Oh, for spell management, I'd like to see a spell tree if possible to provide an overview of all the spells. The base spells on the bottom, then a tree going up arcing to each related spell (IE Fireball -> Meteor -> Mega Hellfire Inferno, and maybe it branching off on the same level as Meteor with a Fire Elemental moving up to some sort of Daemon or whatever (all random names there)), the spells not researched yet being grayed out with perhaps question mark icons. Then from that spell t
Sanati
Ya I don't think Starcraft 2 is a good example. Blizzard thinks that it's some sort of "e-sport" and so they are being anal about balance.
Without even trying it I'm going to say there needs to be some sort of cost for sustained spells, whether some sort of mana decay or mana "reserved" for the spell, it doesn't matter. I'm just imagining hugely powerful epic spells, like something you cast and it causes fires all over the world slowly destroying forests, improvements, resources like orchards or beehives, and randomly setting units on fire, something like that can't be free to maintain. Minor "enchantments" can be free, but ther
Is the "polish stage" already under way while we test the mechanics of the game? Or are you really going to be able to do all that in one month? I have not been in one of your betas before, but even keeping an open mind I'm having a hard time imagining such a feat. As mentioned a few times already by other posters, in most other betas all this stuff is done 6-12 months before release, and all of that remaining time is used for balance testing and bug hunting. I really don't think us spending
[quote who="tanafres" reply="9" id="2662164"]If that's the only typo you found, then you're not looking very hard:-p Hopefully they'll have a few proofreading passes before actually going to press! IMG_04: Ogres: 'they lack', not 'the lack'. Also, missing the verb in the ending clause ('looking' or 'searching' for mates of their own) Golems: 'if their creator is killed' - each golem is singular, and likely has a
Did you have any essence left?
I was told in another thread that when you attack both your attack rating and the enemy's defense rating are rolled with 0 as the minimum and their actual rating as a max. IE with an attack of 7 you can do 0 to 7 damage and with a defense of 20 you can prevent 0 to 20 damage. I'm assuming 0s are represented as misses. So no matter how high your defense is there's always the chance of being damaged by a peasant with 1 attack. In a situation where you have units with 20 def and 7 attack
It's probably disabled. They have level indicators and exp bars, and they gain exp, so there's a very good chance they will be able to level at some point. Would be cool if you could level a peasant so much they become as powerful as a champion, and maybe even become one.
Escaping from a lost battle removes 1 essence. [quote who="strager" reply="1" id="2653823"]I think he dies if your in a city thats attacked.[/quote] Nah, they get moved out of the city. Ejected from it basically.
Are you sure that was the video you meant to post? I was expecting to see magic or something, not some guy standing there fidgeting. [e digicons]o_O[/e]
I'm seeing this a lot. It is literally multiple cities on top of each other which is easy to see once you start razing them. The cities under the main one usually don't have any upgrades though. The first time I saw it I thought the AI somehow ninja built a city instantly after I razed the previous one, but it kept happening and I knew I was far away from their sov.
I like the APB screenshot in their Elemental gallery. [e digicons]:|[/e]
Your example wouldn't work. Food isn't something you need every turn, if you destroy your gardens you don't lose population or housing. If people could do what you suggest they'd turn food on for one turn and build a bunch of houses, then switch it to resources or money right away until they need to build more houses. It would be an easy way to exploit the system, at least right now you have to actually destroy the buildings to switch it up, which probably isn't worth the lost resources.
The campaign is supposed to be more RPG, so I'd imagine there will be a few heroes with strong stories and great impact on the game. Right now with what we have to play with the heroes can become very powerful, though currently there's very little if any story to them.
