goodgimp

Not taking the time to come up with custom MP game modes and MP game rules would save resources, if anything, not cost more.

I hope so, Windexglow, but as I understand it custom servers aren't going to be available at release, so no MP mods? I really wish the interviewer had followed up on the answer. I find this other Q&A troublesome as well: Out of the box, Elemental’s multiplayer will be essentially skirmish on fixed maps that have been pre-balanced (i.e. not randomly generated). Egads. I have RTS for that kind of m

Bitterly disappointed about the MP info. There's a reason my friends never picked up GalCiv2 but were chomping at the bit for Elemental. Now I have a feeling most of them are going to be clamoring for refunds, depending on how gutted..er.. "streamlined" the MP experience is. I know Elemental is a SP focused game, so I'm not asking for additional features in MP, I'm just asking to play the same game that I bought. I know MP isn't a big deal to a lot of people, but i

From the GameShark interview: Yeah.. I’m not a good advocate for multiplayer.. I love multiplayer in, say, StarCraft II, but in turn-based strategy games… basically we put it in because some people like it a lot. Some people imagine that multiplayer should be like the single-player game with humans in it, but our play-testing on it found that that isn't fun at all. So what we've been doing with the multiplayer is really streamlining it

ac,k, sorry, double post.

Just clarification, is the early access the RTM/Gold version or the official Day0 Aug24 patch version? Or do we get an older version on Monday, then patch on Tuesday? Thanks!

[quote who="andrewlt" reply="114" id="2711763"] I wouldn't classify a lack of LAN option as "DRM". When I think DRM, I think of some crap like SECUROM. Then again, I believe that was Civ 4, not Civ 5. Steam isn't exactly a rootkit, virus-like DRM like SECUROM.[/quote] But DRM was the specific reason for removing LAN functionality. They don't want LAN play, or things like Hamachi, because they want all MP to be routed through battle.net, which requires login and auth

No LAN option, for starters? The way battle.net went down and people couldn't continue their campaigns? I'm not bashing on Starcraft 2 or anything like that, but axing Civ5 for DRM while being fine with Starcraft 2 is... strange.

[quote who="VenomWW" reply="104" id="2711650"]Civ 5, no thanks because of the intrusive DRM. Starcraft 2, loved it, played it, finished it in about 5 days of VERY casual play, was just wayyy to easy. SC2 had a good little story, but the single player game was just wayyy to short and the multiplayer doesnt interest me, to much of a clickfest. I still play MoM today, looking forward to Elemental, pre-ordered it over a month ago.[/quote] You're skipping Civ5 due to "I

[quote who="Buladelu" reply="1" id="2710539"]3. Try Victoria 2, it comes out this friday but you can get demo right now.[/quote] This, times eleventy. The Vicky2 demo is so full of win, I'm really looking forward to Friday. I'm delighted I'll have a game that will keep me fully occupied until the 24th. In the meantime, if that's not your cup of tea, why don't you trust me and go pick up a digital copy of the <a href="http://www.minecraft.net" target=

Right. Civ is a little easier to talk about, because you're talking about an existing franchise (a franchise that Elemental is, in some ways, based off off). It's hard to discuss much about Elemental at this point, as there's no more Beta updates and we've yet to see the game "come together". In two weeks time it will be much easier to talk about (and pimp) Elemental.

People were saying the exact same thing about Civ IV, about how it would tank. Yea, that happened! If you don't have 4-5 year old hardware to run Civ5, you're probably not much of a gamer. And in that case, waiting until your computer dies or you replace it isn't too much of a burden, right? I really do truly sympathize with people who want to play but can't due to system reqs, but be reasonable.

I would imagine they prefer you buy it through their proprietary distribution platform.

Since when did 4+ year old hardware become "insane" system requirements? Having a really old machine is fine, but if you don't have a Core 2 Duo these days, you shouldn't be expecting to play brand new games in 2010 - especially not in a genre that typically is very hungry for CPU horsepower.

Not sure why you'd say that, but different strokes for different folks. Day 1 purchase for me!

For a PC TBS game, it's gotten plenty of coverage. You also have to keep in mind that it's a new franchise so it has to built up everything from scratch. Civ has had many years to build up a core fanbase excited for the next installment.

Aug 24th, Release. Public beta is over. :)

The tech tree changes sound very interesting. Civ and Warfare always seemed well constructed but the others felt pretty meh, now they sound like interesting trees in their own right. I also like the action points tied to Wisdom thing. Now I'm yet MORE pumped for the 24th. Aaaaaaaaaaaargh.

[quote who="Pantasd" reply="1" id="2702923"] its the final countdown [/quote] Now all we need is Gob and a magic show!

Regarding this: [quote] + Attacking a city now automatically brings up a tactical battle, as long as either the attacker or defender is the local player, and the game is not in multiplayer. [/quote] For the release game, please just make this an option. It drives me nuts when options are taken off the table. It should be up to my friends and I to determine whether or not we want to allow tactical city battles in our MP games

Add it to your favorites or attempt to cast it on the Strategic map first. It won't work, but you'll find the spell available after that. Must be a bug.

They just finished the build last night, we're not several generations back or anything :) Tactical battles are new. It's our job to find problems and get them tweaked to our liking. Sure tactical battles are dull right now, but that's the point of Beta 3B. EDIT: Was writing this before Istari posted.

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="14" id="2685049"] Nop. The size of the maps should be dynamic. It should depend on the total number of units or groups. [I copy&paste this reply of mine from an other topic ->] Example: Number of units [or groups] on the battlefield / size of the map -> That'd be fine. But for the battles I'm fighting, the maps are too smal

I feel that maps need to be about 50-100% larger. It's so small and clustered together, you have no time to align your forces for defense or attack. If they keep the map size, at least place the opposing forces on the opposite ends of the map. Right now everyone starts right in your face so it really seems to limit the usefulness of ranged abilities. Thus far (and I admit it is early), there are a lack of "interesting choices" to make during a battle. I get att

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="21" id="2682047"]Re: Multiplayer - our main focus for release day on multiplayer is to make sure it's FUN to play for the widest number of users and then, from there, create lots and lots of options for custom games. We're still evaluating whether tactical battles will be in MP initially or whether to implement them somewhat differently for MP later on.[/quote] The tactical battles are fairly critical for my friends and I. Having