[quote who="Ausland" reply="1" id="2996947"]cool. Is there a maximum level?[/quote] Good question! And how will this affect balance? Hoping it will work like the Age of Wonders hero levels.
Playing devil's advocate... lets say I establish a city, would I be rewarded with extra resources by spreading my city like a spider-web to gobble up as many resources as possible. Or do resources play a different way? I'd be happy with a single city tile, personally, with buildings abstracted inside it rather than the sprawling messes we get in WoM.
Lucky we have this random event to even things out. :)
Looks interesting. But base of 6HP has me worried.
Boosting monsters etc is a bit of an ad-hoc approach when trying to balance the damage/armour in the game. Instead could all the numbers please be looked at holistically. WoM has really suffered through patching problems rather than really addressing the cause of these problems in the past and now we have a good direction it would be a shame to make that mistake again. A big 'enjoyment' issue has always been that you only ever need one stack to conquer the world. It makes the
Played a little deeper into the game now. I'm wondering if threading is the cause of the turns working out of sync. Seems that most of the issues are due to the turn processing while the turn is still being played out. Caravan limits are also flagged on the turn the last one is built even though there are no others in the queue. Some other issues: New designed units are starting with 3HP while Peasants start with 5HP. XML issue perhaps? Faced a rog
Posted this in the changelog - should have posted it here I guess: Started a few games but haven't got very far into any of them yet. There are a few things I've come across so far: Turn triggered automatically even if some units can move . This is the annoying one so far. If you have a number of different units positioned around the map turns seem to be triggered as soon as any unit finishes its move. If other units have stored movement objectives it w
Started a few games but haven't got very far into any of them yet. There are a few things I've come across so far: Turn triggered automatically even if some units can move . This is the annoying one so far. If you have a number of different units positioned around the map turns seem to be triggered as soon as any unit finishes its move. If other units have stored movement objectives it will play these out - but if a unit finishes its turn somewhere you need to
Great list, Brad. :) [quote who="Frogboy" reply="45" id="2989638"] 3. Fix balance. Specifically, the combat imbalances, prestige imbalances, and training time balances. [/quote] Can you please give more details about how you are approaching the balance of units, weapons and armour? Are we still going to have glass canons or is this going to be a serious overhaul? I am excited that this is being addressed but I don't want to get TOO excited until we
Hexes would be awesome. WoM suffers because of lack of zones of control for movement and it would be much easier to use with hexes than tiles. (With hexes each other hex has a definite border where tiles have borders and corners to consider).
Agree with the others that balance and Tactical Combat are the 'big' issues. Glad to hear that a bell curve is to be used for calculating attack/damage rolls.This is a great move as long as the specific means and variances are adaptable. Will modders have the ability to specify the mean and variance for specific weapons. Would be really really cool to be able to have weapons have different bell curve means and variances against different armour types etc. That would ma
Thanks for the update, Brad. :) Second the call for a better beta bug system for FE. The current ad-hoc post to the forums is not really 2011 - more like 2001. Although Derek's pre-bug list posts were great. I am looking forward to trying Fallen Enchantress but there is also an equal measure of trepidation. Please let us experience the whole game this time in beta rather than just focusing on isolated elements. I think that if the beta testers for WoM had been able to tria
No, War of Magic is playable in the opposite way Dwarf Fortress is. Dwarf Fortress is a fully engaging game with an unbelievable map generator where lots of different aspects lead to different games every time you play it - but it just looks like crap until you get used to it. On the other hand, E-WoM is not engaging, has a very shallow random map generator, and no matter what the world generates it plays the same way every single time - but the graphics do look good which doe
The game is not as bad as it sounds. It is playable and I find it fairly stable. It has some interesting aspects but overall it is much less than the sum of its parts. It is a game that is fun to play the first time around but then after that it is pretty much the same time after time. At this stage I'd say it isn't really worth the $$$ but Fallen Enchantress shows some promise so perhaps best to wait for that release and see how it is received.
[quote who="Mtn_Man" reply="4" id="2977817"]Because livening up a forum is an excellent reason to rush a game through development. [/quote] [e digicons]:grin:[/e]
I'm in 100% agreement with the various comments about the problems other than engine limitations. The game mechanics are flawed no matter what the problems with the engine brings. As has been said, there is no real strategic choice and there is no differentiation. This is really what underlies the concerns for FE if they haven't been solved in WoM.
[quote who="BlackRainZ" reply="34" id="2976233"]... In my opinion, having the ability to customize units obviously killed that idea of having thousands of units but it also killed the individuality of factions. If you had several unit types for each faction rather than customizing units, each faction could have been more unique and you could have kept in those thousands of units running around. I think people would have been much happier that way.[/quote] I think this is an important
Thank you for addressing the concerns, Brad. :) I understand all too well the issues of developing new software and invariably it takes a heap more effort than anyone ever anticipates. As such, for me at least, the bugs and crashes are to be expected and I'm not really worried about these. My issues were really regarding the balance and mechanics. It sounds funny, but I'm heartened that WoM is not being given much priority and that changes are only being implemented th
I want Stardock to do well and I want Elemental to be a great game but where things currently are I am really concerned about the various decisions and releases over the last 12 months. If past history is a good indicator of what to expect in the future, what are the most likely outcomes: 1. FE will be a little different than WoM but still suffer from the same game-breaking choices regarding the underlying game mechanics. 2. Decisions will be made affecting FE without
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="2" id="2973994"]... What is the point of beta if you do not pay attention and fix the problems we report?...[/quote] This has been giving me the shits as well. But the damned potential of the game keep sucking me back in. Like watching a blind-fold darts game. Most of the throws don't even hit the board but there is still a chance of hitting a bulls-eye.
Thanks for the update. I like most of the changes but am concerned about a couple of things: Terra-forming spells just seem like dev-wank to show off what an engine can do with deformation. It changes the underlying game too much. Really wish these were dropped. The combat numbers still look very small. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but the small damage number examples lead me to think that tactical combat in FE is not going to be a hell of a lot different than WoM. 1
FE is sounding a lot more realistic in its objectives. WoM basically started where most games finish up - full of features. The only trouble with adding features without the benefit of game evolution is that you run the risk of not getting it all right. That's what happened with WoM. I think the approach of simplifying some of the dog areas in WoM for FE is a good call. I'm looking forward to it but don't want to get overly excited yet until we can see how the game handles tactica
I thought Stars! was a better game than MOO in its day. And Distant Worlds sits right on the top of the tree for me now as the best space-based 4X game ever made.
We're arguing for pretty much the same result but via different methods. You guys are wanting individuals and monsters to be brought up to match parties while I want parties to be nerfed to match individuals and monsters. When I read your reasoning it makes sense if the game can control scales and equipment - but it doesn't! In WoM party size goes up 4, 8, 12 and 16. A size 16 party is really worth a hell of a lot more than 4 x size 4 units. And exactly the same equipment can
I never played MoM but are we really comparing apples with apples? In MoM could you: Design your own units (armour and weaponry)? Use the same equipment across various unit types (as in, heroes in WoM share the same equipment tree as all other units and races)? Decide on the number of units in a party? Have parties regenerate (heal)? If the answer to all these is 'Yes' then perhaps WoM could be balanced (WoM does all of the