moves, it is not that hard for the AI to look ahead at all possible moves for the
Well I guess it depends on the discipline of the developers. I think everyone, and particularly Stardock, is VERY committed to making the best AI possible that can win "fair and square". And with RTS that is even fairly doable just due to the AI to be doing a thousand things at once but still play within the rules. In a turn based strategy game, it is incredibly tough to make a non-cheating AI that can beat top human players. It's ability to do a thousand things at once is to some deg
I played some game (one of the early Civs?) where when a Supreme Leader was selected you could either accept it or reject it. If you rejected it ALL of the other civs attacked you. If you could beat them all then you still won the game. If not, you lost. That seems like a reasonable way of dealing with it.
I disagree, Luck, If you only want to play at the highest degree of difficulty WITHOUT cheats for the AI, I agree that should be an option. SO they should make it clear at what levels of difficulty the AI starts getting cheats and what those cheats are. However, there are some players (my son for instance) that there are some games that he can beat the game even with the game getting double production bonuses and other penalties for himself. In a perfect world, a GOD AI could be creat
Luck always plays a factor - even if it is that you make a lucky guess as to what your opponent is up to. Luck should never be so dominant that a poor player beats a skilled player.
Oh I agree completely. The AI need to come in different flavors, and maybe even have a somewhat schizo personality that might behave one way and then change personality types throughout the game. There should be honorable AI that once you have made an agreement with them, their word is their bond - but also if you break your word to them this personality type would be very vengeful. Or a doublecrosser that always did what was best for itself and would break a promise in a heartbeat. The AI's
I was just thinking about various difficulty settings in games like GalCiv2, and how they are usually scaled against some nebulous "average" gamer out there. Wouldn't it be cool to tailor the difficulty settings to each player? Keep a profile of each human playing the game (on the local computer) so when you ask for an "normal" difficulty game the AI would adjust the AI to give YOU fairly challenging but beatable opponents? Maybe even advance YOU in rank over multiple games as yo
I really liked how MoM did it. Based on how much knowledge you had at the start of the game in a given spell school you were able to preselect a certain number of spells from various tiers that you definielty would be able to research eventually, and you were also given a certain number of spells in each tier of that school that you did not know in advance what you would get. I like the mix of having a certain degree of control but also a large degree of random factors.
[quote who="Aeon" reply="12" id="2054090"] Quoting Ynglaur, reply 11 I understand if Stardock doesn't want Elves and Dwarves because they don't want to go down the classic high-fantasy route. However, it'd be nice if the world building tools allowed the creation of new races. I assume that would require adding artwork and 3-d models, but it'd still be cool. From here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/338042 T
[quote who="Sarcerok" reply="17" id="2053125"]Greatest Hope: That Stardock will continue making great turn-based games that lead to continued growth in their company while larger companies just keep churning out the same graphics-based drool that insults the intelligence of their presumed not very sophisticated audience. Market forces continue to see large non-innovative companies like EA and Activision lose market share and smart efficient players like Stardock and 1C continue to see growth.
Thanks Frogboy! I think it looks great! Enough eye-candy, tell us about the Magic System! [e digicons]XO[/e]
[quote who="CapnWinky" reply="2" id="2050452"]@ Land....I didnt know they were talking about explorable "inside" areas!!! How cool is that? Just another awesome thing this game is promising us! [/quote] How cool would it be to be crawling a dungeon and run into your opponents (AI or human) in there looking for the same artifact you are! Battles in dungeons!
[quote who="cleflar" reply="12" id="2050542"]Good point on Stars!, GreatVolk. That was one of my most played ever and was wonderful multiplayer. Greatest fear: Unavoidable end game story line. For example, if there are 'world ending' spells which can eventually be researched then the game is forced to end when someone does the research and casts them. I would like the game to at least have the option of being a never ending story. Greatest Hope:&n
For me the biggest fear is that it is going to feel like GalCiv but with different graphics. Don't get me wrong, I love Gal Civ, I just don't want two copies. [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e] My biggest hope is that it feels like I am playing an upgraded version of Master of Magic, I hope this game is truly the "spiritual successor" of MoM! [e digicons]:')[/e]
This reminds me of the forum battles we used to have during the development of the MMORPG Vanguard. Some people (including the developer) wanted a hardcore MMO ala Everquest 1. In fact, the developer of Vanguard was the lead designer of EQ1. He said he had plenty of money and jsut wanted to make the hardcore game that he wanted to play, and if he got a couple hundred thousand subscribers he would consider it a win. I am not going to go into the sad story of how Microsoft got their paw
I would like to amend my previous post on this topic - I do think the opposing wizards meeting under a flag of truce to try to avert an upcoming disastrous random event would make a lot of sense.