[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="4" id="2661739"] The quest journal definitely should be modeled after a traditional RPG method. You have "Active quests" and "Completed Quests". The way King's Bounty: The Legend and Armored Princess handles quests was nice, as you knew the status of all quests and what you need for advancing in your quests. [/quote] True, I liked the way King's Bounty implemented the quest journal!
The quest journal definitely should be modeled after a traditional RPG method. You have "Active quests" and "Completed Quests". Selecting a quest in either expands to show the quest dialogue and is also able to take you to the required quest location, all the basic stuff nececssary to keep track of quests when you've gotten a bunch.
[quote]Considering the previous games from Blizzard have all ended on a thematic conclusion with enough lose ends to link into the next title, I suspect we'll see something along these lines. The Terrain campaign will lead to the events of the Zerg campaign, for example. However, since it's being designed as a single story, told from the shifting perspectives, not purchasing the Zerg campaign would be essentially the same as skipping The Two Towers in Lord of the Rings trilogy, however in thi
I'm pretty sure at this point the release is locked and they can't delay it. To be honest I'm not worried about content as much as I am with overall polish. This may be a personal thing, but when I look at the UI in the latest HOMM and then at the UI in King's Bounty, I'd say a lot more care went into making the King's Bounty UI good and pleasant to look at. By contrast, HOMM's is functional and that's about all you can say for it. The same is currently true with Elemental. It gets th
As far as we know, in tactical battles each individual soldier will be represented. Frogboy specifically said in some of the earlier journals introducing tactical combat that he didn't want to see a knight with a number below it showing how many units of knights there actually were :P
The best way I can think of to limit the "Well, just get every city to level 5" thing is to not have a reason to get every city to 5. For example, let's say with a level 3 city you can build every economic building that can be built. With levels 4 and 5, you can build advanced and very expensive "tech" structures that don't add anything to your economy, and instead allow you to build more advanced units empire wide, or let you research spells, etc. This would of course mean that you migh
[quote]although it would be incredibly awesome to take Elemental pictures at a missile site[/quote] "Buy Elemental, or we'll turn your house into a fancy crater"?
Generally you throw the coupon on your entire order, but I can't say for sure in this case. I'm pretty sure you can apply the coupon and see your new total before submitting the order, so you could pretty easily check :)
I think he gets the idea, guys :P Poor forums.
[quote]-When will the next beta start?[/quote] We don't have an estimate yet, but probably not for a few weeks. We're currently on 2A, with 2B coming up, and 3 after that which is when you'll be able to get in. [quote] -Once it does, where and how do i download the game? (I'm new to this digital purchase), I'm a bit paranoid that i will not be able to download it correctly (Had previous bad experiences with online purchases in Amazon...)[/quote] You'll get anot
Yeah, even after a few days from a new build the vast majority of the easy to find stuff (which would be the first thing new people find) is already reported :P
[quote who="much2much" reply="15" id="2660982"]Stardock here is your chance to not be like other developers... [/quote] You mean by actually making their betas matter and incorporating a lot of user feedback into the game? Oh, wait..
Yeah, to be honest I'm really unsure why they changed from that to what we have. Our current one is a bit smaller, but it feels less polished.
They're making a HUD that will be able to tell you at a glance some basic info on units/cities. I believe Frogboy said they're purposely staying away from banners, though.
Starcraft 1 had 3 campaigns with 10 generic missions each. Starcraft 2 has 29 total missions (not all required to finish), with in-between mission features (research, upgrades, etc). It essentially has more content than Starcraft 1, which had 3 campaigns to Starcraft 2's one. Sure you don't get to play Zerg and Protoss stories, but purely content wise they're very comparable. It's not like you're getting a third of the game for full price. Regarding Battle.net 2.0, i
[quote]If kingdom A is twice as big and has twice the economy of kingdom B, it will (roughly) be able to support twice as big an army as kingdom B.[/quote] But this goes on the assumption that the upkeep cost of an army is a linear progression, which doesn't sound like what Frogboy intends with his idea. If it is strictly linear such that a kingdom 2x the size can afford an army 2x the size, I agree with you - but that's not the impression I got from the admittedly brief pitch of the
What exactly did you kill? :P
[quote] I mean, are you seriously suggesting that Warhammer would have been better off portraying a "unicorns 'n orcs" fantasy world?[/quote] Those Chaos Unicorns would be scary, man. It sounds like endofdayz is upset that Elemental is not going to be a generic fantasy high-magic world like D&D with things like room-sized gellatenous cubes and floating eyeballs with death rays. But it was never hyped or marketed to be that. They've said from the very beginning that we'll b
[quote who="SpardaSon21" reply="22" id="2660207"] Got three. First Link Second Link Third Link So yeah, a guy named Thomas Tippl is now the COO of Blizzard and head of the "Blizzard Business Unit", and he reports straight to Kotick. [/quote] Firstly, Tippl is not the COO of Blizzard. He's the COO of Activision-Blizzard, the parent company post-merger. From first sentence of link 2: [quote]Acitvision chief
[quote]But then smaller kingdoms still wouldn't be able to keep up with bigger ones. Because smaller kingdom will usually mean smaller economy, and therefore less gold and less research. I'm not saying the larger kingdoms shouldn't have an advantage, but this 'double win' could easily unbalance the game.[/quote] How do you think it as a double win? If the army size was a linear progression, then the large kingdom's economies of scale would outgrow the upkeep demand of their incre
Yeah, I saw that thread. Of course Blizzard kinda had to since Korea is where the bulk of the pro-gamer e-sports thing happens, so they sort of have to make sure their game can actually be sold there and not banned. They probably wouldn't have changed the terms if it was one of the leagues complaining, but who knows. For other countries? It probably largely depends on the consequences of not changing it. Germany for example also has a very large portion of RTS players, and if its agency that
Link?
There's no real reason for building towards a resource that's more than maybe 2 tiles or so away, since you'll be allowed to place an "outside the walls" resource building there when your town grows.
It's weird, but I think it was done because people playing smaller maps would never get a chance to deal with the Dynasty system. On the one hand you could say "Well of course, they're playing short games", but I generally have the opinion that all core features should be available for all ways of play. If someone only likes shorter games on smaller maps, there's no real reason why they shouldn't be able to dabble with the Dynasty system. Gameplay trumps realism in this case, I think.</p
This isn't actually a bug though, but by design. If you take a look at the Neoseeker interview (there's a threat with a link on the front page), Frogboy actually mentions this specific thing.