I imagine for simplicities sake that the sovs wife will become immortal as well, otherwise you have to repeat the marriage mechanic over and over. I wonder why the sov has to be immortal. Why not have his offspring be channelers who can take his place? That would avoid alot of the need for awkward explanations of many topics.

A lot of the charm of Master of Magic was that you actually were the channeler.  You weren't an invisible hand guiding the empire over countless generations, like in Civ, but you were actually a person in the game.  I think that added a lot, and I'm glad Elemental is going that route too.

QFT 

I haven't played MoM but I'll agree with Gunshy and Cauldyth, I would prefer to BE the soveriegn rather than BE the kingdom.

Same.

Here I have to disagree. Even if the Sovereign is "immortal" you are not really that person - in that case it would turn into a 1st person shooter kind of game.

You play (you are) the sovereign as long as he lives. When he dies you continue to play as his heir. The whole charm of a strategy game like this is to build your empire. Whether it's based on a major character or not and whether he/she is immortal is another matter. But the fun of building cities and sending out scouts and heroes etc is there also if you play a really EPIC, saga type of game with several generations. If you really wanted to play only as one person, even your own units should act according to an AI and not according to your mouse clicks (and yes I know that there is magic in the game but it doesn't change the basics). 

In any case, how can your Soveriegn be immortal? So can I just take him into any battle and he can't die? What's really the story? I guess he will have to be able to be killede in battle which will only lead to the "safe saving" type of game where the best strategy is to throw him into the most terrible fights and replay 'till he wins. No, take Dominions, the fact that you can be killed bur come back with severe penalties worked rally well. Why not include such a crucial option?

As an addition, commenting on the original post above:

- magic seems cool

- I love the ugly children idea

- ok with ugly graohics, good idea to make a good game

- quests and champions, remains to be seen what it means in game

- dynasties: disaster! I hope this version won't make it into the game otherwise it would be a terrible loss indeed ...

One commonly recurring element in many of Brad's posts I see as self-contradictory. Let me explain. (Please take this as constructive criticism. I believe that the team at Stardock will benefit much more from constructive criticism than permanent servile flattery.)

In reference to fun and beauty, Brad claims he wants to keep the 3D engine offline so as to play on the cloth map only, because -- quite correctly, I think -- he wants the game to be fun without flashy graphics. He wants us to judge the game on its merits as a TBS with good gameplay. This is commendable. Yet at the same time, he (correctly) claims that playing the product so far is mind-bogglingly debilitating, completely lacking in fun. These two claims are disjunctive. So far, the product is not even in the phase of "loosly connected features", since most of the features are missing, so "playing" on the cloth map alone is not fun. You cannot claim to restrict us to the cloth map to ensure we judge the fun of the game on its unaesthetic merits alone and yet deprive us of fun. Give us one or the other (preferably: fun!)!

Wrong wrong wrong wrong. When will people read? Don't we have many many threads, and even more posts, repeating every single time the same over and over? It's getting deadly sickening.

There is a book (in the works) by Brad. From that book comes the game (aka Elemental: War of Magic). Period. The story is about some very looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong living channelers (firstly the only ones, later known as Sovereigns as they ascend as leaders, other channelers appearing as these Sovereigns imbue normal people with Essence). Brad has the right to change his mind as much as he wants as creator of all this but the core idea is still the same (unless you make him change his mind totally which at this point, if ever possible, seems quite difficult but who knows): it's the story of those channelers and their battle for domination. They live really a lot, for so many many many centuries that in the scope of the story and game, they are considered inmortal (as in doesn't die of old age, not as in "cannot be killed if you behead him, stab his heart and set all his body parts on fire"). So they can marry and have children, and still live to see many generations of grand children, grand grand children, grandx100 children... It offers me some doubts for huuuuuuuge maps that play for thousandS of turns and still need to see who dinasty works so I can judge better this "immortality" but if in the end it makes sense and is well done, for me it's not a problem.

And althought it's the story of those Sovereigns and their struggle for power, domination, salvation... it's a TBS, which means that it's not an FPS, not a RPG (would love a RPG version of it though) or anything else. So it needs some concesions but always that the spirit is the same. So you don't control just the Sovereign (neither do you in RPGs) and can control cities or armies but he being the focus, he being "you", if he dies, the story does end (for you). If this was a choose your own adventure type book, it ends when you die and if you want happy ending you must start over. If you die in real life, life over (not being able to reload or start new life though).

It's not about liking it or not. That's the core. Then Stardock might try to find some ways to actually prevent abuses from that idea, weak points and offer people some alternatives without dropping the idea. And then we can discuss how we need a good AI to manage this event well, proper mechanics to make all this interesting... Or have people just bitch about how they want another system yes or yes.

