Frogboy Frogboy

Elemental: And now for something completely different

Elemental: And now for something completely different

It’s not the loudness

I’m a stalker.

No. Really. I am.

I don’t just read the feedback on Elemental in our forums. I read the feedback on lots of other forums. So I lurk on sites like RPG.net, Octopus Overlords, PCCohort, Qt3, CnardPC, WArgamers.com, rpgcodex.net, tacticularcancer, colonyofgamers, bay12games.com, Shrapnel Games, penny-arcade forums, etc.

And one of the most consistent concerns I read is that the hard core beta testers who post the most will influence the game to become too hard-core.  There is nothing to fear.

I have happily debated, over the years, the merits of games like Space Empires V vs. Galactic Civilizations and such.  And while Elemental will be “deeper” than Galactic Civilizations, players are not going to have to micro-manage sword production or something.  Elemental is, at its core, a macro-game. Your stratregy will have more to do with your victory than tactical prowess.

That doesn’t mean that the battle system won’t be heavily modified to be richer than we currently have it but it does mean that we will not have cutting versus slashing damage. 

Where things stand with the beta

We are officially at Beta 1-B.  The economic phase of the beta.  Several weeks have been schedule to work on this until we’re all happy with it. So expect more beta 1-B updates before we get to the initial AI skeleton beta.

Elemental Economics

My sovereign founds a city.

The city has an initial prestige based on the prestige ability of that civilization (typically 10).

Each turn, the population of that city grows by prestige/10 + existing population*prestige/10 % pre turn.  The first number represents sheer prestige, the second one is meant to model natural population growth (babies).  Sure, we could have a “fertility” rating but we are trying to keep the number of variables down to a minimum so that players aren’t having to build 20 different types of buildings.

Each citizen pays taxes at a fixed rate. There is no slider to increase taxes ala Galactic Civilizations. Instead, if you want to increase income, you need to increase the wealth of your city through improvements. Your money comes from people.

When you harvest a resource (food, metal, crystals, stone, whatever) your city gets M per turn. In addition, your other cities will receive Q per turn (typically 1.0).  If they are connected by roads, they will get Q * R (road bonus which is typically 2.0).

You can increase these variables based on improvements you choose to build in your city.

Each citizen produces T technology units per turn (typically 0.10).  You can increase this rate by building schools, libraries, and other improvements. 

Building a new improvement in your city takes L turns for the labor plus S turns based on the supplies needed.  So a fancy estate that increases the prestige of your city may take 10 turns to build due to labor + an additional 2 turns to get the 4 stone needed to construct it. Improvements also have an up-front cost that is the labor (in turns) X A for the labor cost per turn (typically 10.0).  So that estate would cost 100 gold to build because it takes 10 turns of labor.

You can produce soldiers. Soldiers cost Z gold per turn to keep around. They are the main drain on your economy per turn.

Researching

We are playing around with different types of research mechanisms for Elemental.  The current research screen UI is deplorable.

Here is a rough mockup of a new one that we hope to make available next Thursday.

image

The idea being that players would choose amongst the 5 research categories:

  1. Civilization
  2. Warfare
  3. Magic
  4. Adventure
  5. Diplomacy

When they chose a category, they would get a list of technologies that may become available when they make their breakthru.  If the listed technology is green, then it will definitely be available when you make your breakthru.  If it’s yellow, it might be available when you make a breakthru, if it’s red, it probably won’t be available.

Some technologies will require a pre-requisite. You can’t simply (by luck) get access to say plate metal armor. You would have to research warfare, then defenses, then armor and then after that you would have a chance to get plate metal armor. The more points you have in a particular category, the greater the odds that one of those techs will pop up.

So let’s walk through this:

I choose warfare: level 1 and I see:

  • Barracks (green)
  • Weapons (green)
  • Defenses (green)
  • City Walls (yellow)
  • Archery (yellow)

Warfare level 1 costs 10 technology points (which at this stage means 10 turns).

I know I want to get to plate mail so I pick Defenses.

10 turns pass…

The breakthru window pops up and I choose Defenses. City Walls also showed up but Archery didn’t.

The research window comes up again and I see this:

Warfare: level 2

  • Barracks (green)
  • Weapons (green)
  • Armor (green)
  • City Walls (yellow)
  • Archery (yellow)
  • Fortify Position (red)

Warfare Level 2 costs 20 tech points (which at this point in the game is taking 14 turns).

14 turns pass…

The breakthru window pops up and I get to choose between Barracks, Weapons, Armor, and Fortify Position.  Now, because it was red, it means I got pretty lucky that it is an option and next time, it may not show up as an option. Do I pick that now or do I go with Armor?  I choose Armor anyway.

Now I see this:

  • Barracks (green)
  • Weapons (green)
  • Leather Armor (green)
  • Plate Armor (yellow)
  • City Walls (green)
  • Archery (green)
  • Fortify Position (red)

As you can see, City Walls and Archery have become green which means they will always be choices because enough points have been put into Warfare that they’ve gone from being maybes to certainties.

