Tridus

[quote who="Raven X" reply="161" id="2667598"] That's why all those people who don't want to play through each battle need is the option to Auto Calculate at Any Time they want, which Frogboy already said was going to be possible. That's why it's pretty pointless to be listening to anyone who's saying "Whaaaa, I don't want to fight long battles"...So DON'T, just Hit Auto Calculate and be Done With It IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. Personally, I WANT to play EACH AND EVERY BATTLE MY-SELF. As lo

[quote who="LikeTheWhirlwind" reply="156" id="2667584"]Don't take the "3 minute" thing so literally. All we mean is that we're aiming more for Master of Magic combat length rather than Rome Total War combat length, for example. We want you guys to feel in control, and for your tactical decisions to matter. What we don't want is for tactical combat to drag on while both sides "go through the motions".[/quote] Yay I was right. Thanks for the update! [e digicons]:beer:

[quote who="Slainangel52" reply="158" id="2667589"] Quoting LikeTheWhirlwind, reply 156Don't take the "3 minute" thing so literally. All we mean is that we're aiming more for Master of Magic combat length rather than Rome Total War combat length, for example. We want you guys to feel in control, and for your tactical decisions to matter. What we don't want is for tactical combat to drag on while both sides "go through the motions". Can you clear up the confusion ab

[quote who="Raven X" reply="137" id="2667538"] This, my friend, is why we can hit "Auto Resolve" ANY TIME WE WANT. You don't Have To Play Long Battles If You Don't Want To. That's fine. Just Don't take away the ability to play Long Battles for those of us (which I would say is the Majority of us) who WANT To Play Long Battles.[/quote] If you're going to speak for the majority Raven, you had better define "long". :) Some of the crazier numbers being thrown around exclude m

[quote who="Dagwood" reply="138" id="2667539"]Zawath - I don't think that is correct. Maybe we're talking apples and oranges, but I have had more than 10 units in an army: [/quote] Terminology problem I think. IIRC the biggest unit you can make right now is 10 soldiers. But that's 1 "unit", even though it consists of 10 troops. Presumably higher levels of tech and larger cities will enable units that have more soldiers in them. An "army" is a group of units, and the

[quote who="Zawath" reply="132" id="2667515"] In Elemental you can only have 10 units in one army.[/quote] Right now. That won't last.

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="123" id="2667461"] But yeah, nothing Brad said makes me think it's a hard cap (which I pointed out earlier to another poster too). Honestly, I don't think they actually did a test with thousands vs thousands battles to see how long it would take. I imagine for 3 minutes they mean a much smaller fight - but we'll have to wait and see how it works out. It has to scale somehow if it's not a hard timer.[/quote] Yeah, that's exactly what I think. Most of

another double post. Someone send a repair crew!

[quote who="Denryu" reply="120" id="2667445"]I will chime in with Raven and Tormy - do what needs to be done in MP. but I am anticipating end-game battles in SP to be 30 minutes to an hour at bare minimum, and on games that I have possibly spent weeks playing on a huge map - multiple hours possibly. Hopefully, that is still going to be possible. I do feel that MoM got the pacing on tactical battles about right, for the scale being dealt with. But as we get into thousands of units c

Am I the only one who thinks this 3 minute thing is a goal for a typical battle, and not some hard cap? The way a lot of people are writing it's like at 3 minutes the battle will end. But that would get pretty annoying with large armies ("sorry, next time you battle you can move the other half of your units"). You can attempt to design a system that encourages battles to keep moving without a hard "sorry combat's over now" clock. For that matter the time limits could just be turned of

double post

[quote who="marlowwe" reply="91" id="2667257"] Can you give me an example of a fight which a player "shouldn't need" to fight? I think I know which ones you mean, but I think it would be best if you gave an example.[/quote] My Sovereign + 10 peasants against your 3 peasants. In a tactical battle, I'm probably not going to lose any units in a fight that lopsided. In a good auto-resolve, the same thing happens. In a bad auto-resolve (either becaues it's just inaccurate or because i

[quote who="marlowwe" reply="65" id="2667014"]I'm a little worried about tactical battles. When I first heard about Elemental, tactical battles were one of the aspects of the game I was looking forward to the most. Last week I read that the auto-resolve feature will be (or try to be) as good as playing a tactical battle out. This disheartened me because, from a designer point of view, what is the point of having them in the game in the first place if you can auto-resolve for optimal results?

