Not to be able to save game is bad. I lost several games, because after several victories the game crashed. And after that I lost every battle since the last save. Sometimes even the save got corrupted. I like to play big worlds. If I spend several hours by playing and such crash happens to me, I would think twice before start the game again. And the reason of the crash need not to be the fault of the developer of the game. A lot of things can go wrong in your computer.

I'll never be as brave as you, you hard-core gladiator of RTS games.  I'm too busy raising a family and volunteering to serve my country.

But please don't change your story.  In post 3 you'd asked to have exclusive content.  That's not 'hardcore' mode. If you want an advanced difficulty setting like you mentioned that are included in other games, that's fine.  You can even have all of my points - because points don't motivate me, at least not in this type of game.  Also, I don't really care if you feel that I cheat - I'm perfectly ok with that.  You can stop tossing that argument against the wall to see if it sticks - because it doesn't.  It's entirely irrelevant to your reason for wanting other people to play according to your personal preference, and it doesn't support your idea to give exclusive content only to those setting the game to 'hardcore'.

From a budget standpoint, creating content for a relatively small** audience isn't a wise expenditure of your development dollar.  I suppose you can keep trying to sell that idea to Stardock devs, but I'm pretty sure they'd rather have their ankle's crushed than spend time developing features and content that will appease the minority of customers while simultaneously managing to piss off the other (larger) segment of casual players.  A cheaper/faster solution that suits your specific needs, NTJedi, was already presented earlier in the topic; Have the devs disable your Save button.  You can then brag about that, and I can just play my game.  As a bonus, my earlier offer stands: I'll give you all my points, forever.  Win-Win.

** Pretty much every marketing and industry report I'd run across indicates that the hard-core gamer is a minority in a sea of casual gamers that just want to fire up a game, click some stuff, and have fun.  You can google yourself to see.

I'm also raising a family and work a technical career where I need to be available 24X7 or major companies such as GE can lose a hundreds of thousands of dollars or more because a server is down.  With my limited time I choose not to play the baby baby level using the save/reload crutch allowing me to always win, but usually I start on hard difficulty then impossible difficulty then I use map editors to provide the AIs with even greater advantages. 

Heck anyone can be all powerful changing the future to win in their games, but at that point it's not a game and more of a storyline.   Just because your time is limited does not mean you have to change the future to win games.

In post 3 I asked for a hardcode mode to satisfy both groups and added the suggestion to include some type of bonus for playing hardcode mode as seen within other games such as Warlords Battlecry 3(RTS).  Heck the developers of Dominions_3(TBS) did not want people using save/reload cheats and thus purposely left out the save cheating option completely... you can still save an exit, but once you select end turn you must play the hand you're dealt.    

I realize giving up your security blanket which allows a guaranteed victory is difficult, but with an optional hardcode mode you can transition your way or choose to keep your save/reload crutch. 

As I wrote earlier several types of games have included bonuses for 'hardcore/iron man' mode.  And they included those bonuses because the challenge is harder.  Why should someone running 5 miles on flat grass recieve the same reward as someone running 10 miles on rocky ground up a hill?  Yeah the person running the easy 5 miles will want the same reward, but clearly does not deserve the same reward.  I believe another reason previous game developers have included bonuses for the 'hardcore/iron man' mode as a way to encourage gamers to play a tougher and more fair challenge.  So it's not only MY personal preference, but it's what developers in the past have realized and thus provided in their games. 

  As I wrote earlier it's a growing desire from gamers... which is why we're seeing it included for more and more games.  I never said it was a top leader.

Quite frankly that just means I would lose interest in those games earlier than otherwise. Why? Well first, I would end up playing the hardcore mode because I want those extra features, too! I'd lose interest because sometimes I'll be playing a game, and something will happen that makes me not want to continue. Maybe I got utterly crushed and want a second chance; or maybe because the AI did something utterly retarded, all of a sudden essentially handing me the game. It may surprise you, but I use the load feature fairly often in order to circumvent AI mistakes as well as my own. Not everyone who likes the load feature uses it to guarantee a win - at least not all the time (and quite honestly, there are still occasions in which no level of loading will change the future, unless you essentially start over). If I can't load my game, and something happens that makes me not want to continue that game, then I'm not going to finish it; and that is not the mark of a good game.

Just because some people will 'abuse' the load feature, you should not penalize everyone who wants to make use of it. Is there really anything wrong to, after victory or defeat, jump back into the middle of the game and trying something totally different? Or replaying a particularly fun segment of your game? Not to mention, I don't see anything wrong with abuse if no one and nothing sentient is being harmed. I abuse my alarm clocks every morning (they usually don't last very long), should I be punished for it? And really, what about people who are playing with save/load enabled, but don't actually use it at all?

