ubernaught

Baldurs Gate 2

[quote]They are. And dwarves are humans who can't grow proper like. And giants grow to much, And lizardmen are just men with scales.[/quote] I'd always seen dwarves as the urge to contract and delve, while elves the urge to expand and surrender, orcs pack mentality and hobbits ignorant with circuit one dominance. Always reminded me of the Lion/Angel/Bull/Eagle set up. But obv. that's a JRR focus and I'm sure there's plenty of evidence to the contrary..

It would be nice to see battle stats born of research techs that are not traditionally att/def based. EG : As if the yellow techs in GalCiv2 that boosted morale and influence of planets, also translate to the battlefield as unit stat boosts. You could have similar bonuses with the Green Tech Tree...where medicinal techs improve fatigue stats and the like. I like the idea that in place of the 3 colour attack/defence elements of GC2, there are several damage types, with a hero t

Regards the flanking, I think that speed as a combat value could convey that idea well enough, especially if there were research paths that could allow to constantly pursue speed as an overall tactic. I see no reason why this couldn't translate to the strategic map as well, having expert logistics with an army full of fast movers in HOMM was definately a valid tactic. Regards specific damage types, I agree with other posters that this should be pursued, mainly because I think that a g

[quote]but i don't want girls to think im gay.[/quote] You could always point out that you're not.

ooh...second page...oops! [quote]The rest of us are discussing the concepts of DLC. It's right up there with microtransactions in my book. They're not asking for a few bucks, they are asking for 7 and then they'll be asking for 10 and then we'll see microtrans[/quote] aye, there are definate semantic repercussions in this method, just look at the word "micro" in there and you begin to get a feel for the strategy, already such jargon has wormed it's way into this apple. There i

In the long run, I think the dev's are extremely proud of Dragon Age and that their pricing is reasonable, if anything cheap as hell considering the blood sweat and 800,000 words of dialogue. I for one trust this mob, they've got a healthy pedigree, but by hell this is a bad look, reminds me of the Edison/Tesla deal. At the core you've got a creative bunch of humans weaving all kinds of magic, surrounded by a bunch of parasites whose job it is to bread roll this sucker as thin as humanly poss

[quote]I keep thinking that it’s better to have more resources than fewer. I’d love to hear how others feel about this.[/quote] Yep, definately more. Also I would like to see a sliding scale of rare non trickle recources down to trickling foundation resources. Also +1 to this excellent post: [quote]What I'm trying to get at it that I'd like to see kingdoms naturally play to their strengths, and their strengths being those resources. A land of plains with wi

[quote]Science and God (One and the same?)[/quote] They are like two halves of a surburban nuclear family, shovelling at the coal face of freedom. Bless em!

[quote]Yeah yeah yeah, I'm a bigot, blow me.[/quote] I'm sure whoever you're currently paying is doing a fine job as it is.

[quote]Player A named the forest Verdant Swarms. Player B named the forest Dark Thickets. Since Player B has many more cities nearby, travelling merchants tend to use his name more, and the people of Player A start using that name as well.[/quote] That would be awesome.

[quote]I hate it, but then I never lose them in battle... Noob! [/quote] Aye...It was my first game so I can be called nothing but noob, but then I've always enjoyed the noob period of games more than the mastery period, generally more fun I reckon. But as for you...srsly never? Not even once? You've never had a weak flank in you kingdom that got besieged from nowhere? I assume you must be ommiting an old age scenario, but surely you've lost one in glorious battle!? Criminy..

I love the lineage system...it offers so much story to the sandbox mode. Plus. the fact that they age makes one less inclined to be annoyed at their loss, seeing as they would eventually die anyway. I just lost a general (Rome TW) in battle last week defending a province against ridiculous odds, but damn I loved the idea that he went down swinging after a such a long and fruitful life. Well...he only "lived" an afternoon...but you know...

I've been thinking about this a bit lately. HOMM5 advertised simulataneous turns but IMO failed by revoking the privelage the moment two opponents crossed paths (permanently from that point on). It was annoying to say the least, but put me in mind of the board game from the eightees Shogun (Axis and Allies used a similar mechanic). In these games, each teams turn was divided up into separate actions, economy, deployment, movement, battle...which kept the complexities contained and the

[quote]Don't mock balance just because you don't understand it's importance.[/quote] Only if you don't assign your meanings to my words.

1. Soulstorm (you'll take my weekly multi from my cold dead hands) 2. Sins 3. Storm of Zehir

Hope : True diversity amongst factions...(including general ease/difficulty) with vibrant trade and diplomacy content that can serve as a realistic deterrent to war in some cases. The GC2 system was a great start, but the relationship status meter could be so much more than a military stopwatch. Bonuses, tech restrictions, shared magic research academies etc... Fear : That multiplayer considerations and general new market seeking "zaz" will exert sinister influence on this game.

[quote]pretty much anything in the name of multiplayer 'balance' could seriously disappoint.[/quote] Aye, in the hands of the competitive RTS gamer, that word 'balance' can become a fearsome mace. Especially in the cold, turn-based netherworld of the developers forum, where it deals +1 pride damage to all opposing win/loss ratios.

I have GOT to find some spare coin to get on the demo boat. Thx for the teas devs!

Damn this is looking good...thx for another exciting update! [quote]I wouldn't mind a way to choose the frequency of mythical creatures as a starting option (few to common), as it would add quite a bit of replayability and style. Perhaps starting setup could be a future dev diary?[/quote] Nice.

Great post Denryu I hope the quest elements lay somewhere along those lines.

Nice, I think the stretch for realistic graphics has done a lot of damage to gaming over the years, often reducing the visual element to the role of passive mimic. It is inspiring to see that art is at the forefront of your thinking for elemental, as that elusive x-factor 'timelessness,' is more often a derivative of symbol than of scale. Looks great! I look forward to seeing this unfurl.

[quote]At the same time, you want the guy with that new Core i7 with the latest nVidia or ATI card to look at it and go DAMN that's cool.[/quote] Nope. I just want an immense elemental game to run as smooth as an Immense, common settings GC2 game. Is that a realistic hope at this stage?

[quote]Heroes also needed to be resurrectable by all channelers. (make it expensive if you have to)[/quote] I don't mind the idea of a limited number of resurrections, something about their sol only being redeemable to a certain degree. Its kind of like a cake and eat it scenario that if pursued could open up interesting story elements. For example: Everytime you are resurrected, you lose some diplomacy skill because you are less able to flaunt your charisma, or channeling skill becau

Woohoo! I bow humbly in the face of Stardock's pure awesomeness.