Reianor3

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="7" id="3344480"] Quoting Reianor3, reply 5Where, when, and how did they "say that they plan"? Frogboy's last statement regarding MP can be found here, under "Yes, we're still hiring".[/quote] Great, now which head do I keep knocking at, for them to deliver those statements to those are interested in MP but not in reading all these forums. (there's not much to read in here for them, not until MP at least gets on the

[quote who="DsRaider" reply="1" id="3344080"] WoM did have multiplayer. I played it with my friends. The devs have said they plan on adding multiplayer to LH, but right now their network coders are all on other unannounced projects that absolutely require multiplayer support, so it will have to wait. [/quote] WoM itself isn't called a successfully released game by a lot of players. It's MP was even worse. If we'd be talking about "check-b

I remember this dilemma from way back in WoM beta. If memory serves WoM was advertised as a game with multiplayer. Than later it just "didn't happen". Yes, WoM was a "launchdate disaster". Ok, we've been through that, I can understand why everything went wrong in there. Then there was the whole "expansions for free" initiative. Good way to make up for original disappointment, or at least that's how it sounded at the time. I've seen FE and FE-LH. LH is not out o

I just hope SD is careful with their choices... I mean, disappearing diplomatic influence? Costly double-crossing mercenaries? Complete and externally undisplellable magic immunity? I can only quote Otis on this mater. "HOLY JUMPING MOTHER OF GOD .. NO!" (just a quote, no religious stuff meant) *Sigh*... some people don't even bother to imagine themselves on the other side of their spells, let alone stopping to consider how uncommon is their viewpoint on the matter.</p

[quote who="OsirisDawn" reply="111" id="2781776"]I like Stardock and i like the attitude they have toward their customers. But the more i read the threads they open to get feedback, the more i have the feeling they should just not do this. They should sit down, create thier own vision of the game and stick to it. Give feedback on the progress, but dont ask for opinion. You will get just to many to filter in any useable form. Thats IMHO and therefor should be i

[quote who="Rishkith" reply="73" id="2777256"] #3) Economy ... You even threw out a popular and fun economy system in beta... [/quote] Which beta were you talking about? I don't remember an economy downgrade in beta, but that just might be because I joined after that already happened.

There's one fine example that came to mind - Magic system. I doubt that it escaped anyone notice, but in case it did - Just about every forum member has his own vision of perfect magic system. Nothing wrong with that, but still it's an ocean of information. Dev. team will have to deal with that horde eventually. How? I can't predict an actual outcome but I won't make a far guess if I say that their own vision of it will be a deciding factor. <b

Back in the betas when i was active I stated that we need more feedback from you (yes, players need feedback from a dev. team). I stated that without it we are wasting our efforts in giving our feedback to you. I got a reply along the lines of "I can either do this or get this game done". I still stand by my statements. And pardon me for my rudeness, but take a good look at what you have done and ask yourself if you are happy with it. So I repe

Back in the beta I remember someone posting about diplomatic capital having no real value. It can be accumulated it can be traded and that's it... Of cause it is a useful tool, but I think we can improve on this. There's an old game called Master of Orion. To be honest my knowledge of it is meager at best, but I do remember them having so called "orion senate". This is what got me thinking - what if use diplomatic capital as an actual measure of influence? Atm this is more of

...yeah, yeah whatever... Am i the only one not exited about hearing that the game will be out on 24, like it was already said before, and that the "update" impulse nags us about is not really available? Sorry, my Grump-o-meter seems to be going crazy lately... I'm out of here for everyones good.

Specialization is when you choose to get A and will never get B. Specialization usually appeals to people by creating playstyles that can't be reproduced without certain specialization. They often include "Tasty" features. This uniqueness is what supposedly adds replayabiltiy. IMHO it quite often adds an attachment to a playstyle instead. This uniqueness is also why a simple system that allows to choose where to put poin

[quote who="Bellack" reply="77" id="2683382"] I strongly disagree with this we should be allowed to choose and please no BLIND research. [/quote] And the title of mister clueless passes over to Bellack. Ahem, not to spoil the fun of being oblivious or anything, but do you know that research IS HALF-BLIND in this game? Anything but most basic techs MAY appear on the breakthrough list and you never know which ones will not. As a matter of fact there is research that yo

At the change of topic... There is no hope. [e digicons]:borg:[/e] All your threads are belong to us. [e digicons]:cylon:[/e] HA-HA-HA... [quote who="Dagwood" reply="24" id="2682683"]@Reianor - we clearly just have a difference of opinion on this. By your logic, why even bother having to learn spells at all? We could just spend all arcane knowledge "leveling up" the spell books. Then get all the known spells for each level of each respective book we

Gee, just thinking about kids almost made me throw-up... I guess the last one I ate was spoiled... Just kidding, I mean I can't even stomach them in the first place...