Wait, so what do you mean by bonus, now? Extra features, that just add to the overall richness of the game, or features that provide the player an advantage? Because quite frankly, I don't see why a harder challenge warrants extra features. By that reasoning, features should be stripped from the game as you lower the difficulty level from the highest setting. Because that's where your argument is taking you.

If this were a competition, then someone running 5 miles on flat grass shouldn't necessarily receive the same reward as someone running 10 miles on rocky ground up a hill. But Elemental is (or will be, anyway) a game, not a competition. The major reward Stardock should be considering is the fun factor - how fun can they make this game for every type of player? Look at GC2. Some people very can jump into the game and very quickly hold their own on the highest difficulty settings, while other people, even after playing the game for years, still have trouble playing on any AI setting above tough. Why should those people essentially get an inferior product to those playing on impossible? I know that isn't what you're arguing for, but it's a logical extension of your argument.

The *only* reason to play on harder difficulty settings, or hardcore mode, or whatever, is if you personally find it more fun. Maybe because you're so good that the easier settings are boring, or maybe you find near insurmountable challenge to be more fun. Great! Go for it, we will do nothing but applaud you. But I personally don't enjoy getting my ass handed to me more often than not, and I would like to play the game at a difficulty that presents a challenge but not a road block, and I want the option of going back in time and playing around. That is half the fun of the game for me (and apparently plenty of others).

And in conclusion, another great reason not to give extra features for hardcore mode: they would inevitably end up being modded into the regular game by disgruntled players, and it would just make people even more bitter towards SD if they have to go through modders in order to be able to play the 'full' game as they see fit to. Seriously, giving extra features to people who play the game in hardcore mode would be a downright terrible idea. That said, hardcore mode itself is a great idea; it provides a way for people to compare scores with reasonable certainty that the people they're being compared to didn't 'doctor' the game to their benefit. In fact I think that's the only good reason (still good enough for it to be included) for hardcore mode, because people who just don't want to load for whatever reason can simply choose not to, even if the ability is there. 

Actually games such as Dominions_3 and Warlords Battlecry_3 were big successes... so it's not the major pain you seem to be crying over.  I completely agree with those developers as well and when these games and other games with the IronMan/Hardcore setting are released I don't see any big threads of complaints.  Perhaps you can show me a thread where lots of gamers complained over the IronMan/Hardcore setting providing benefits?   These benefits included experience bonuses or magic find % bonuses and so on.

I realize you don't like the idea of an IronMan/Hardcore game setting which provides extra benefits, but to sum up the truth is that developers from many types of games have included an IronMan/Hardcore game setting which provides extra benefits because it's not only a tougher challenge, but a more fair challenge.  The second piece of truth is that the vast majority of gamers did not complain about the IronMan/Hardcore setting having extra benefits.  So your long winded view is not an overall accepted view.

This reminds me of the forum battles we used to have during the development of the MMORPG Vanguard. Some people (including the developer) wanted a hardcore MMO ala Everquest 1. In fact, the developer of Vanguard was the lead designer of EQ1. He said he had plenty of money and jsut wanted to make the hardcore game that he wanted to play, and if he got a couple hundred thousand subscribers he would consider it a win.

I am not going to go into the sad story of how Microsoft got their paws on it and imho destroyed the original vision of the game. The reason I am not is we are not dealing with an MMO world where "the product" is going to be the same for everyone.

So there is no reason there cannot be save and reload at every turn ability, and a hardcore mode that delivers electric shocks to you every time one of your units dies. And everything in between. The only area where people can measure their online pee-pees against each other is in the SCORE, and I do think the score should reflect negatively on load/reload, easier difficulty (duh) and however else they want to measure the approach to the "perfect" game.

It should not be hard to determine if a reload was from "I got tired and saved yesterday and started again today" vs. "I got my butt kicked and want to see how things might have gone if I had done things differently". It really is irrelevant at that point whether it was "I clicked on a unit I didn't mean to" or "I intentionally made a risky, stupid move and paid the price". In other words, once something bad happens in the game it should reflect in the score EVEN if you go to a previous save to change history. Outside of score comparisons, it really is no one elses business how you play. What some would call cheating, another person would call testing different scenarios. Test away, but you shouldn't have braggin rights to a godly score for doing so.

Firstly, I said I would lose interest in such a game faster. I said nothing about anyone else.

