[quote who="Nathan E" reply="19" id="3111866"]Unfortunately, I have no idea what this is telling me. [/quote] It means FE has nearly achieved self awareness and commenced its plan for eradicating all carbon based life forms.
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="82" id="3111885"]My rating for the FE current beta release, using Civ4 BtS as the standard '10.0', is 2.0. To understand why only a 2.0 score, peruse the CivFanatics Civ4 - Succession GOTM forum to see how intricate and varied Civ4 games can be, then compare that to the current FE build.[/quote] I agree entirely. However your scale is effectively a blow up of just the top portion of the metacritic scale - you
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="42" id="3111636"]Master of Orion 3 was a near 7/10.[/quote] Reviewers must have been suffering from a serious case of nostalgia, or perhaps the Emperor's Clothes in that they didn't want to be the only one bagging it. At release MoO3 was appalling. For me bug fixed FE released right now would be worth about 6.5 (but Metacritic might give it more like a 7 I think). I'm pretty confidant that the various improvements underway (inclu
Much agreement all around with everything here...
Great analysis, [e digicons]k1[/e]
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="26" id="3108085"]The issue in FE 0.86 is that when you start out, you research the exact. same. path. every game. Standing Army. Training. Logistics. But it has nothing to do with whether w should start out with swords vs. spears. That wouldn't solve the underlying problem.[/quote] Bang on the mark. Arguing about clubs vs swords is a complete smoke screen from a gameplay point of view. They are just labels - they could equ
Civ 5 would be lauded as being a very good strategy game if: a. Civ 4 didn't exist and wasn't an even better game. b. Civ 5 AI could control armies in a vaguely competitive manner. The ease with which a decent player can destroy the AI and suffer 1/10th the AI's losses makes the rest of the game a mockery. (Strategy? Who needs strategy when I can use my superior tactics to destroy the AI anyway!)
[quote who="Cruxador" reply="46" id="3106529"]That's not ideal. They should be made into faction traits where viable, to increase potential customization. Unless we get a race editor, anyway, but even then a lot of these differences sound more societal than biological.[/quote] It's really just the same system that Masters of Magic had. Each of the races (High Elves, Humans, Dwarves, etc) had a strong influence on your game. But MoM starts still felt fairly customisable because
Here is another interesting quote I found from Sulla at http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/fiveopenquestions.html: I guess I'm a little bit worried because Jon comes from a modding background, and - perhaps unfairly - I've always been suspicious about putting modders in charge of game development. It seems like a natural fit, as modders are people who create their own scenarios; in theory, they sh
BTW That the what went wrong with Civ 5 post ( http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html ) is excellent and I hope the FE developers have read it, particularly the bit about how penalizing the player is bad. Civ 4 was an excellent game because it got all these mechanics right, particularly the initial cost to build new cities but then the potential long term gain once it grew and you built the right buildings (partly
Civilization 4 and to a lesser extent (IMO) Civilization 5 are very good balanced strategy games. That means that the player usually wants to achieve far more than they currently can and they need to carefully allocate their various resources to try to achieve their goals. There are serious tradeoffs to most choices. FE is getting to the point where it is fun but is still some distance to being a good strategy game IMO. Too many options and mechanics are still unbalanced so many choic
While I agree that I think the core mechanics of the game are more important to both my enjoyment of FE and its success, a four fold reduction in time taken to process turns late game is a pretty impressive achievement and always going to be appreciated!
Sounds like a bug to me. In real life (and I use the term 'real life' loosely of course! ;-) ) the drake would come out, rip the outpost apart, then go back to have a snooze.
I quite like the cities. Or at least I like the look of them and find their growth more interesting than say Civilization or MoM cities. I also don't mind placing improvements manually, particularly if double click also works to auto place. I do think the exploit of moving through them instantly is a bit crap (although on the other hand more than half the time the automatic pathing takes terrible paths anyway so one could argue it is justice!). I would be happy if a sensible rule
Agreed, I try to remember to always set the Pioneer size back to party, is annoying when I forget.
And lo, the world is a better place.
[quote who="Manii Names" reply="4" id="3101292"]Not useless. You just have to decide if: 1. This will be a militaristic city (Training). 2. You need more food to get to L4/L5 (Garden). 3. Food is OK to achieve L4/L5 city but we're poor (Merchant). 4. We anticipate L5 with this city but it will not be a troop-builder (Mason). I find all of those choices to be viable at different times. - Manii N
Personally I think if multiplayer existed I would be most interested in playing it allied with human friends against high difficulty (ie cheating) AI. Coop games have the advantage that everyone wins or loses equally which is nice in a long game.
Even in League of Legends which is by definition a multiplayer online game the stats I have seen suggest about half the people don't play ranked games (potentially more if you also rule out the people who played a few ranked games and then decided not to play any more). If you play competitive multi-player games it is tempting to think that everyone else is like you but it appears that most games which have decent single player and multi-player modes are mainly played single playe
I don't have a problem with having to rediscover technology... it is really a terminology thing more than anything. And I think the breakdown of civilization in FE is meant to be rather more catastrophic than the fall of the Roman Empire so thematically it is fine with me too. However I do have a problem with the resulting gameplay problem of lack of construction options early game. This can be broken into two parts: 1. The lack of options for designing troops. This is pre
Your post was quite reasonable Eviliron. However many people (myself included) have picked up MoM from GoG and elsewhere and played it again in the last year or two. The evidence that many of us still think MoM is a fun game suggests that your hypothesis that MoM love is largely nostalgia doesn't quite stack up. It was still a good hypothesis to put forward, but the evidence suggests nostalgia is a relatively minor factor.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="73" id="3099493"]I also tend to not be in favor of buildings that just give resources (wasn't that the complaint about the merchant earlier)? [/quote] I haven't read all the threads so I don't know what other complaints people may have had about the merchant but my only problem is that taking Merchant (or Gallows for the same reason) is pretty much a no-brainer in all but a single unit production city which would probably take Training Ground. G
Didn't vote because I want to see more work on the core mechanics such as the discrepancy between city income and item prices, lack of options for focusing on economy/growth early game, sparsity of early game buildings, general pointless-ness of food techs/buildings early game, etc. That didn't seem to be an option in the poll.
Great post, I imagine it took quite a lot of work to put it all together too. I don't agree with everything but it is a great starting point which hopefully Stardock will use to inspire their own improvements to the buildings. My biggest problem with buildings is a real lack of worthwhile buildings for economically focused players (such as me - I'm good at military rushes but I'm a builder at heart) to build. This is particularly a problem in the early game with le
In another thread it has been suggested that there should be buildings increasing the production from mines. I think the same thing would be the solution for mounts. Thus if you want to increase your mounts production you would learn the appropriate tech and build the special building in the cities that need it.