VicenteCartas

[quote who="Raven X" reply="38" id="2420378"] I'd rather have types that add to the strategic depth of combat. Like using a Healing spell to do Damage to Undead enemies, or using a Fire spell to do extra damage to a Ice Elemental, or a Ice spell to do extra damage to a Fire Elemental. I do also see the need for magical spells in combat that don't do any damage at all. Like if you cast "Levitate" on a troop of foot soldiers. They won't actually be able to fly, but, a Earthquake spell woul

Eve is a hard game to get into, but it's also really rewarding when you do. Also, Eve, has a looot of aspects appart from PvP or PvE (=kill monsters). You can try science, commerce, manufacturing, etc. I you try Eve, the best idea is to join a good corporation that helps new people (like Eve University), that will make the start of the game muuuch easier in general.

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="34" id="2419380"]This is a fantasy TBS game. Spells, monsters etc. you know. So it would be a big mistake to leave out the magical dmg types and resistances + immunities. 1. It makes the combat system much more interesting 2. It makes the spell system much more interesting. [The other Sovereign is specialized in fire magic? Fine, let's create fire resistance items and equip our army with those! You got the picture?] 3. The player is forced to think & &

[quote] One of the things Win 7 does specificly is run in "XP Mode". Imagine that, it has a Xp Mode, but no Vista Mode...hmmm. That should tell you something in it's-self [/quote] XP Mode is only for old non-graphic applications support, specially for applications that were doing things wrong, like writting in "Program Files" (where only installers should write) and things like that. It could be called: "Clunky applications mode". Also, you can check the compatibil

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="32" id="2418782"]Ok, care to explain? Complex combat system without any magical dmg types/resistances and immunities in a fantasy TBS? You gotta be kidding.[/quote] You should be the one explaining why without them the game is dumbed down. You could add morale, fatigue, model injuries, chain of command/orders (pre-battle orders, music, flags, messengers,...) and a million extra things that would make the game really complex (probably too complex) and all of

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="27" id="2418437"] As for magical dmg types [ice/fire/shadow/etc] & resistances/immunities....they must be implemented or the combat system will be dumbed down/primitive....[/quote] No, they aren't a must. The combat system can be perfectly complex just with only a generic "magic damage" (or even without it).

[quote who="Raven X" reply="5" id="2416264"] I can see all Physical Damage being the same type. That makes sense.[/quote] It doesn't. Go and get hit by a mace, slashed by a sword and pierced by a lance, it's pretty different too. Even getting shot by a pistol and getting shot by a bow is pretty different. [quote who="Raven X" reply="5" id="2416264"] Getting hit with a Lightning Bolt however is far different from being hit with a Fireball. Fire would set the land a bl

Weren't battles going to be real time? (able to pause them, just like Total War?)

This is getting a little off-topic, but well. [quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="169" id="2400182"]I had to think about this a little bit, because this statement is sort of rediculous. I can't decide if you just said this because it sounded good, or if you're trying to say that making a premise is a waste of time. If you build a mechanic around something to simulate a kind of story, I don't know how that's a bad thing or leads nowhere. We might be arguing cross points here.[/quote]

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="167" id="2399987"] Master of Magic did have a story. The game was the story, it would unfold as you played the game. Sure, it might not have actual dialog and narrative, but the game definitely told a story. When you killed another sorcerer, you'd invade their tower and zap them to pieces or banish them.[/quote] If that's your definition of story in a game then I can't understand why you said chess has no story : I'm killing armies with my sol

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="161" id="2399493"] Interesting statement, but no, you do need story reasons. Otherwise there's no internal logic to it and it's just arbitrary unsymbolic rules. That's fine with Go, Checkers, and Backgammon, but for a game like Elemental, a story reason is pretty much required. I'd go as far as to say gameplay can only reach so much complexity without context and story. If Channelers are to die the way they do, I want reasons behind it and I want interesti

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="147" id="2398316"] Can't channelers persist for story reasons? [/quote] No, this is a game, not a novel, we need gameplay reasons. [quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="147" id="2398316"]Fair enough, although this seems to me a game flow issue than a complexity issue, since I think this has a whole variety of different ways to handle it, both simple and complex. [/quote] Stardock has come with a solution that is simple (to