And, you just clarified what I asked of you: those games didn't give extra features to people playing in hard mode (like extra spells and such which you requested here) - they strictly provided bonuses - things to make the game easier, really... In fact, that means that somebody playing in the non-hardcore version of the game who doesn't save/load to make the game go the way he wants actually is playing a harder game...

I wouldn't be opposed to hardcore mode giving players handicaps in hardcore mode. I'm opposed to giving players extra actual features, like more spells, to people who play in hardcore mode.

Well, again I'm not sure if my argument is relevant here now that you seem to have changed your mind. My whole post was based on your original position that hardcore mode should include extra features like more spells. In that case, you are penalizing players for not playing hardcore mode. Stardock would be releasing a game, and then saying, "If you play this way, you have access to all the gameplay features! But if you want to be bad and want to be able to load your game, then you don't get to use these features!" Rewarding one group is not always penalizing another (like I said, giving handicaps to players using hardcore mode); but in the case of giving hardcore mode extra spells and features, that does indeed reward hardcore mode players and penalize regular players.

And I will say it again: extra benefits like more experience or whatever - go for it. But extra features? Only if you want to jade the majority of your customers.

The experience or magic find bonus is a minor reward, but does not make the game easier than non_hardcore mode because in non_hardcore mode the character or party is either immortal or has the option to reload after mistakes.  Game developers have included not only extra benefits such as experience or magic find percentages but also extra items as seen in World of Warcraft.  This proves your view on customers being jaded for not being allowed all items in a game outside of hardcore/ironman is wrong.

Now you say 'jade the majority of your customers' yet I still yet to see any huge threads from other games which have provided benefits and/or stuff for playing hardcore/ironman mode. 

Didn't you guys ever player a multiplayer game? You can't go back in there and as far as I know, it works. And really think it's a terrible idea to play a match against the AI without doing gameplay loads, even after having experienced the game a lot and played many matchs?

Some Hardcore modes or more harder difficulties in games, offer small bonus, but nothing that anyone would miss in normal play. If extra content, I don't see why a terrible idea and I think many would try it too even if just once in a while, it would not be for any group, people that play a game in normal difficulty can advance whenever they feels like to or go back.

1 more spell in each class (21) or even just 1 generally, or anything else, or nothing. Extra content to make the mode feel more palatable to players that, how we can see, went really addicted to load-save interference. In this phrase I didn't said they shouldn't do it, or that it is of immense importance that they should change their way. Its just that we know that the gameplay is not really made for that and some people would get more fun after addapting to it. The ones who would not? They can then still play has they want to. No need to remove nothing of the game. It's an incentive, or reward, just like changing in difficulty modes in games you can get, like player in Hard or Hardest. To not allow back load is not a montrosity addition to the difficulty after you are experienced at the game, but some people go with it even after that just because its there, and that kills the immersion. It kills some of the immersion and the history of the game, like: "I decided to move my fleet to atack faction B and I didn't planned it right and they had that defensive fleet there, and we lost that time" but you load and scrach that and by the end you have just a story of flawless victories, if you can call that a story at all, and finish the game with ease every time.

Then the biggest exploits you get able to do like changing values or saving just before a fight so you can fight it a hundred times till get lucky and get the best result and the wide use we know about.

"I'll never be as brave as you, you hard-core gladiator of RTS games.  I'm too busy raising a family and volunteering to serve my country."

Sorry to mention, but it's funny that something like I'm a real soldier or I'm a real gangsta in my neighborhood was really expected to come. Came on, we are talking about a game and that was "being brave in a game". Tough in my opinion that is more related to being spoiled to addiction (because of the gameplay advantages) and missunderstanding for so many time games allowing it freely. Would a lot of gamers be asking for it or wanting such feature, if we suppose, there were protection for it since begginings? I think they would rather complaining for allowing such a thing, because of the potential to break the gameplay. In this times where many games are comming in the form of interactive movies (the ones that wasn't even meant to be), can't even strategy games hold still to deliver what it is meant for? Came on it's a strategy game, isn't that the ones we have to think first or plan our moves? Why think first, if you can always change the results (and from a method that seems even "legal" by games? Why to be that carefull? Give a reason for that. It's a small thing to implement that can make a difference.

That would be because I said I have no problem with 'benefits' like extra magic find, and I can't imagine many other people having a problem with it either; and there aren't really games that give extra features to people who play in hardcore mode.

And what? There's a hardcore mode in World of Warcraft? Is that new? Anyone who would risk spending weeks or months of their lives playing a hardcore character (which I take to mean one that dies forever if it dies at all?) is downright crazy, and they can have whatever items they want because they're just going to lose all that time and effort in the end anyway

If you can point me to a game that rewards player who fosake the ability to load their games with extra features, not just pety benefits, then let's talk.

