[quote who="divvu80" reply="104" id="2765268"] Quoting VR_IronMana, reply 102 No expert here either Where are those damn experts when you need them [/quote] Guess, they are too busy modding to inform us laypersons [e digicons]:pout:[/e] [e digicons]|-)[/e]
[quote who="Shterzer" reply="14" id="2765290"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 4I know that personally, I am interested in having magical duels (Channeler vs. Channeler in a tactical battle where they start with nothing but rather must summon or battle each other) but that's something we'll have to look at for the future. Ooooh, sounds like the duels I had while playing Archon/Adept (I'm ancient, I know) on the Apple II. I really like Elemental, even in the state it is now. There
[quote who="Robert Hentschke" reply="179" id="2765011"]But there is something to the mental picture of a girl dressing up in a chainmail bikini just to thwap a spider with a newspaper. DIE, VILE CREATURE! [/quote] LOL I hope for her sake that newspaper has a high attack rating. Of course, with the randomness, she could have a sledgehammer and just do 1 damage to it :)
[quote who="ddd888" reply="40" id="2765151"]the most important thing is another you guys dont consider that multiplayer is the BEST balance workshop [/quote] I absolutely agree... ...assuming the players are of high skill level. While, granted, they are (likely) going to be better than the current AI and I agree that MP certainly gives a lot more data for consideration (strategies, abilities/skills/spells used in ways that
[quote who="wynams" reply="32" id="2765096"]If I had to guess, I'd say the thinking here is the box that shipped out last month said "features: 16 player multiplayer" not "features: balanced game".[/quote] Then, by that logic, the game should be considered done as soon as MP opens since balance isn't "on the box".
[quote who="divvu80" reply="84" id="2764683"] Quoting VR_IronMana, reply 83 I wish I played the games you played where the stock AI was as good as the modded AIs. Or so good that modding the AI isn't even a thought He's actually right. AI is one of the most "Organic" parts of a game, and it's also one of the hardest thing to tweak. Usually you want to build the AI around the features. I'm no expert, but many modded AI are just a shifting arou
[quote who="XMorlocX" reply="15" id="2764689"] the rumors that Blizzard was considering making player use their real names. Reportedly, it got rescinded due to the sheer outcry over it. I can understand the outcry. Just imagine logging in to find your dearest "Princess Sheewanna" is now "Barney Frank". [/quote] LOL Always check under the frock! ALWAYS!
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="146" id="2764607"] Any by 'finished' I'm not talking about bells&whistles but the kind of problems we see in some computer games -- instability, missing promised features, lack of basic balancing and polishing, etc.[/quote] I think that's part of it, though. If a game has balance issues but no major issues, is it "finished"? If it still needs tweaking - it still needs some work - so is it "finished" or just "good enough to be released"
[quote who="Fatbil" reply="18" id="2764576"] Quoting UmbralAngel, reply 16 In each game I have played so far, I have always had 4 offspring. And I seem to notice the AI players getting the same. were you expecting 2.5 kids? A little randomness could also flavor the strategy a bit. Maybe 2 in one game, 6 in the next, or 1 or none on the off chance. And the AI should get the same, instead of always getting 4 each time, every time.<br
[quote who="Nack210" reply="82" id="2764626"] Quoting Zero_the_Hero, reply 80So back to my question: can't we mod this game into a better AI and implement the new combat ideas? While I support the modding community of all games 100%, things like these should be fixed in the vanilla game. Only lazy companies like Bethesda make their fan community fix their games.[/quote] I wish I played the games you played where the stock AI was as good as the modded AIs. Or s
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="96" id="2764593"] Sometimes the act of getting the games to run was more fun than playing the games [/quote] It certainly felt like a (difficult, cheating) game a lot of times too. mem /c /p was a command I used way too much. It's sad I still remember it... And they say gaming isn't educational. You learn more about computers being a gamer than anything else. Even now. (and it's crazy now on the hardware side)</p
[quote who="Zero_the_Hero" reply="80" id="2764561"] So back to my question: can't we mod this game into a better AI and implement the new combat ideas?[/quote] For the AI at least - probably not extensively until it's opened up into Python code - though there seems to be some xml that deals with the AI so maybe there's something that could be done. Combat model - no idea there. Will have to hunt the xml to see if I can see anything.
