Sorry if I missed the info on this, but I see this in the 1.09E patch notes: [quote] + Fixed bug where map size was always tiny in the available games list [/quote] I tried firing up a MP game just to see what options I had (very few, boo! hiss! :)) and was surprised to see that only Tiny and Small maps were available. Is this intentional? Why can't I select bigger maps?
One thing I'd like to see more of in Elemental is sieging / storming fortifications and cities. What I mean by this is walls that you have to break down (or scale), defensive structures like ballistaes, mage towers, that kind of thing. I really liked those aspects in Age of Wonders. I know the tactical battles in this are intended to be smaller that something you'd see in Total War, but I'd love to see assaulting heavily fortified cities / forts a real challenge.
I know there's a lot of (legitimate) complaints on the forum regarding Elemental and in typical intarwebz fashion, it's usually expressed in the most crass and melodramatic fashion possible. I'm a player who was disappointed by numerous things about Elemental's release and put the game on hold after 1.06. I've told myself that I was going to wait until 1.1 before giving the game a go again, but after seeing the 1.09 patch I decided what the hell, lets fire it up.
For Multiplayer, what I'm looking for is being able to play the full-featured single player game in multiplayer with my friends, with AI players, and with mods if we so choose. I don't need/care about separate game modes, mini-games, etc.
They are ashamed, hence the mea culpa(s).
[quote who="woca" reply="44" id="2748785"] champions are listed in ideas/suggestion[/quote] Yea I just re-read the post and saw it, don't know how I missed it the first time. My post has been edited :D
Thanks for the informative post. If I may, here is my feedback: - Why are you guys still reinventing the wheel for MP? Creating a MP spellbook (no tactical spells, but I thought Brad said you guys had reversed you position on including them in multiplayer?)? Changing tech trees? Guys, just get the base game to an awesome state, and that's what people are going to want to play in MP.
Whirlwind wins my favorite dev of the week award. Thanks for getting your hands dirty in a thread like this. Personally, I don't think magic should be rolled vs. physical defense, at least not in all cases. Does a spell like "Mind Blast" really care if a guy is running around in plate or leather? You can freeze a guy in plate mail as well as you can in chain (or naked). I really think the game needs either a generic "Magic Resist" stat, or my personal prefere
Stardock has said themselves they're not too happy with Tactical battles, so I don't think they've "learned something" from that aspect. They already know it. Besides, comparing tactical battles in Elemental to King's Bounty is unfair. King's Bounty is a tactical battle game, Elemental is a strategy game with tactical battles. I do agree that King's Bounty offers a ton of inspiration and ideas for Elemental, though.
The problems are there and real, but as is the case with internet forums, oftentimes blown way out of proportion. I like Elemental, I like it a lot actually, but I'd have to be in denial to say that it doesn't need serious, serious work. Some of it is in regards to bugs/crashes, others with design in certain areas. Thankfully, this is Stardock, and they have excellent post-release support. I bought this game for the long-haul.
I know everyone is posting their thoughts, but I wanted to do the same. I'm curious what others in the community might think. Here is my current thoughts of Elemental and the areas I think they should focus on. * With Elemental, I almost have the feeling of when I start to put a new computer together. I like each individual component, but it doesn't do a whole lot of good until it's all put together. Elemental is in that stage for me. I like the dynasty stuff. I li
Something I found... AI on "Normal" is pretty passive. I had the game difficulty on Challenging, but I noticed the AI players themselves were still set on Normal (as soon on the "Select Your Oponents" screen). By changing these AI to challenging, they became much more aggressive and were actually building some impressive armies. Now, they weren't that great on how they used them. They captured a couple cities, but didn't ever seem to garrison theirs very much.
[quote who="Gnasche" reply="17" id="2734590"] Yeah, that's a better thought. I like to think of the champions as leaders, rather than superheros. Giving them an ability like improving morale and more would be a great way to make them important. When you saw an enemy army with a champion, you'd want to avoid it until you got an equal champion-led army. This would make champions much more valuable. You'd want to keep them at the back of battles, bu
As usual, Annatar11 to the rescue with the 411. That should actually be your handle, Annatar411. Thanks!
I'm trying to figure out how the mechanics work for tactical combat spells. The damage is clear enough, it's usually stated as up to (INT) * n(Shards), but I want to know what roll is taken place to determine if a spell hits or misses. I get the impression that the Defense stat plays some role in it, because I typically "miss" a lot more spells against high defense targets, but it's not clear. Also, if Defense is used to avoid magic damage, what is the to-hit stat that is
Brad said this in his Day-0 update post: One piece of good news on MP. Originally we had planned to eliminate tactical battles from MP entirely because of balance. Some people correctly guessed the misguided (in hindsight) reason for this: We were approaching MP from a purely competitive point of view. Based on the persuasive arguments made by our players, we have decided that tactical battles will be made available in MP – as an option – at a later dat
[quote who="kryo" reply="1" id="2724481"]There's a setting in the options to clip the cursor to the game's monitor in fullscreen. [/quote] This was one of the things I asked for in Beta, and I was sooooo happy to see it in release. Thank you for being so responsive to an issue which probably effects a very small minority of your customers.
Wouldn't controlling Shards help make spells compensate a bit more in the late game?
Tom Chick is a terrific reviewer and a big fan of strategy games. Not that he's the Word of God or anything, but as far as game reviewers get, he's about the best you can hope for. There's no reason to slam him for discussing his frustrations while, as he puts it, trying to like the game . Tom Chick and Brad are no strangers to each other, it's not as if Tom's out to do a hatchet job. Also, this isn't a review. This was his first early snippet of his th
Maybe we, as a community, can bribe the Stardock devs to enable the option. We can order them pizza or something. [i]Everyone[/i] loves pizza... and Raymond, I suppose, but mostly pizza. What do you say, Stardock? Eh? Eh?? How can you resist this flaky crust, these delicious toppings?
Having a time-based tactical battle, where the battle would "hold over" until the next turn, would require game and game engine changes I would imagine, so would probably be out of scope for the near future. To be honest, in MP I'd be completely satisfied with the existing mechanism of saying "All battles under this size are automatically resolved, the other battles we'll present you with a choice". In the future, for an expansion pack or something, I'd love to see allies be abl
My thoughts: -It's no secret that I was expecting the full-featured game to be available in MP, as that's the way the other games in the genre have worked... Civ4, Age of Wonders, etc. It honestly never occurred to me that significant features wouldn't be available in MP. I don't just mean tactical battles, I'm also referring to questing, etc. -It bothers me a bit because of the way, and more importantly when , this information was communicated. &nb
Absolutely, it's what it all comes down to. Options allows everyone to win. Have the default option be a nice, streamlined experience designed for "balanced" matchups online, and an "Epic" option for the full deal. I think everyone walks away happy from that.
I agree, Maxlongstreet put things a lot better than I could. Karma!
[quote who="Femmefatal48" reply="21" id="2717410"] Quoting psychoravin, reply 18Nah don't waste resources on MP. Leave it like you thought it up and continue to support and create the single player experience beyond your wildest dreams. I agree focus on the single player game for awhile and then invest in the MP game later.[/quote] I love straw men! No one's asking that they take resources off of SP, or "invest more resources" in MP. MP is already the