SeanenG

It's not really just a matter of 'catering to someone new' by making the game simpler. Quite the opposite, I'd say. Because the thing about newbie traps in a game is that they look like good options, but experienced players know better. So the game may actually have 100 options, but you, as an experience player, will realize that some options are better than others, and you won't use the worse options. So for you, the number of meaningful options is less than 100, usually muc

[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="5" id="2421030"] The original description was "continuous turn based". Despite a few attempts to explain it, I've never been really clear on just what that is.I always explain it as being somewhat like Chess: you move a unit, then your opponent moves a unit, then you move again, and so on. Still not clear on whether movement points refresh at the end of each move, or if you need to move all of your units/click end turn to refresh them.[/quote] Is that

[quote who="Tridus" reply="48" id="2420845"] Anybody else feel bad for Stardock trying to reconcile stuff like this? [/quote] Not really. :P Looking at some of the other threads, I've noticed Frogboy can say something like 'Soverign Death is Non Negotiable' and then... the thread will be filled with people trying to negotiate ways to get around it. There's people with conflicting opinions on every topic. Ultimately, the developers have to make a choice bas

[quote who="Roslolian" reply="181" id="2420670"]Anyhow, the problem with complexity isn't a matter of thinking. It's a matter of micromanagement. Games have wisely moved away from micromanagement as a key component precisely because most things that can be micromanaged can also be automated and kept from bogging down the experience. Micromanagement adds a level of player control, but not meaningfully so.[/quote] I agree about micromanagement, but there's another issue for me as well.<

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="35" id="2420053"] Really? I think resistances and damage types have the opposite effect. Players aren't made to think, and in fact it makes every element the same. If people can resist fire damage with their units then you have to make each element have equally powerful damage spells as fire for example.[/quote] I actually agree with this. Having a system for 'Fire Damage, Ice Damage' is not particularly clever or interesting. In f

On the one hand, this seems pretty standard for a Civ-style strategy game. And for some reason, I really like the idea of being able to outfit my troops with Bronze swords The Bronze Age is sadly underappreciated. I'd similarly enjoy being able to field troops with Aztec-style swords made from Ironwood and Obsidian. But my preferences for quirky weapons aside, I do sort of question whether a fantasy game like Elemental really needs this sort of thing. Games like Civilization include t

[quote who="Tasunke" reply="177" id="2420266"]I would like for the various types of weapons to be distinguishable in some way.[/quote] As I mentioned upthread, I totally agree with this. The unit design aspect of the game is a core feature, at least in my book, And there's little point to it unless there's specific traits for different kinds of weapons. I do think it's a bit early to be talking about the specific details, but generally speaking, I'd like to see it made fairly

[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="109" id="2416988"]So many people asking for damage types, but I don't think they're necessary. Even with the magic casting. What would be far more interesting than damage types for spells is interesting effects that define the nature of the element type of the spells. Fire spells do lots and lots of damage for example, water spells could have ice that slows units down. I'd rather have a variety of ways to USE magic than a variety of

The problem with rock-paper-scissors isn't just that it's boring to me - it relies on the sort of structural framework that won't actually exist in Elemental because you're creating your own army from the ground up. As Frogboy has said, there is no 'knight' unit, so you can't balance units with the assumption that 'knights' work this way and 'footmen' work that way, and there are established relationships between pre-defined forces. Take Cavalry, for instance. Cavalry is just 'a soldi

What I'd like to see is something of a mix between Option #3 and Option #4 on your list, and additionally a provision for low-level trading between players. Resources would automatically move between cities, giving preference to cities where there's a high demand (as in 3) but slowly building up a base level of the resource (as in 4). My idea: Your caravans would take the resource to nearby cities, and from those cities to more distant ones, slowly spreading it

[quote quoting="post"] What would you guys like to see? [/quote] I'm somewhat tired of swords. Or, to be more specific, of the way that most games tend to approach weaponry. Swords are always the default, usually the best, and when they even remember that other types of weapons exist (you know, the stuff that was actually used far more than swords throughout history) then they make it into a lame rock-paper-scissors type of affair. And that's boring and frustrating to me.<

[quote who="apollodensin" reply="3" id="2402077"]It could even be a tabard that changes color i think if you dont want to do armor coloring[/quote] You could easily put in a 'clothing' equipment type with tabards, coats, cloaks, jackets, fancy hats, whatever. Make it a simple matter of picking something to give to your troops - by default steel armor over brown leather shirts, something simple like that, but with the option to pick 'green tabard' or 'red cloak' or 'purple royal robe p

Just as long as it has a better Design/Unit Manager than Alpha Centauri. It was an absolute nightmare trying to slowly scroll through the list of units in order to delete those old designs one at a time. I suppose for me it depends on what 'fully customizable' actually involves. What I've seen described looks like you're choosing weapon, armor, equipment, and training time - That's three core choices plus however much equipment you want. Not exactly something that's going to trip peop

[quote who="SavageBananaMan34" reply="3" id="2395290"]In conclusion, the goal of the game is to give the player a victory as soon as the player knows he is going to win or turn the entire match on its head with some extreme random event so that the player no longer feels secure. Imagine if in Lord of the Rings, after surviving the battle at the Black Gate and watching Sauron die Aragorn had to hunt down every orc encampment and then go after the corsairs in Harad. That's boring. Once the ring

I've just been catching up on the forum discussion over the last couple of days, so I'm sure there's a lot I've missed. But that said, I still want to put in my two cents. Having Sovereign Death mean Game Over makes perfect sense to me, from a design perspective. I don't know if this is the same train of thought you followed, but it seems simple enough: No matter what you do, there's always only going to be two options. Either Sovereign Death ends the game, or it doesn't. No matter wh