Not very new, but he's thinking about Heroic Dungeons.  These party instances have a higher percentage chance of dropping EXACTLY THE SAME rewards as available through normal mode dungeons and world drops (depending upon the reward type and rarity).  I have a WoW account, and I'm involved in testing for a UI mod that I happen to like, and developing for an auction house addon suite that has been downloaded more than a million times.  But the WoW example is a poor one on two counts.  First, it doesn't introduce new content available only within the Heroic dungeons.  Second, WoW is a multiplayer game and this discussion is about Elemental in single player mode.  I said at the top that I'm ok with any checks/balances needed to ensure level playing fields in MP.  But I will play my SP game according to my own preferences.

Some of us around here might well have "No" for an answer there. For me, it's barely ever and never likely to if it is real-time anything.

More importantly, singleplayer mode is the foundation for Elemental. Multiplayer stuff is 'gravy' not the entree.

Edit: I mean no disrespect to gravy. I lucked into a swell high-end country-fried steak lunch today. Gravy is awesome in the right context. But you make it for and from the other stuff, not as a thing in its own right. (And yes, there, I am most certainly disrespecting gravy you an buy in jars. Useful only for comedy.)

You're on the Auctioneer team?

Thanks for your work - that's one of the absolute best mods I've ever seen for any game, ever.

I am, and I'm happy to say, "You're welcome!" and thanks for the support.  I'm just a bit player (I don't work on the core engine and stats, mostly QA and UI related bugfixes), it was awesome that my first WoW addon project turned out to be with an established and skilled team of developers.  A bit intimidating actually.

I'll definitely pass on your words to the team in our irc chat (and let them know about this game)

I find some of this rather offenisive, I don't like being called a cheater. I rearely Load my games and only save every couple of hours or so and when I do load my game I accept I lost (and I do feel rather deflated). Being able to save my games means that A. i can prevent lossing data from a crash B. safe guard my acheivements . If I play on a very long game (like a TW game or a Huge Civ game) why would I want to start playing from scatch? And anyway isn't starting back from hours previously a just punishment?

And even with an Ironman mode its quiet easy to use a save game crutch. "What it saves when i exit(?) i know i bring up taskmanger and make it crash so it doesn't save." At least thats how my Brother played Wizardry 8 on Ironman mode.

As for giving out free stuff to those who chose a harder game i think thats a bad idea. What it is basically aimed at doing is shifting the demographic of gamers which assumes, you know whats best and you feel your in the right to force others into think and doing as you do. Which in itself is a bit ego driven and typically a dangerous mindset to get into.

The easiest way of balancing scores is to note how long the game lasted, how many saves the player made on the score sheet. Surely if your so intrested in seeing who is "best" then this would do. Thus if Player A played his game for 13 hours and saved 13 times with a score of 20,000. He is better then Player B who played for 13 hours saved 133 times and scored 25,000.

I'm curious on the whole 'ironman' debate. Why do some players insist that the onus is on the developers to enforce (optionally or not) a play style? If a player enjoys ironman style play then they're free to play in that manner. I've never encountered a game that excludes ironman play.

Is the crux of the problem something to do with scoreboards and virtual penises? I suppose a special mode may be required in that case. I understand that GalCiv has some sort of leaderboard, how does that work? I've played the game but never paid any attention to that aspect.

I'm also a bit mystified about the passion some ironman fans have for insisting that theirs is the only way to play. The world, and the software I've played, does seem big enough for everyone.

Re GC2's "leaderboard," it is called the Metaverse. It's basically a somewhat constrained way of starting a game--you need to connect to Stardock when you start the game and you can't use any non-cosmetic mods. There are 'empires' which are groups of players with either some common theme (I'm a Gerontocrat), or who want to be part of a scoremonster machine, or both. I played regular sandbox games for a long while before I got roped into the MV by a friend on the boards over there.

Edit: my favorite way to check MV scores is via the AltMeta, which has 6 different ladders to help sort out players by preferred map size and victory type. It also ages scores out more assertively than the official MV, so you get a better idea of who the currently-active players are.

I, for example, am one of those people that quicksave/quickload a lot if things doesn't go my way. Sure, I know that it'd be more enjoyable in the long run if I didn't, but that's not the point.

Think of it like an alcoholic. An alcoholic that acknowledges that he has a problem doesn't just stop drinking. He throws out the alcohol. Because on some level, he knows that if the booze is there, it's going to tempt him.

Enforcing it outside of a scoreboard play (in which case I think it should be mandatory, otherwise one could just reload until the random seed favours the player) is silly, however, of course.