Warfare level 3 costs 40 points (which at this point will take 20 turns to get).

The other thing about this system is that we can have a giant pool of minor but interesting techs that normally don’t show up in a game but when we go through the new game generation, we will randomly give them a slight chance to come up during a game. So, for instance, you might get a tech called “Forest Defenses” where if you have it, it will give your units extra defensive bonuses in a forest.  All players would have access to such a tech (i.e. it’s not per player though we might make some race-based).

We’re finding this system to simply be a lot more fun to play and give the player a lot more interesting choices.

The idea here is that you’re researching an area of technology, you have breakthrus and the player can then choose what that breakthru was.

Next Beta opening?

For those who are pre-ordering, we will probably let more people join just before Christmas. But that really depends on the state of the game.  Right now, we’re still working out basic stuff like crashing, memory leaks, and low level game mechanics.  I don’t anticipate the game being “fun” until Beta 2 and even then it’ll still be pretty raw.

A typical “beta” program that is open to the public wouldn’t start to what we are calling Beta 4.  So others might call Beta 1, 2 and 3 “alphas” if you’re into the semantics of this kind of thing.  But it gives you an idea of the distance that must be traveled between where we are now and where we expect the game to be something that a sane company would want its fans to see.

Why are we torturing our top supporters?

Stardockers are a rare breed of power user / gamer.  Most of them know what they’re in for already.  The reason they got involved is because they know that we’re reading their “walls of text”. We may not always respond, but we’re reading them, thinking about them, and will make real changes.  We’re making the game with them.

When all is said and done, every game design decision the game has will have to be defensible to the main base.  Hence, there will be posts arguing that the magic system should be different or that the research system should be different.  The question is whether the design decisions that are ultimately made can be logically defended and whether most of our target audience likes what we ultimately have chosen.

323,428 views 196 replies
Reply #26 Top

Wow! This dev journal blew me away! Every time a new dev journal comes out, I get more and more excited for this game. I think that the breakthrough system is genius. It is going to be a long wait for Elemental to come out!

Reply #27 Top

This looks like a very interesting research system and thanks for the clear presentation.

Personally, I would not be averse to having each player have a slightly different tech tree with regards to the 'minor' techs, Forest Defense in your example above.  It seems reasonable that different groups or tribes or cities would have mildly different philisophies which would give rise to such differences.  Those who love forests would be more at home with them, those who love to fish would be better with boats and finding fords across rivers, and so forth.  Plus, it would be mildly interesting to have one more little way where we would not really know what to expect from our opposition.

Reply #28 Top

Regarding the random part of what becomes available to choose as a breakthrough:

Will it be possible to eventually research everything? ie. after spending an inordinate/way-past-cost-efficient amount on research.

It's just that my natural allergic reaction to randomness, especially with long term effects, is compounded by the thought of not ever getting access to a tech I really want. After all, even the most obscure/situational tech is bound to have at least some die-hard fans and I tend to be one of those fans.X(

Reply #29 Top

Quoting KellenDunk, reply 25

Quoting Warderin, reply 23kudos on the reaserch system seems intresting


4. Are you thinking about implementing a system that after a player disregard a tech for X times it become harder to reach?



ewww

This happens automatically, becuase one breakthrough = one tech, and the cost of each breakthrough goes up.

In economics terms: the opportunity cost of disregarding a tech goes up with each breakthrough.

I agree with the "ewww" sentiment.

I'd suggest allowing players to purchase techs that have been green for at least, say, 10 breakthroughs for a (very high) price in gold that goes down a little bit depending on how long the tech has been available for purchase.

Reply #30 Top

It’s not the loudness
I don’t just read the feedback on Elemental in our forums. I read the feedback on lots of other forums. So I lurk on sites like RPG.net, Octopus Overlords, PCCohort, Qt3, CnardPC, WArgamers.com, rpgcodex.net, tacticularcancer, colonyofgamers, bay12games.com, Shrapnel Games, penny-arcade forums, etc.

And one of the most consistent concerns I read is that the hard core beta testers who post the most will influence the game to become too hard-core.  There is nothing to fear.

I don't like it. Not ONE BIT. WE are the ones who have paid to be Beta Testers and have Input into the game. WE are the ones who are on the OFFICIAL forums giving input and ideas. They don't even have the brains (or balls) to come HERE and post, where it Should matter. If they are worried that the game will be "Too Hardcore" then they should come Here and say so. If they don't come here, and they haven't already paid you, then their opinion shouldn't matter. They haven't already spent Hard Earned money to make sure Elemental is the game They Want, WE HAVE. If I would have known you were taking suggestions and input from people who Didn't Pay to be in the Beta I would have saved my money...

Screw them, listen to your Customers that have Already Paid you because of our faith in Stardock!!!

The rest of the post sounds great though :thumbsup:

Reply #31 Top

It’s not the loudness
That doesn’t mean that the battle system won’t be heavily modified to be richer than we currently have it but it does mean that we will not have cutting versus slashing damage. 