[quote who="sagittary" reply="5" id="2764510"] Quoting Fightingweasles, reply 4Will the turns be simultantious or my turn everyone elses turn in order? Considering the reliance in the single player of seeing an enemy unit and moving at it to start a fight, if they are moving away at the same time this obviously can't work the same. But then waiting on up to 16 people to take a turn would be far more arduous? I hope that it's simultaneous. It would basically suck to
[quote who="Gravedancer" reply="4" id="2749650"]The trees are sacred. [/quote] Elemental: War of the Druids?
[quote who="Rune_74" reply="91" id="2764428"]Lets not forget expanded vs extended memory...god who thought that shit up.[/quote] I'm going to have nightmares now. Thanks. Glad we don't have to deal with that crap anymore.
[quote who="klaxton499" reply="8" id="2763885"]Most of all I hated how one AI troop would run around flipping control of your shards and resources. Don't even get me started on underground & the void (or whatever it was called). [/quote] About the only thing that aggravates me with the game also. It's even worse on Oracle's Eye with it having all the sides in and along with the underground also. Of course, that was my favorite map.
[quote who="Jandurin" reply="43" id="2763638"] Shoot, I played Lords of Magic multiplayer and had a great time. Fairly similar game, except that your CHAMPIONS actually mattered =] [/quote] Loved that game. Too bad they had a bad AI system where only some of the faiths were active based on the one you played.
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="89" id="2763087"]Remember trying to get the old DOS games to run by fiddling with CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT, loading things into HIMEM, etc.? [/quote] Oh man...I remember that. I remember MEMMAKER and then being able to do BETTER than it. I think I learned a lot about memory in those days and the 640 K area, etc. Can't believe I did this stuff as a kid.
[quote who="Mistwraithe" reply="26" id="2764388"] I personally aren't really fussed about the stability problems with Elemental, they will get fixed. Improving and polishing the gameplay until it gleams is what I want to see.[/quote] Yeah, stability fixes are almost a given. It's the rest I'm waiting to see also.
[quote who="greggbert" reply="15" id="2764181"]I'm dissapointed that I cannot say that the 4.0 score was unfair. We forget so easily how unplayable the boxed version of this game is. I'd love to see all early purchasers get a 50% discount on any expansion pack, ESPECIALLY if it is stand alone.[/quote] I heard it will be free - it's somewhere around here and was posted by Brad. That said, I do think 4 is too low, but I didn't have a lot of the issues other fol
On the plus side - a bunch of humans trying to exploit - er - I mean, gain competitive advantages over the system (and each other) can show a lot of data and areas that need to be balanced. I think having MP enabled won't a bad thing and can even show more examples of the systems that need work and what's broken in them, especially if they stick to their goal of "nothing in SP will be sacrificed for the sake of MP" - even SP-only folks will benefit from balancing. The AI can also be t
[quote who="James009D" reply="8" id="2763978"]Hmmm, I missed this in Psychology. I suppose this also explains the rumors that Blizzard was considering making player use their real names.[/quote] Yep, they were. You still can, but now it's a choice. Reportedly, it got rescinded due to the sheer outcry over it.
[quote who="scyldSCHEFING" reply="249" id="2764337"] You mean have we all been transformed into uncritical fanbois? No, no we have not, and we won't. [/quote] Well, I don't think everyone has to be a "fanboi" to not have drama. There's plenty of threads criticizing the combat mechanics, for example, and there's no "troll" vs "fanboi" or whatever going on.
[quote who="Gyb" reply="13" id="2763769"]Does it also seem like the damage values in AutoCalc are different from what you get in tactical combat? When I read the report from an AutoCalc battle my damage, especially spell damage, is WAY higher than the numbers I see in tactical.[/quote] I think it's been said somewhere that Auto-Resolve uses a different calculation for damage, which is why it's higher.
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="48" id="2763693"] There is no "to hit", in the strictest sense. Every attack hits, the only difference is in damage dealt. Sure, the game displays "Miss", but that's only an abstraction so that it doesn't have to show hits for 0 damage. The engine is designed to assume that every attack hits, and only calculates the damage of the hit. [/quote] Well, see - I wish it would have put "no damage" or "ineffective" because as you see, it confused me to