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="140" id="2397839"] Sauron persisted after his physical form was destroyed. That was one of the premises behind LotR. I just think it would be more fun and interesting done in a different way. I'm in favor of the Sovereign dying. I'm not in favor of the Sovereign just dying. [/quote] Yep, Sauron persisted for narrative/storytelling reasons, not gameplay ones. The generic version of this argument is "making subsystem X more complex

[quote who="MagicwillNZ" reply="132" id="2397411"]I think everyone is concentrating way too much on gritty gameplay and not enough on awesomeness and fantasy. Frankly, if an epicly powerful being dies, of course there is a way to resurrect them. What slain sorcerer or demon or whatnot doesn't threaten the world beyond the grave? A pathetic one. The idea of a sovereign dying = end of game simply goes against a lot of high fantasy I've read. Even Gandalf "died" after his encounter wi

[quote who="Tormy-" reply="121" id="2396830"] 1. Singleplayer = The AI must be very intelligent in order to play properly with his/her Sovereign. [IE. Hide when needed, don't explore alone, bring a nice big army with himself/herself when attacking an enemy city - it must be able to retreat if needed, it must be careful enough when exploring lairs, it must act properly, if the human/other AI player decides to launch a "focus attack on the pretender", etc. etc. etc.] The AI won't be a

[quote who="Demiansky" reply="109" id="2396281"] At some point, no matter how careful you are within reason, you will make a minor misjudgement with your sovereign, to which your game will meet an outrageous and catasrophic end.[/quote] I would say that this is quite a strange case (dying when taking appropiate measures to avoid dying), so not sure it's any useful to make a point. [quote who="Demiansky" reply="109" id="2396281"] If sovereign death = prompt game over,

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="19" id="2393090"]Pathfinding isn't a problem. I mean its not that hard to create an algorithm that traces through portals. (Big O of N+XN where X is the number of portals in walking range, thus expected to be a rather low number)[/quote] Tracing around portals is like tracing from one tile to the next for the pathfinding algorithm: they just add new connections between two vertices in a graph. But I think your O(N+XN) is wrong, given

[quote who="NTJedi" reply="7" id="2392505"] If the game wasn't coming from Stardock (known for AI) I would probably agree, but the teleports are merely shortcuts to other locations. Such path_finding programming is not as difficult as say having an AI build supercombatants(SC's) and equipping them with the proper items to effectively kill armies single-handledly OR having the AI plan assassination attempts on enemy sovereigns. [/quote] While I agree the original poster

[quote who="Hortz" reply="40" id="2358410"] Second, visuals make the gameplay happen. [/quote] Yeah, that's why the beta is in the cloth map and not using the full game engine.

Who cares about the animations. I got Kings Bounty, I did the main campaign and then it will fade out in the pile of finished games while I expect Elemental to give me hundreds of hours of entertainment. That's important, that my bucks are going to get me far more gaming hours than I will ever get with Kings Bounty no matter how good its animations are. Look at the animations of Civ 4, really simple and no one cares about that fact.

[quote who="Torment" reply="26" id="2355431"] Very true? Not really, at least not in our case. Having a decent "naval system" for example =| having a decent combat system. Why? Because a decent combat system should be a core part of a tactical strategy/war game. [/quote] Well, a decent combat system doesn't need bludgeonging, piercing, slashing and so on. MoM has a more than decent combat type and it didn't have those things. I would like resistances and damages related

[quote who="IQofSpam" reply="71" id="2348626"]"Great" and "best weren't the point of this thread. "Style" is, or at least, was. [/quote] I would say that most of the great/best games have definitively style.

Some great games said so far, so I'll add one that I like a lot: - Dungeons and Dragons: Shadow over Mystara Probably the best arcade beat-'em-up ever made.

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="9" id="2348569"] So still no native 64-bit build? too bad. [/quote] Maybe they can't do a 64-bit native build because they depend on libraries that are 32-bits only.

[quote who="psychoak" reply="32" id="2344589"]I'd love to have irregular troops that can raid, but I think you guys are seriously over-estimating the damage potential you're looking at when a small force attacks a large one, especially if it's cavalry. Setting up some sort of ambush system wouldn't be much effort since you can have hidden and stationary requirements that are triggered by the enemy moving past. Balancing any sort of raid system that doesn't use the normal combat me