Now any Stardock employee can post and prove me totally wrong, that's fine. This and the "only humans is not fantasy" topics... Nothing personal against anyone, but it feels like walking in circles ALL the time.

Rant done.

If the final build of Beta 2 dosen't suck you in and never let go, then we have issues...till then, we make no claims as to what level of enjoyment you'll be experiencing.

Yes it is about liking it or not, and that's whether it has been hinted as a core element or not. That is the main function of this Forum no, to discuss the pros and cons of various solutions and come up with good arguments and good ideas that in the end will make the game better, and ensure that also the customers are in on the ideas.

Take the many discussion on race for example: for the moment it seems like there will de facto be the equivalent of several "races", but structured into two main families, humans and fallen. A good outcome most people seem to be ok with. 

It might very well be that the Sovereign will stay "immortal", but who knows, the game can also be tweaked or changed, for example with options.

By the way, since the game is in beta stage taking in feedback, and since there has been no offical backstory pubished by Frogboy setting down the whole backstory in stone, I think we should wait and see exactly what comes out.  

Like onomasticon rightfully points out above, constructive criticism is what will improve the game, and has nothing to do with whining (which is not constructive by definition).  

So has there been official confirmation, yet, whether or not we'll be getting Beta 1G today?  I never saw any post that said definitively, one way or the other.

I'm still bugged by the idea that a sovereign who hopes to live for centeries can have a 'dynasty'. I guess you could say that family members could be more easily trusted with important tasks, but they must always expect to be subservient and never inherit anything other than their allowance. If their sovereign should die in battle then they must obey some distant relative that they don't even know. Would that be acceptable to the son of the sovereign? Says who? If he can't stand on his own, it follows that he would prefer to attach to someone who can best protect him.

The way this dynasty mechanic is presented, it seems to stand on shaky fictional ground. I think it will feel very 'gamey', and not feel like a story unfolding.

Gah I hate it when people use the term "gamey" as though it's a bad thing. Last time I checked this is a game.

But you do have a point in the sense of why would your son follow you if he knows he will NEVER inherit anything. History has shown us that heirs will do alot to insure they are first in line of succesion, so you have to ask what would they do if there was no line of succession.

Being able to turn one or more of a foe's heirs against her/him, and having to worry about one's own heirs turning, would add a lot to the game.  It'd also be one way for a smaller-sized empire to survive and prosper. 

Heirs being both helpful and a threat is good game balance.

I think that gameyness is ok in things like puzzle games, but when I play a game and I can't do something that makes sense or something happens to me that doesn't make sense because "Tahts da rulz", I always think of this sound...

I disagree.  These Sovereigns are not just immortal emperors, they have the very rare power to make land habitable.  It is through this power that people are able to survive.  Allowing your non-channeler, son to take over your empire without the ability to imbue the land with his essence would ensure the demise of all the people who live there.  The people need to swear fealty to a Sovereign in order to survive.

I have not tried the beta in a while.

Started a new job and all. I am going a bit crazy.

I think I will start a game tonight while I watch Montreal Boston hockey game...

But regardless of family relations, if your sovereign dies you need a new sovereign who's in a position to protect you without changing a great deal. That sovereign is not necessarily going to be your strongest relation, it will more likely be one that is both tolerable and can send troops the fastest.

Maybe that's ok. Maybe I'm being too nitpicky. 

The thing is, sadly, I don't think we are going to see a "loyalty system" in this game. Its just going to be a guarantee that anyone who joins you (or is born unto you) will always be yours, no matter what. Which is how's it's always been done in games like this, but is completely unbelievable.. Which leads me to my next point. 

It is a bad thing. Wouldn't you rather play a game that draws you in and makes you feel like your actually part of a living, breathing world? That the decisions you make are important, and that each time you sit down to play you can lose yourself in the game world? The only games that have ever managed to do this for me for any length of time were x-com and MoM. That tells you something, that games can be more than just games, they can draw you in just the same way that books can if you let them. But you have to make it that way. Cephalo has a great point, if you have something in the game called a "dynasty system", but you don't flesh it out, it's not going to feel real, and most likely it will simply feel like a way to justify an AI surrendering. Hence, "gamey"

Sometimes, gamey means stinky. Just sayin' ...

Frogster....you're an evil tease to your gamers. Just thought I'd put that out there

Then, when you get a band of heroes at your doorstep, coming to stop your plans of domination (ala most RPGs) there's an appropriate (and choice-driven) context.