I agree that it feels entirely too detached and lacks flavor. I don't think the entire thing needs to be scrapped though, just eventually reworked. It's a pretty minor flaw compared to things like civilizations and spellbooks lacking flavor.
Important suggestion that I don't see there (maybe I missed it): more special abilities. Any important and powerful unit should have like half a dozen special abilities, that's how it works in MoM and AoW and I see no downside to it. Also flight and necromancy. Especially necromancy. And differentiation between different types of magic in general, I hate how everyone draws from essentially the same pool of spells. Other than those I think all of my complaints are on the
Well it hasn't been hyped up like a Blizzard game or anything like that so of course no one will mind if he just makes stuff up.
[quote]This will be a pretty substantial change. In particular, character creation, magic (think, shared mana pools), [/quote] This sounds both unexpected and cool, I hadn't even considered shared mana pools.
[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="14" id="2742795"]Yep! I love this game, but what ruins it most for me is the city spamming. I think a fantasy game (even when it's a grand strategy game as well) should not have cities everywhere and tight together as in Civ (or MoM). I want them fewer, and much further apart from eachother. This makes for more wilderness and space for other creatures, adding to the atmosphere you need to really believe you are in a fantasy world. I can easily do with 2
[quote who="fatindian" reply="40" id="2742528"] Quoting Wexmajor, reply 39I hate Starcraft 2 as much as anyone with good taste but I sure as hell did not pay for NWN: Strategy Edition. I paid for a game. I expect to get my money's worth within a few months. If the game does not get redesigned to become a decent successor to MoM within a few months I will feel very pissed off and ripped off. As someone with good taste, can you tell us why do you hate Star
I hate Starcraft 2 as much as anyone with good taste but I sure as hell did not pay for NWN: Strategy Edition. I paid for a game. I expect to get my money's worth within a few months. If the game does not get redesigned to become a decent successor to MoM within a few months I will feel very pissed off and ripped off.
[quote]do you think Elemental has the key aspects of the original MoM that made it such a classic? [/quote] No. It does not. Almost none of the charm is there. The only thing it shares with MoM that isn't standard for the genre is that you can see the individual buildings making up your city. Will the charm be added in patches and expansions? Maybe. The most important steps in that direction would be differentiating types of magic, differentiating
[quote who="cfehunter" reply="27" id="2739866"] Anyway stepping away from graphics, it's only in my last game that i've finally reached the uper echilons of the spell research tree, and i have to say i really dont think spells are lackluster anymore.... oneshot entire armies without even entering combat, we really dont need anymore power.[/quote] The upper limit of ability in end-game does not make the early and mid-game balanced. Just because end-game spells are s
I'm glad that Stardock takes post-release support so seriously but I'm kind of paranoid that some design choices which are a huge concern if the game is to reach its full potential are just going to get completely ignored, since they seem to have been ignored int the beta. As is, this game lacking nearly all of the charm of Master of Magic, and I think a lot of the criticisms have really zeroed in on why that is. Weak and bland heroes, extreme lack of passive special abilities (in MoM almost
[quote who="bobeltomate" reply="47" id="2735436"] Tho I know most other games allow you to make gods, it makes more sense to me that if a human goes 1 on 1 vs a monster troll, he gets spattered unless he uses tatics. Large groups and clever plans are supposedly what allowed our real world human ancestors to defeat larger prey. [/quote] That's not what a fantasy game is about, that is not why I pre-ordered this game. I was promised heroes, I want heroes,
[quote who="AnnihilatorX" reply="1" id="2733456"]I am suprised the game does not support the concept of polygamy. Ok it doesn't fit the moral code of modern society we have now, but the world view is different in the game. As a soverign of a country, in a land devasted by disaster and low population, it should encourage bearing of offsprings and, polygamy in the old days is the way for the rich and powerful to do just that![/quote] Polygamy would be hard to b
I think MoM type heroes toned down slightly would be best. I say toned down slightly because MoM heroes can annihilate an army of lesser units each turn continuously no problem if they have the right equipment, which is over the top for the relatively low-fantasy feel that Elemental is apparently going for. Still, a powerful warrior hero should definitely be able to take on a decent army of grunts without fear of dying. They'll feel worthless if they can't.
I agree, either Egalitarian should add some other benefit or drop the point cost. [quote who="KillzEmAllGod" reply="3" id="2733201"]one point isn't much at all could just add it the ability to your faction in Xml if your cheap.[/quote] Why are there apologists for every little thing? No, it's not being cheap. A purely visual/thematic effect should not cost points that are designed to balance gameplay.
All I can say is that I very much hope that Stardock ignores the OP. There is very little fun about a 4x game where the enemies aren't a threat. Personally I very rarely go on the offensive but enjoy fighting wars so any game where the AI isn't aggressive simply isn't fun for me at all. I wouldn't be opposed to a toggle that makes the AI peaceful but it being incorporated into the default state of the game would absolutely ruin it for me.
well what do you have the world difficulty set to?
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="1" id="2731728"] Marry your spouse. Send him/her home. Don't let him/her leave the city unless truly needed. Don't let him/her get into trouble until you have four kids. Once you have four kids, the spouse is free to die or whatever. [/quote] I feel like I shouldn't be forced to keep my spouse chained to the stove by restrictive game design.
[quote who="VR_IronMana" reply="2" id="2728281"]Actually, given how important Essence seems to be - I'd rather give out points for Essense and Constitution (HP and MP) and let the rest of the stats go up once in a while based on their class (adventurers might gain map moves more often or Researchers up INT more, etc).[/quote] I support this motion.
Why on earth are you playing a fantasy TBS if you can't handle the idea of a single hero single-handedly taking on a bunch of lesser units? I would not have bought the game if it were billed as a normal TBS where rank-and-file soldiers are pretty much the only important aspect of combat.
[quote who="Tyveil" reply="12" id="2726972"] Quoting Wexmajor, reply 7Some champions being overpowered while others are worthless doesn't make the situation better, it makes it worse. They should be balanced and feel like a natural part of the game, not some weird thing you can exploit to break the game but should otherwise ignore. Seems to me it indicates a range of Champions from worthless to very powerful. That sounds like fun to me. Don't want all champions to
[quote who="Femmefatal48" reply="2" id="2727109"]It's to keep you from exploiting the game and building up super heroes. This is a game of a thousand turns not 50. [/quote] It seems more like it's there to prevent you from using champions in any useful capacity until your empire is so insanely large that you can inefficiently funnel enough resources to build five armies into them.
Some champions being overpowered while others are worthless doesn't make the situation better, it makes it worse. They should be balanced and feel like a natural part of the game, not some weird thing you can exploit to break the game but should otherwise ignore.
[quote who="delijoe79" reply="13" id="2725935"]Nah I like it the way it is... it doesn't make sense that you can train a troop in a certain weapon/armor and then just equip them with new ones and expect them to be able to fight effectively... [/quote] Then give an option to re-equip them for a fee and training period. I hate the way it is, I don't want my entire army to become obsolete and worthless at any point.
I'd like to know why and how the game gave me Peasants with 13 hp and Observers with 5 hp. The only equipment difference I could see was the staff/club.
[quote who="EdrinFra" reply="60" id="2726298"] Heroes are useless, because underpowered, unless you equip them with really good stuff. Did you think to give two or even three stats points to dispatch on level up ? How comes equipment for heroes is so expensive? for the price of a hero's club, you could equip ten peasants with clubs... And train them in the process. Are sales reserved for peasants or what ? This is one of the things that makes heroes so useless. It is so true that, y