Tridus

[quote quoting="post"] Interesting Choices. Being forced to spend essence to build a city is not a choice interesting or not. I’m inclined to find some other use to revive land rather than forcing users to use it to effectively build a town. That is, we’d let the player build cities on the foresaken land. That’s a pretty big game change but when you add the new game behavior that the sovereign can only found their kingdom (after that, only pioneers can buil

After getting some quality time with 2B, here's some thoughts. - Mana regen is slow. Really slow. I wasn't totally clear from the level up screen which stat improved it, but I was using Procepionee who should have had some of it, and it was really slow. Maybe buildings can improve that later, but I didn't have a lot of luck building up large cities (lack of Civ tree hurts there, but that's a temporary problem). - One stat point per level isn't "fun" to me. "Fun"

[quote who="LuthienStarshine" reply="70" id="2663575"] Weaker enchantments like Just Cause cost a minor ammount of enchantment slots. Stronger spells like Ice Age cost a large amount of enchantment slots.[/quote] I guess if you have a lot of slots yeah, but at that point I don't see why that's better then just taxing mana regen. The regen mechanic is already there, no need to build something new to handle it.

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="53" id="2663328"] quoting post Suggestions and ideas on how you would like magical spells that stay in effect (do you want to require a mana cost or just have it be free? I’d rather see it be free otherwise players will have to run around dispelling things and that’s just tedious)Regarding tediousness here I think that depends on how you do it. For example, if you want to dispel unit buffs and have to search out each unit to do so, t

[quote who="ShivaX" reply="66" id="2663524"] Quoting SavageBananaMan34, reply 61I don't get this whole upkeep debate. Shouldn't buffs just last for X turns only? If you want to maintain the buff better recast. Don't most games do it this way? "Most" games? In this genre theres basically Master of Magic and Age of Wonders, neither of which did that. Both had upkeeps for spells. I mean would you really want to recast some big powerful global spell e

[quote who="Leyic" reply="50" id="2663263"]Long-term spells could require some sort of "spell slot" for their upkeep, so they don't affect mana beyond the initial casting cost. This would cut instant effect spells out of any micromanaging, and make it so the player can tell how many long-term spells they can have active at a glance, without the need to do any math regarding mana regeneration. Max mana and slots could then represent two separate research/questing branches: Some players would e

[quote who="Rath3130" reply="65" id="2663133"] For starters, SC2 is not that great of an example. Very different directions/end-game goals, though I do get your point. You are correct in that the figuring out which of the variables need adjusting is time consuming..However, if you think in terms of ratio of what is known to be a serious issue vs minor issue, the game-breaking variables that needed adjustment have probably been/are being seen to in the internal beta. I believe we would be

[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="36" id="2663186"] Isn't it really about what you can afford to maintain in addition to what you can afford to cast? Some MoM overland spells were one-time costs, but others had a base cost plus maintenance. The difference forced me to think about short and long term mana spending simultaneously, and I liked that.[/quote] yeah that's true. It really depends on the spell, and doesn't have to apply to everything. But it seems like maintaining something

[quote who="ddd888" reply="13" id="2663082"] Quoting Autarkhos, reply 10I don't know if I do or don't appreciate a mana drain. If we've got a "max" mana, then it may be a good idea to go the Dragon Age route of "taking one off" the max mana. Therefore, the more / bigger longterm spells you cast, the less spells you can "barrage" at one time. So, if a player's got a bunch of world enchantments up, they can't go shooting fireballs out of their wazoo. Then again, this all depends

[quote who="Melamine" reply="41" id="2663027"] There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Valve may or may not be pressuring publishers to use Steamworks. Because such communications are confidential, nothing short of an email leak will prove that Valve isn't actively trying to corner the market through unsavory means.[/quote] And you have some evidence that they are, I presume? Other then that we don't like Steam on this forum, therefore they're guilty? (And how woul

[quote who="Rath3130" reply="48" id="2663049"]And on a side note ..I see a lot of people worrying about the game's current state of "polish"(not a big fan of that phrase at all..you hear it too often, and it loses its value with each successive use within a given statement), to which I am inclined to add claude os, aperi oculos! Brad has already stated in previous posts, that the major parts of the game were creating assets, which is more or less completed. You know, that majority of thin