Ideas for "Sims - War of Fertility" are strongly encouraged to to be kept at EA forums. We're discussing "Elemental - War of Magic" on this forum. -Hey, how does my sovereign live without pooping? I mean He's been traveling for 40 turns since he ate his last meal and I never saw him "do his business". Keep you shi realism for real life people, games are made for something else.

*sigh* IMHO It would have been better not to put so much emphasis on TB in the 1st place. I mean, it's not HMM where every other aspect is there for the sole purpose of being useful in TB, it's a full-fledged Strategy . Oh well... whatever... let the boulder roll... half way off the mountain isn't a good stopping point...

[quote who="AngeloBraz" reply="19" id="2682155"] Can't some quests reward essence? A virtuous deed... [/quote] Funny that you ask, because they already do... "Alchemist lab" can get you .5 essence from potion and that's an errand quest. Not saying that this is a solution, just pointing out that it exists already.

We aren't playing a D&D sorcerer ... Elemental has RANDOM environment, and that needs fast adaptation. "Oh shit, If i just new how that spell research matches environment 100+ turns ago the game would have gone differently" isn't a good element for strategy. Preparing a spell includes: Shard (if any) - random. Spellbook (unless you take it at creation) - random. Researched spell (unless previously prepared) - Currently isn't a pro

Yeah, right lets, leave 2 attributes "wizardness" and "fighterness". No, wait, that way we still need to balance something... Lets only leave 1 and call it "Ultimativeness". Who needs diversity? It's not like stats can be balanced... you know. And It's obvious to everyone that the less characteristics you need to put points into the stronger you get... Drop it people, think before you swing...

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="45" id="2682194"] Given the sheer amount of $$$ being spent on multiplayer, it's safe to say that we're taking it seriously. However, what I am not in favor of is simply taking the single player stuff and making it MP. I'd rather add more modes later like a dedicated Arena mode and such. [/quote] [quote who="VermillionChaos" reply="62" id="2682318"] You are completely missing the point, what brad said is there will be NO tactical in MP

[e digicons]:waaaa:[/e] [e digicons]:waaaa:[/e] [e digicons]:waaaa:[/e] What the heck is all the TB panic about? TB are being worked on. - Check There is auto resolve already. - Check. Anyone see a way how TB could NOT make it in? What I initially wanted is another option for those who don't have time for TB in MP. Aside from option to set them to auto resolve (which is a must). Sorry people, 2-3 minutes isn't going to be the top of it, been t

[quote who="Hellfirex25" reply="55" id="2682115"]so we're not worried about being contagious anymore? [/quote] Contagious? You meant playing elemental is contagious? Now, I think I got some friends to hang around [e digicons]*_*[/e] . Being cont i guous is what we were previously concerned about anyway. [e digicons]O:)[/e]

[quote who="porternielsen" reply="64" id="2682178"]I hear a lot of people worried that cities are too close now, I dont think it is something to worry about. Cities are not close to each other, boundries are close to each other. Which frankly speaking is how it really ought to work. You don't go to war with someone because they are two squares from your capital, you go to war with someone when they are 45 squares away from your capital, but rather 2 spaces away from your gold

Is there a chance you can work on getting Tactical battles go really fast? There's a problem... Tactical combat is nice and all... as long as you're playing alone. In MP that might be a problem. And while auto-resolve is an option, tactical spells need tactical combat... So is there a chance you can introduce a "simplified" model of tactical combat that excludes movement but allows to distribute attacks manually? I heard of you "SP 1st" take on features of elem

Yay! Resource overhaul! Great stuff! But, are you sure that was a long game? I mean it's turn 113 you have 2SP and 2RP going and there are some kick-ass monsters out there and half the map is occupied... I sense the "miraculous wand of sly developer" at work here... [e digicons]:P[/e]