Nesrie

[quote who="GI_Joe" reply="14" id="2722841"]No, in Civ 4 more than the goodies and resources were randomized. You would select a map type, such as "Archipelago" or "Great Plains" or "Inland Sea" and then you would select settings to further define the map, such as the climate and the how much water would be on the map. Then it would generate a landmass that was actually different every time. I don't remember ever getting the same map, even with all the settings the same.<br

[quote who="LeeOO" reply="109" id="2721257"] Quoting niteshade6, reply 108 Looking over the article again it does appear that there is still an unexplained math error. What nobody has addressed is the fact that the +88% is being applied twice. So he's still receiving twice as much research as he is supposed to. That is exactly what I was coming here to ask. In all the forum posts I have read hear and elsewhere no one answers that. [/quote]

[quote who="ddd888" reply="107" id="2720515"] why would you not play with time limit with friends? i dont get it anyway time limit is a thing, PAUSE is another ofc the game like every other games should have time limit AND the possibility of an agreement pause if some friend has to pee, answer phone etc etc [/quote] Well because they are my friends. I am playing with the

[quote who="Zawath" reply="104" id="2720402"]Well, obviously tactical battles would also have a timelimit. [/quote] Not that obvious. If you are playing with friends, things like pause, and turn length aren't an issue. There are really two different crowds being addressed, and their needs are different. I've played with friends where we took an 30 minute break, just left the game on pause. Who cares. No big deal. The coop, know each other group doesn't need a bunch of handholding

An example, Civ has wonders that are costly and risky to build that give a pretty strong advantage if you get them. They're not game breaking but their noticable. Maybe in competitive play, quests/quest items need to be removed or replaced with less advantagous items, in co-op it shouldn't matter because you're not using them against other human players. Make the AI strong and give humans a chance to risk something to get these items.

[quote who="TheProgress" reply="93" id="2719345"] Quoting Stmorpheus, reply 91 the thing is, if there are 8 players and 8 AI opponents. by turn 200, you would be seeing possibly 20 or more battles a turn, this would drive me insane. turns would take 30 minutes to an hour apiece, talk about pacing problem! i just wonder if it is a game engine issue. it might be that the way the current game is programmed, you either watch all tactical battles

[quote who="bonscott" reply="43" id="2718947"] Quoting SumoX, reply 41 I still think it's funny, though. Just last night on a another forum, I saw another PC gamer that refuses to buy Elemental because it's not on Steam and he doesn't want to "have to manage 4 accounts." Amazing- PC gamers, who spend time researching parts, building their own rigs, customizing and tweaking it, all of which can be enjoyable but are time consuming, speak as if signing up for mu

[quote who="Aractain" reply="80" id="2718725"]He said "I don't find Elemental's multiplayer in 1.0 to be fun in general." I don't see him mention tactical battles as the cause, just a cause for whiners, lol. Other than special items and the like the TBs would be the same as SP no? Maybe someone else on their team actualy likes multiplayer with turns? [/quote] You add absolutely nothing to the discussions by throwing around insults. As for tactical battles, they

[quote who="Aractain" reply="75" id="2718651"]I think a game like this without tactical battles is not really a full game, its like playing X-Com without the tactical battles. Its like reading a book or watching a film and skipping all the action scenes. It removes a significant context from the game. If multiplayer isn't fun WITH tactical battles, I don't see how removing them makes it MORE fun. When its an 'hosting' option I don't see the problem. Yeah for random people but I alw

[quote who="maxlongstreet" reply="17" id="2717883"]Frogboy, Without meaning to seem rude or entitled, I do think that we multiplayer fans are far more interested in options like tactical battles and full tech trees than we are in stuff like wizard duels. Multiplayer fans LIKE our games big, messy and klugy - even if you don't. [/quote] Yeah I don't know what a wizard duel would entail, but I am not interested in some sort of short combat&nb

Thank you for taking the time to address some of the issues that have been brought up and giving us your honest opinion. I fear MP may never have much to it as I don't know how much demand there will be when MP players primarily seek games elsewhere, but we'll see. Regardless, thank you.

[quote quoting="post"] 32 player multiplayer. This is a big one and will take a lot of work but it we are requiring that the game handle up to 32 players playing together. To make this work, it also means that games need to be automatically saved (to our servers regardless of whether it’s on a custom modded server or ours) so that stopping and starting games later is easy. [/quote] So I guess this answers my question about whether custom games a

[quote who="goodgimp" reply="2" id="2389499"]That's been my assumption as well. However, that same assumption turned out not to be the case with East India Company, where the skirmishy type of MP game types were all that you could do. [/quote] I felt your pain on this one too, fortunately, i usually wait a week until after a game is released to figure out what the publisher didn't tell everyone and have features confirmed.

[quote who="Annatar11" reply="2" id="1940396"]Awesome, thanks for explaining That's basically the impression I got about how it was going to work (well, other than being able to use non-sentient creatures in that manner). And you're right, I think most folks will like this approach. Pretty much everyone in this thread has been saying they don't want to see magical creatures cheapened [/quote] I think you are taking one opinion and down-grading it based on that opi

[quote who="the Gorgon" reply="6" id="1937761"](On 99% humans) Yes I've played HMM5 (hardly strategy). AWSM is decent but already too old. D3 too ugly. MM old. There is no such game out, so whatever people prefer, it's not about avoiding boring repetition. [/quote] HMM5 is garbage compared to the games before it. I am disappointed that the magical races willl be so infrequent. This actually makes me more reserved about the game than I was before

[quote who="BoogieBac" reply="2" id="1930279"] Is the persistent multiplayer like the GalCiv2 metaverse, or actual "true" multiplayer? You'll actually play against other players in-game. Will there be support for simultaneous turns?Such is the plan. We hope for head to head games over impulse.Impulse will be the backbone of the multiplayer. [/quote] When you say impulse will be the backbone of multiplayer gam

How would a story in a sandbox mode even work. You have a randomly generated map, and though you could create a randomly generated story, sounds like a lot of work that would lead to some pretty meaningless, probably even weird, stories. I would think scenarios would be more of what you have in mind and maybe parts of those can have random elements.

Co-op play is extremely important to our group, it's generally the only type of game that shifts us from MMORPGs to stand-alone type games. Alliances are great. I would highly recommend going that route.