[quote who="Nemesis7884" reply="13" id="2654288"] dodge chance might makes sense since dexterity increases defense, but at the same time unlogical cause armor increases defense too which can hardly increae dexterity - maybe a combination of damage reduction and defense - but then i am also wondering if certain attack types are worse / better against certain armor types (e.g. are magical attacks also targeted against defense or rather against wisdom/intelligence?)[/quote] In D&
[quote who="Tormy-" reply="177" id="2654248"] Source? PS. The biggest maps is EWoM will be much bigger than the Civ4 maps. Even in the 32bit version. The 64bit maps will be gigantic compared to the Civ4 maps. Do you really think that having a couple of cities will be ok on maps like those? Having 50++ cities on the biggest maps looks absolutely ok to me. [/quote] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0bdOXOkxdc That's the latest one I can
[quote who="Nemesis7884" reply="8" id="2654229"]that means its not like 10 attack vs 5 defense = 5 damage, therefore also a 1 attacker can harm a 10 defender over time?[/quote] No. It's very easy to get defense up into the 20s, but I think the best melee weapon that can be researched right now is like 7 attack, and the best I've seen from quests is 10 attack. With those sorts of numbers and a flat reduction system battles would never end as everybody would be doing 0 damage, but that'
[quote who="Nemesis7884" reply="5" id="2654211"] hmm altough somehow logical this would lead to the creation of high attack 0 defense/low hp mass-one-hit units and huge hp/defense 0 attack single city-defense units...?[/quote] They attack more than once, and both sides need both attack and defense. A unit with high def and no attack might be able to survive a while but it's not going to do any damage and eventually will be worn down, even by a unit with 1 atk. Don't forget there'
They said they are doing weekly updates and we really only have 10 Thursdays left until August 24th. If we are going all the way up to a beta 4, then they don't have much time for Cs or Ds. You'll notice that beta 2 link lists custom sovs as 2B yet we are going to get it in 2A. They need to step it up, I'm still worried we aren't going to have enough time to properly test everything.
[quote who="Tormy-" reply="169" id="2654177"]This is a strategy game, isn't it? [/quote] So is Ogre Battle and HoMM, you can't build any cities in those games. Not all strategy games have to be the same. Civilization and FfH are the games you play to build 50 cities, I was drawn to Elemental because they talked about how the game was based on building a much smaller number of cities. [quote who="OsirisDawn" reply="171" id="2654190"] As kingdom player right now
[quote who="strager" reply="161" id="2653950"]But you shouldn't be able to steamroll over someone using that strategy.[/quote] If they don't prepare for it then I don't see why not. Much like rushing in another game. If your sovereign sits on their butt in a city all game and you don't train any adventurers up or build some really powerful defenders, then you will lose to that strategy. If you counter their strategy though with sufficient protection, then they have nothing to fall bac
Seems like a lot of work to essentially just remake GalCiv2. It would probably be easier to just make a GalCiv2 mod and tweak a few things to your liking as that game already has everything you are asking for. It's not like it's an old game or isn't mod friendly.
[quote who="strager" reply="150" id="2653788"] That should not be allowed to happen![/quote] Yes it should. I believe it was specifically stated by a dev somewhere that at the start you should have the option of recruiting NPCs and doing quests or building up your kingdom right away. It's probably even possible to never build or capture a city and still win using only the might of your sovereign and NPCs. I believe in another thread somebody mentioned they got an
[quote who="Eldorad" reply="58" id="2652951"]Each to their conquering own! A way of creating that cap is through essence - unless there is another mechanism you can think of that makes sense narratively - ie in the game world? In sins it was around logistics - you needed better supply and such to be allowed to build more ships. What are the limiting factors in elemental? I would have thought the essence mechanism is the best way to go. Reduce starting essence
[quote who="Eldorad" reply="53" id="2652928"]A hard cap is interesting - a bit like capital ships in sins - but it kinda screws you for capturing enemy cities.[/quote] I'd honestly rather not capture enemy cities, raze 'em on the spot, but that's probably just me. The cap could just be on "creating" cities though. You could get more by capturing enemy cities, and that would be a real strong motivator to defend your cities or capture them back before they can be razed and lost forever.