[quote who="Cauldyth" reply="16" id="2749633"] Quoting Spyndel, reply 15Which reminds me...hey, did I mention all you guys are really great, and you dress really interestingly? +1 for the reference! (assuming it was a reference to what I think it was) Apes don't read philosophy! [/quote] Now we're talking. And yes they do...they just don't understand it.
Conceptually, it's frustrating to have your SOV be able to raise mountains out of the sea, or cleave them in two to walk through them, or scorch large swaths of landscape with great gouts of flame, but they are stymied by some trees out of an inability to engage in a little gardening.
At least I see what you need to do to get some karma. Which reminds me...hey, did I mention all you guys are really great, and you dress really interestingly?
I'd really like to see more terraforming magic. It would be desirable to get rid of forests simply because they spawn monsters and inflict a terrible speed penalty, let alone the fact you can't build on them. I haven't checked to see if the burning sands desert conversion spell will convert them or not. Mana is generally too precious to use in this fashion, anyways.
I usually get around 140 with conquest victories on small-medium maps. Have no idea what this means. Once people learned how to metagame Gal Civ 2, they were able to run up ridiculous 7 digit scores. I have no idea if the scoring systems are at all similar.
Gal Civ 2 was aggressively supported for two- three years, with regular patches that addressed performance issues, significant game play and interface improvements, and two official expansions that significantly revitalized the game, with the final expansion resulting in almost an entirely new game (more like Gal Civ 2.75). That's really the best, and only metric that need concern you. If it doesn't reassure you, nothing else is going to.
IM not a fan of the AOE (hit everything) true damage spells. Get rid of them from the game, even from the powerful end game demon units. The fact that the spy gets this ability relatively early on just exacerbates the cheese. I learned that my demons were far more deadly split up into individual units killing everything on the field at once, than they were grouped together. No opposing army can withstand that, and I certainly wouldn't like it if it were used against me by th
On the one hand, it makes sense. You can stab multiple times with a dagger vs every long slow set up and swing of a great axe. A dagger granting extra attacks, makes sense. That's what the + speed boost is supposed to represent...extra attacks. It becomes conceptually hazier when it also controls move speed and casting speed, but, if combat speed were being used properly, equipment speed could act as a *limiter* on those actions, which would encourage units to be built along con
For better or worse, it seemed to be a conscious design decision to avoid sliders and infrastructure micromanagement in this game. They wanted everything based on simple additive construction. I'm personally not opposed to the idea in principle, but it would represent a fundamental change to the game philosophy. With how much micromanagement we have in the late game just controlling units, I'm not sure more kingdom micro on top of that would be a good thing. I don't think
I'm cool with Sov death but ONLY...I mean ONLY, if the dynasty system is as robust, entertaining, and worthwhile as Crusader Kings. Currently, it is not even close. The dynastic system in that game was a fun little metagame in it's own right, but what we have is a shadow of that. If that was not significantly expanded, I'd only see Sov death as the downside without any of the upside of monitoring huge extended royal families with internal politics, and a wide variety of traits that af
AI is important, but a lot of people still can't play the game very well. Performance and stability, as ever, are the number one priority. Then, bugfixing. Things in the game should be working as they are *supposed* to work, otherwise you can't make the most informed decisions about what really works, and what doesnt. A lot of stuff in the game is simply glitched beyond recognition, or not working correctly. When I play the game, I am going to be more quickly put off by special
[quote who="Dethedrus" reply="1" id="2746573"]Loving it! It would not only strongly encourage equipment diversity, but strongly penalize the mantra of just throwing the biggest armor and weapons on some jerk and letting him/her go to town. At least not without a significant investment into combat speed either via tech (hopefully) or items (only if the Mr. T paradigm is fixed). [/quote] Thanks! But like most of my posts, probably nothing that
[quote who="Norhg" reply="42" id="2748988"]Defense scores go far higher than attack at the high end, 60% higher or so if the unit is in a defensible position like a hill. If you reduce attack power the defense of plate armor needs to be reduced too. I completely agree that combat needs to be less lethal, ideally I would want to see the experience/training techs reworked so hit points become more uniform across the game - I don't think you can balance the game
[quote who="Akka" reply="23" id="2747857"]I still disagree with your reasoning. Basically you are saying that tactics and variety hang on the fact that a unit can enter mélée without armor and come out unscathed. This simply doesn't compute. I think that, on the contrary, tactics enter more in the equation when you have to take this into account - and it allows the game to be more logical, seriously, who would expect to fight toe-to-toe without defense and still survi
You know, one "simple" fix that I should have mentioned, was a general nerf to weapon potency in the game. It is far too easy to run up obscene attack power in the game that outscales common hit point and defense scores. Squad tech allows offensive scores to skyrocket and one shot anything, while defense scores don't accumulate in the same way. Even the combined defense score of a squad will not keep them from losing members.
[quote who="arstal" reply="24" id="2748729"]I disagree with the concept that 2 rings/1 ammy is lame. .[/quote] Yeah. How on earth is a rings/ammy limit more lame than having unlimited, cheap +2 attack , and +speed amulets? +Speed in particular because the AI loses any ability to predict/analyze your movements.
Epic. On the plus side though, there are creatures with teleport in the game? Cool.
I want Brad to come over and wash my car! Just kidding. There's a mailing list for significant product updates/sales, etc.
[quote who="hairrorist" reply="5" id="2747491"]Spyndel, perhaps that's what happened, but SD's stated position is that the gold master was a finished, playable, and contained 8.2 gigajoys right at launch.[/quote] Which really has nothing to do with the reason *why* they were releasing when they did, as per the OP's question. Only that they were overly optimistic about the product that was going to be released regardless.
They don't release the game at will. It needs to be coordinated with retail outlets. It was explained they could commit to a choice between the release date they went with, or next year. They thought they could make it, and weren't able to pull it out. That's why. No conspiracy to screw you, no intentionally cutting corners. A tactical error between two less than ideal choices.
I'm optimistic about the game. From experience, SD has never given anything but dedicated support to their games, and continued, community interaction, timely improvements far in excess of what you'd find from almost any other developer. They have never been anything but above and beyond the call of duty in that regard. The game has all the basic building blocks in place of the game I want to play. That said, I don't think the game will really be the game it
The game doesnt run well on *high end* machines right now. All SD games are designed with scalability and low end machines in mind. The game simply isn't (or shouldn't be) that graphically demanding. When they start tracking down these optimization issues, people should see performance increases across the board.
[quote who="theomni" reply="11" id="2746954"]I thought it was kind of a cool change from the very specific stuff like 'I'm going to research aerial ninja combat tactics' you see in other games Research is always so ridiculously specific, in this case you're just researching a field and when you have a breakthrough, you can choose what your people discover. I've never had one turn up empty though, that owuld make me pretty angry. [/quote] The difference
[quote who="marlowwe" reply="8" id="2746824"]The posters above me explained it very well. I wouldn't mind having the probability mechanic in the tech tree go away. In addition to the balance issues created by having a tech tree designed this way, I think these random based mechanics are standing in the way of a well-defined, structured and meaningful tech tree.[/quote] Yeah, I'm not really sure what this aspect of research adds to the game. It doesn't r
[quote who="solidsmooky" reply="13" id="2746755"]Congratulations on thinking of literally the worst idea that has ever come across the stardock forums. It was really hard with these other winners here but you managed to edge everyone out. Here's your award![/quote] This is not really called for.