So, there's a lot of improvement, but there's still quite a lot to be done. Balance, for instance, isn't fully achieved yet: hammers are slightly too good, bows are terrible and too pricey. Lord of Ice is insanely overpowered: it's a low-mid level summon that's as strong as a whole army. It's a one-elemental panzer division. 68 attacks? Yeah... right.
It looks like the unit group thing got much better. Now, 4 peasants with wooden spears can be killed by a single badass. Moar tactics. There's still a *lot* to be done to make those battles really interesting, but it's a good start.
Thanks a lot for the hard work. First, let's help you a bit: creating a custom sovereign with the Brilliant talent makes the game crash. Then a question: are the units in a stack comparing their roll to the defense of the opponent on an individual basis now? Edit: Meditative makes the game crash, just like Brilliant.
[quote who="PurplePaladin" reply="1" id="2751981"]If you have a retail copy, there is no need to worry or complain. If you don't. . . . [/quote] Uh, yes there is. Requiring the player to download to patch the game at release to make the game playable is wrong. Not *terribly* wrong, but wrong nonetheless.
Thanks. I don't think it's possible, so we should probably ask Stardock to add a "not-stackable" XML tag to abilities which would prevent a unit to cumulate several time the same ability (then you could just make defensive maneuvers be a "spell" that grants a temporary passive ability with the "not-stackable" flag on.) I encountered the same problems with my "Lieutenant/Captain/General's orders" buff that I created.
In this mod, did you manage to make those powers not stackable? Like, preventing the bonus from defensive maneuvers being counted twice if it is cast twice on the same unit?
Can we have quick details about the unit stack changes?
Did you think of a name for that expansion yet [e digicons]}:)[/e] ?
[quote who="Akitoscorpio" reply="2" id="2743391"] Some people like there games like they like there women "With issues" [/quote]Some guys like unfinished women?
As a small-time modder, I have a very important question to you, Frogboy: will there be significant changes to the combat mechanics? (I'm thinking unit groups, but not only). I've spent some time working on balance, but if the combat mechanics are redesigned (which I really, really hope they will, as a wargamer), I will save my time and wait until the patch is released instead (and mod something else).
Or in February. Since that's their next launch window. Why they didn't will stay a mystery to me: it'll cost them almost all the rewards they could have earned for 3 years of hard work.
[quote who="BLoads" reply="66" id="2742782"] Dunno, there's this little thing invented recently called 'Internet Forums'. You can go onto one of these 'Forums' and discuss certain topics and ideas with people who are also interested them. [/quote]Sure, people pay $50 so that they can go on forums and waste hours discussing mods. Right. No, that's not how it works, sorry.
[quote who="BLoads" reply="62" id="2742758"]here's the common response i see to this thread There's a community out here guys, other gamers with more open minds than yourselves. If you were so motivated, do you guys think you could create a fun to play mod? [/quote]A company that relies on players to make the game less bland than it is doesn't deserve anyone's money. Also, looking for balanced mods/fun mods is a hassle. How do you differentiate the ones that are
[quote quoting="post"] I'm tired of people complaining that this game was released 'unfinished' because this game will never be finished until we, the gaming community, get tired of it and move on. [/quote] If you're tired of people speaking the truth, nothing forces you to read those topics. Or to come to the forums. This game is supposed to ship with coherent mechanics, decent optimization, a reasonable set of bugs at most, and enough content for a $50 game.
[quote who="surlybob" reply="17" id="2740547"] I'm playing Elemental, and I am quite satisfied with it's "state". Any software product takes time, effort and resources to bring to its full potential. I find it unreasonable for you to expect a small company to produce a game that starts out with as much "polish" as a massive company. [/quote]If they can't give AAA polish to their games, they don't ask an AAA price.
[quote]The downside is the fans who stuck it out will feel screwed over a bit, (I'm one of those fans) , but I think most of us would be ok with that , given the circumstances[/quote] Given what circumstances? That they didn't listen when we said the game wasn't ready? Day one supporters shouldn't have to endure the most, sorry. I'm not going to stop buying stardock games, and I will cut Stardock a slack to finish this one. But I will make no other concession, I have many reas
[quote who="OsirisDawn" reply="92" id="2740665"] That seems a good simple solution. Cap the max damage of a single attacker according to the max HP of his target. This opens the way to abilities to hurt a whole stack, not just one file. Like Fire Breath. Flame Dart would do damage to single target in a group while Fireball might hit every member of a group.[/quote] In exchange for this flaw, the stack has an advantage when it comes
[quote who="SqueekyRat" reply="70" id="2740733"]The 1UP review is obviously fake - lazy reviewer peons no doubt. [/quote]Don't jump to conclusions. You don't have any proof to back it up; as someone previously said, maybe reviewers have a multiplayer-enabled build. And most of the points made by the reviewers have been raised on this forum.
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="62" id="2740319"] It's the exact same roll ! The only advantage of a stack would then be the number of hit points. You should get an advantage to attack with more people. [/quote]No need actually: the advantage is already here: you only face 1 retaliation from the defending unit, possibly 0 if you actually kill it. If you had attacked with the same number of soldiers, ungrouped, there would have been greater HP loss due to retaliation.
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="58" id="2740289"] Also the way stacks work : 10 units with attack 10 should lead to an attack 100, but to an attack 10D10. Probabilities aren't the same ! Stacks are too strong because of that flaw. And it's even flawed with defense : a 10 units stack with 10 in defense will get a defense of 100 where each unit in the stack should only get 10 in defense ! [/quote] It's already 10D10, not 1D100, according to frogboy. What bothers me i
You inspired me to create my own spells: http://forum.canardpc.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2028&d=1282979910 http://forum.canardpc.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2031&d=1282980626 Thanks a lot for that :D.
Hello, Elemental moders. Since I dislike the way stacks are currently handled, I made the Logistics-like techs give access to something else instead: ranks. In effect, it gives access to a set of ring (each for every techs) which makes the equiped unit a lieutenant/captain/general. Aside from a small permanent attack/HP boost the lieutenant/captain/general gets an ability that can be used on a friend, giving a bonus to attack/defense for a few rounds? However, I want to
Your work inspired me to redo all the air spell effects :D. I might actually change the spells themselves, to make them a bit different.
[quote who="Soralin" reply="86" id="2739241"]There's a huge bug with stacks! I posted it on the support forum at https://forums.elementalgame.com/393520 but thought it would be useful to have here too, with all the suggestions on how to fix it missing that it's bugged. Basically, things work like frogboy said, and like a lot of you here are suggesting, each individual unit in a stack has the same attack and defense that they would individually, but, there's a bug. When
Holy cow. Wow. Uhm... Do you mind redoing Hurl Boulder (or whatever the name is) as well? It would be very, very nice, cause it's the ugliest spell of the lot as it is :p.