[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,[/quote] do you have any sort of logic thought? if they removed tac battle ofc they do think the mp game WITHOUT tac battles is better
[quote who="Nesrie" reply="79" id="2718714"] I say give us the SP game, all of it, in MP and let the MP community tell you what needs to be fixed and what would be great to add. [/quote] yeah thats the point
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="61" id="2718446"]Honestly I'm a bit surprised tactical battles got taken out of MP completely. It seems to me the easier option would be to leave it in, but let whoever is creating the game set the threshold. I would imagine it's always better to be able to have tactical battles and chosing not to (by just clicking auto-resolve), than not having the option. If people complain that tactical battles in MP aren't fun, you can improve them and in the meantime they're
[quote who="Tridus" reply="57" id="2718428"] Well then there's no point in talking at all. [/quote] no there isnt the only thing we can discuss is the cut of tac battles since we know what tac battles are and what means to not have them every other speculation or suggestion or discussion is useless
[quote who="Tridus" reply="50" id="2718420"]Can we take the bickering to another thread, please? 1. We know that release MP isn't up to expectations. We already had a gigantic thread about it, just a few days ago. In this one we've got the ear of the boss on what we want to see in MP. Let's stick to that here, and put the complaints in the complaint thread. We might actually get some of this stuff that way. 2. Single player folks antagonizing people just need to STFU in
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="46" id="2718398"] Why? [/quote] because you nutellaed the thread gg
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="43" id="2718384"] Quoting Zawath, reply 41Taking tactical battles out of the multiplayer mode is a huge mistake and makes the game a lot worse in every way possible.Your opinion, and in my opinion about yours, quite a bad one. This game is more than just Tactical Battles, after all. But yeah, you must be part of those for which the battles are the most important part of a game. Just speculating and not that I really care. Someone could say that ani
[quote who="Tridus" reply="40" id="2718368"]I really think when it comes to MP you need to split up who you're talking about into groups and look at each one individually, because even from this thread people want drastically different things [/quote] i dont agree ALL THESE POINTS are the basis for multi in 2010 its not like we are asking to invent something new we asking what every other multi has coop deat
well if you played civ online you should know how it works while on single players there are many useless battle in multi its NEVER like that human beings tends to be smart and never attack when they dont have good odds that results in very few but decisive battles i think elemental would be the same, ppl wouldnt spread the armies all around the world and so playing full battles wouldnt be much time wasted
how can that be constructive? constructive would have been asking ppl who wants to play online how they like to play and follow the wind
[quote who="Xtropy" reply="20" id="2717905"] Edit: I too will apologize if this or anything I've said sounds like entitlement. Really it's more of a desperate plea that you change your mind on this position, if not by day 0, then hopefully sometime down the road.[/quote] well not to criticize but a hope MP get a LOT OF LOVE and work later on otherwise the game is destined to die if it loses completely a whole section of players sure ther
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="13" id="2717854"]My general view is that just as single player shouldn't get shafted for MP, I don't like the idea of MP getting shafted for single player. I think that MP should get special attention over time. I think there's a lot of potential for this over time that we should (and will) visit. I like the idea of wizard duels more and more.[/quote] mini game are not fun i and most of ppl want to play the same single play
i dont get how can stardock force ppl to play like they think the WORLD is based on casual gamers there is no one who can change that like i said b4 a casual game is easier for everyone and thats why it is whats is gonna happen more often you will play ofc with your friends but the HIGH NUMBERS wont be your games but the casual random games
ppl buy elemental cause they like strategy and turn based games(and fantasy maybe) some of them like to play against other human beings when they can surely they will organize events with each other most of the time they will come home from work with 1 hour to spare or something like that and they will join a random game on the internet
well b4 we criticize the choice we should see EXACTLY how long is (would be) a multi game with all in and what exactly they cut off
well you are partially right about it but dont forget that the numbers in multiplayers are made by random casuals vs other randoms so yes, TIME MATTERS if the game is too long a small community of friends could still enjoy the game, but the random game i play vs another random players on the internet wont the risk of disconnecting will be too high, the risk of one of the players to get bored and log ou
[quote who="ripcurlrc" reply="2" id="2714914"]While you make a couple valid points, I believe that veterans of the 4x genre should be able to give me some insight in to this game's difficulty. I'm not looking for someone to give me "be all end all", but more of a opinion of what sets this game apart from previous 4x games that might make this game easier to get in to. [/quote] like every other games there will be difficulty levels i think
seems cool :)
[quote who="Nktalloth" reply="4" id="2712782"]It's just too bad it's so hard to get AI to do things that are "technically legal" like players do. An AI that could start legitimately out-maneuvering me would be a wonderful thing to behold.[/quote] thats impossible that would be a real I not an AI the problem is humans LEARN there is no way a static ai can be competive in the long run cause ppl play more and learn, while ai doe
[quote who="arstal" reply="2" id="2712776"]The AI is what bring the value six months to a year down the road. [/quote] tbh thats multiplayer, but ok
it will depend on settings as usual
imbue is a spell you have to cast on strategic map also there is the problem of targetting since the ui miss a option screen to select in case there are many units on the same tile anyway just get a champion you want to imbue alone in a tile and move there the sovereign and cast the spell
[quote who="_Scooter_" reply="8" id="2700707"]I would have the effect of Int vary by creature type, and magic type. So fire creatures might tend to have boosted attack, earth boosted health/defense, air boosted combat speed, ice some kind of utility effect (eg Int% chance that the enemy gets frozen in place for a turn).[/quote] yeah this is even better so we would have really different gameplays with different school of magic
[quote who="Stmorpheus" reply="22" id="2700668"] so i say only show a handful of spells you can get, based of the books that you chosen. just like MoM have the sov spend points on multiple same books, it takes 3 books in a single element to get all the spells of that element. [/quote] yeah id really like to have multiple books to gain additional spells also would solve the problem of some sovereign having too many spells
[quote who="_Scooter_" reply="2" id="2700562"] Or have intelligence and wisdom limit the number of enchantments/summons you can maintain? I'd also tie intelligence into the strength of summons somehow (eg strength or health of the summoned creature); I don't think its right that summons should ignore intelligence completely.[/quote] i totally agree with this int SHOULD do something, like a bonus hp to summons (maybe even to a