[quote who="markieness" reply="29" id="2666841"]If you dont need essence to build towns, what stops city spam?[/quote] Food. "Outpost spam" might happen, but that's not a very effecient way of doing anything.

[quote who="coreimpulse" reply="57" id="2666620"] I think that's not entirely correct. SteamWorks isn't free as in freely available to anyone to include. Developers have to apply for a SteamWorks license and only after Valve approves it they are given the SteamWorks API to include it in their games. Given that the SteamWorks API pretty much is part of the game's binary code AND asset file formats, developers w

[quote quoting="post"] It only costs essence if you need to revive the land from the OPPOSITE ideology’s magic source (LIFE vs. DEATH). So barren land doesn’t need essence to build a town on anymore. But if you’re a Kingdom you can’t just waltz into Imperial terraformed land and pop down a city without paying for it.[/quote] I'm assuming there's no cost if I take one of their cities? If I do that, do I have to demolish and convert it to my type of building

[quote who="John_Hughes" reply="22" id="2666219"]If Graphics really don't matter (make #1) on many gamers lists, then why do the Game Dev's of almost all modern Games keep pushing the Graphical envelope, in such a manner, that those same gamers will/have to buy new and more graphically powerful PC's and consoles? What is the acceptable level? I currently run a Quad Core, 2 GB video, TB drive unit. Anything else may be insufficient if I find a modern game I may like outside the FPS

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="31" id="2665271"] What I should say is that LOCAL mods are disabled in MP. Mods are server based so someone else setting up a MP server can provide all the mods they want. This will evolve over time I imagine.[/quote] Will this option get turned on in beta 4 too?

[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="136" id="2665601"] In the old build where we had 10 points to spend but most stats went up by 0.1, didn't essence go up by 1 per point? Nope, it was 0.1 increment for essence.[/quote] Was it? Ah well, memory is going in my old age. :) At any rate, it goes up too slowly right now. Another thread had a suggestion that it should go up automatically without spending points, which I like. You could then use the points on the other magic

[quote who="diamondspider" reply="134" id="2665574"]I've been playing this new beta and can't for the life of me get a Dungeonmaster. It seems a lof of the Adventure tree is based on recruiting specialty NPCs, like Assassins, Heroes and such... I've yet to figure out how to access these... anyone do this? I hate to say it, but this version of the beta is a lot less capable of my providing feedback on that the last one. The magic is somewhat testable, but by the time a city or two i

Veraxus is right. Once you go through the checkout process the shipping winds up right in the end. It's just the initial number that's wrong.

[quote who="OMG_BlackHatHedgehog" reply="3" id="2665425"]well. If they hadn't sold their soul out to XBox, they could have developed for the BluRay only and not have had to give up as much stuff... just sayin'. [/quote] Umm, what? They gave up those things because they didn't have the budget to make them in the first place. They wound up porting to the 360 (badly, I might add) to try and get some of the money back. The game was just stupidly expensive to make.</

[quote who="Aractain" reply="21" id="2663934"]I see people talking about their 500-800 dollar machines and I look at my keyboard, mouse and keypad combined that costs £270 and three question marks appear above my head, as I say "Huh?". Do you steal half the components? Aside from the £600 I paid for an old 40" TV to upgrade my monitor this computer cost me £2000... [/quote] Many of those things are one time purchases. One of my two monitors I've had for 10 years

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="124" id="2664444"] zubaz said: Provide good feedback and not "WOE IS US!" and you'll be fine.What Istari said is "Once he [brad] sees people posting "game won't make date" he just starts ignoring all their posts and focusing on people with useful feedback." There's little comparison between that quote and your 'explanation'. I've posted that I don't see how the game will be sufficiently polished by the anticipated date. So, all my p

[quote who="Sareln" reply="37" id="2664435"] Wait... What?!?! There are more tech trees? I thought the 5 current were enough. Granted they do need a bit more filling out. If I were making an educated guess, those are probably the fallen tech categories.[/quote] It is, from the Empires preview. They do things differently, so they get a different set of tech trees (though they roughly map to the same five areas).