rakenan

[quote who="Luckmann" reply="79" id="2220328"] I'm still hoping for a Fallout 1-2 remake, as well as a proper Fallout 3. The current Fallout 3 should be considered some kind of non-canon spinoff.[/quote] A game has to be pretty awful to get the "make it didn't happen" treatment in a sequel. I don't think Fallout 3 was that bad, although it was not a worthy successor to the Fallout legacy. Two games that do deserve it are in my list of gaming regrets.<

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="28" id="2418174"] Quoting rakenan, reply 27 I am strongly opposed to hardcoding anything into damage types other than the type itself. And if each element damage only does damage then as Frogboy wrote these other types of damage would be boring. These secondary effects are not only realistic for each element, but also make the battles more interesting.[/quote] At this point, we're pretty obviously talki

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="26" id="2418041"] Each element should be coded to provide the secondary effect we know it causes such as fire consumes/burns. To code a torches and hundreds of other items fire related for burning is inefficient use of developer/modders time.[/quote] Coding for versatility often is less efficient than hard-coding for a specific effect - but if you want moddability, you code for versatility. And I suspect you

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="18" id="2417050"] Wrong... these are types of damage and all of them can have nothing to do with spells. Fire damage can be from a torch, lightning damage can be from a storm, etc., etc., . Each of these are a type of damage that's why the word lightning follows the word damage. [/quote] Secondary effects like destroying armor, causing a damage over time effect, or slowing the target down, are not damage types.&nbs

Bad poll. Elemental should have magical damage types. It doesn't NEED them, though. It's entirely possible for the devs to make a great fantasy TBS without magical damage types. It's even possible, depending on how stressed the AI is dealing with the other combat variables, that diverse magical damage types would make the game worse. I'd like to see them added, but the way you worded your "yes" answer made me choose "no" instead. NEED implies a must have,

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="221" id="2413687"] Sovereign dies = game over is a core gameplay element as it is now. That being said, if we gonna have other options later on...I would prefer to have a dynasty/successor sytem. [/quote] Prefer all you want. I'd bet good money you won't get it. Making the Sovereign harder to kill or giving him a mechanic to escape from a "nobody could survive that!" situation doesn't violate a key gameplay element the devs have decided on.&

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="192" id="2403574"] So what? This means that the Sovereign itself must be resistant to the various fear based spells for example? Isn't this against the core concept somewhat? If an ordinary soldier can kill the Sovereign [theoretically], how come that he has no morale at all? Also, I thought that the Sovereign will appear on the tactical battle maps even, just like all of the other units. Am I wrong? [/quote] The Sovereign does have

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="188" id="2403109"] It makes no sense, even if it's a fantasy game. Avatar or not, the Sovereign is a living being, since he can die in an "ordinary" battle even. Living being without morale? Whatever, this isn't very important anyways.[/quote] It makes perfect sense. The entire UI is the Sovereign. Most of it is the Sovereign as ruler of a large (or otherwise) empire, directing the use of resources. This one small part - the So