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="28" id="2662961"] While I don't disagree that extra time might be good, the date is already locked (marketing, factories to make the disks, publisher for book, so on so forth). Can't be moved at this point.[/quote] That's interesting, since in the first "army" thread I brought up the concern that the game might get released when it's not ready due to that sort of pressure, and was told it wasn't a problem. But now we're locked in? I dunno. I

[quote who="GeneralEtrius" reply="38" id="2662957"]With more and more games coming out that use Steam exclusively, you have to wonder if Valve is pulling some strings here. They can easily convince publishers to require Steam by showing how popular Steam is (popular because people don't know much about the other digital services). I think Valve also may be viewing Impulse as a serious threat, and for good reason: Impulse is a lot better than Steam. It runs better, updates better, and most imp

Oh nice, I didn't even know that. :)

[quote quoting="post"] ITEM #4: The Environment is Boring Based on the plot, the world is decimated. Thus, the lands are barren. However, we are finding this to be oppressive. Instead, what we are going to be moving towards is a system where the land is spotted with bits of grassland and Fallen land that players can build on without having to sacrifice essence. In addition, building cities is going to require a Pioneer pack. The player will

[quote who="Sola_III" reply="32" id="2662760"]I've always found it ironic that folks are having a cow over Facebook privacy, when majority share stuff they wouldn't have dreamed of before the 'net. Facebook and Steam are data gathering hubs with a middleware veneer and always have been. Face it head on, and take control of your own experience. If that means refusing Steam if a game is Steam - exclusive, so be it. [/quote] The number of people having a

[e digicons]:meow:[/e] The cats wish you a happy birthday. [e digicons]:meow:[/e]

Apparently, you will be able to load Civ 4 maps in the Civ 5 map editor, and convert them to Civ 5 . Looks like it's just maps, not mods or things like that. Still nice though!

[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="65" id="2661011"]In conclusion, I would just like to add that everything is overpowered, except what I use.[/quote] Oh come on now, not everything is overpowered. 9/10 scissors players agree that paper is perfectly balanced! [e digicons]:D[/e]

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="562" id="2661226"]"Valve has hired an experimental psychologist to come up with new ways to excite users with pricing models and sales. He suggested one in 25 users that buy Left 4 Dead get another Valve game for free."[/quote] Reminds me of those "scratch and win" days at M&M where with every purchase you win some kind of discount, up to the whole thing free. [quote]"As far as privacy goes, Gabe believes that people are willing to gi

[quote who="ZehDon" reply="31" id="2661393"] Wait, I'm confused here, you've just re-wrote my comment. As I said, expansion packs with multiplayer content force the multiplayer community to buy them. Being as Starcraft II's multiplayer portion is going to be the focus in 99% of all purchases, they've ensured that the first and second expansion packs are going to be a requirement for every Starcraft II player, be it a Single Player or Multiplayer player. I

[quote who="Aractain" reply="27" id="2660820"]Also I could be wrong here but I though that you get all the races with the first game in multiplayer right? And it would make sense if the diffrent releases are stand alone that they are playable with each other.[/quote] Yeah, you do. The other two installments add more campaigns, and probably a new unit or two. Just like Blizzard's previous expansions. It's business as usual, only since they announced it ahead of time people act

[quote who="ZehDon" reply="26" id="2660814"] Actually, I'd prefer if they didn't pre-plan the seperation of cannon-centric content to require the purchase of the previous entries.[/quote] So you weren't okay with The Frozen Throne (which sets up Wrath of the Lich King and indeed all of WoW, as well as finishing the Warcraft 3 storyline) requiring Warcraft 3 to play? [quote]Rather than releasing three stand-alone titles for their three campaigns, they opted to release two

[quote who="ZehDon" reply="24" id="2660513"]and the fact that Blizzard split their long-awaited game into three component spaced a year apart thus meeting the Activision requirement of all franchises having a yearly release, we can see the impact of the merger. [/quote] So if they'd just called the second and third ones expansions, it'd be okay? Like with every Blizzard release in the past since Warcraft 2? This assanine "splitting up the game" stuff has gotten stupid at

[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="555" id="2660595"] My line of questioning is how it'd be if Firaxis went it alone, which includes DD sales themselves (that's part of how the net is changing the old model). Your response "Firaxis is almost certainly still making more money even with that 30% cut [using steams' DD] then they are off retail copies..." compares store-bought vs steam DD -- apples&oranges, not firaxis DD vs Steam DD -- apples&apples -- which is my line of ques