So what are the plans exactly? We understand, that we won't have physical dmg types, but we don't know anything about elemental/magical dmg types [fire, ice etc.], resitances and immunities. Those must be in, else this game isn't for me either to be honest. Without features like those, the combat system will be primitive....and we haven't even talked about attributes and abilities. Sorry but this ATT/DEF/SPEED combat "system" isn't acceptable if you are a serious strategy gamer [Don't even bring up Civ4. It's a primitive and simple game in many aspects. Yes it's popular, but it's really THAT good? No it isn't. This is my subjective opinion of course.]...and I meant serious, NOT hardcore. [..and I know that the combat system will be enhanced, but it would be good to know that what are the plans actually.]

Okay...all I am saying is, that I want to see a serious and complex [..not overly complex] battle system in Elemental. Why? Because it's one of the most important thing in a fantasy TBS.

 Ah well, let's wait and see I guess. :)

Reply #32 Top

Great ideas for tech research!  I like them a lot. 

As far as trading techs go (as I mentioned in another post -sorry for this duplication) I think it might be best for a traded tech not to influence how difficult it would be to research a lower tech.  So for example, just because you were gifted the tech of plate armor, this does not mean you can now easily make chain armor (you still have to research it -or trade for it).  Also, it may be interesting if being gifted the plate armor technology did not really speed up the ability to research more advanced techs (like I-don't-know -super-plate armor).  This could reflect the situation where your craftsmen have been given the directions for making plate armor but not really understanding the science behind it.  The neat thing about it is that a nations known for its armor can still trade away the plate-armor tech (the gift that keeps on giving) to allies and still remain the "leaders" in that technology for some time to come.  This would allow for meaningful trades while keeping different fractions unique based on how they chose to approach research.

I also love the idea of random techs that are not available in every game.

Reply #33 Top

I love the new research mechanics. It will also make people have to consider a tech path for vicorty more than just random picking up a little of everything.

 

To rebute the problem with older technologies that have been passed up becoming expensive consider this: If my civilivation has been making only more and more fancy axes for the last 500 years and then decides it now wants to become an archery based civilivation, I would say the logistics of such a change would be huge. This infastructure change would be  reflected by the cost in this current research mechanic.

 

Im not to concerned it might not be only geared to "hardcore" players. The good thing about "hardcore" players is that they are usally the ones making the good mods. :grin:

Reply #34 Top

I don't like it. Not ONE BIT. WE are the ones who have paid to be Beta Testers and have Input into the game. WE are the ones who are on the OFFICIAL forums giving input and ideas. They don't even have the brains (or balls) to come HERE and post, where it Should matter. If they are worried that the game will be "Too Hardcore" then they should come Here and say so. If they don't come here, and they haven't already paid you, then their opinion shouldn't matter. They haven't already spent Hard Earned money to make sure Elemental is the game They Want, WE HAVE. If I would have known you were taking suggestions and input from people who Didn't Pay to be in the Beta I would have saved my money...

This is perhaps the most ridiculous paragraph I've ever seen on these forums. Nowhere did Stardock sign a contract that says that they can only listen to people who pre-ordered the game, everyone else be damned. Who gives a crap that we already bought the game? It does not entitle us to anything; the fact that we get to beta test the game and thus have, in all likelihood, a disproportionate effect on the game's development should be enough for you.

I mean really, the number of people who have pre-ordered the game is going to be vastly dwarfed by the number of people who will end up buying the game, even in a worst-case scenario that the game doesn't sell well. Ignoring all those people, their ideas and their concerns just because they haven't paid yet? That would be stupidity. Additionally, whether someone voices their opinion on these forums or somewhere else is irrelevant, why should that matter? People are members of certain forums, and they are perfectly entitled to discuss whatever they want wherever they want; Stardock would be remiss to ignore all discussion that didn't occur on Stardock forums.

Reply #35 Top

~snip~This is perhaps the most ridiculous paragraph I've ever seen on these forums. Nowhere did Stardock sign a contract that says that they can only listen to people who pre-ordered the game, everyone else be damned.~snip~

Yeah, if Stardock were a vastly more cynical company they could even consider our views less important.. I mean we've already bought the game, no need to sell it to us twice :D Although in fairness there will probably be expansions and such so I guess this doens't totally hold up .. but still :D

It's kinda like how it makes sense when taking a poll on your political views that you should basically always state that you're an independent or undecided..and then state the ideals/policies etc that you're looking for in a party. Parties will then look at that data and try to amend their policy decisions in such a way as to appeal to the independent/undecided voters that swing elections. As such your views get disproportionately reflected by the polictical mechanism.. good for you :D If however you say you're a liberal/conervative from the outset then there's a good chance that both sides will see no need to cater for your tastes.. one side will feel they have no chance of attracting you and the other will feel you're a guaranteed vote regardless.  People wil always tend to vie harder for your allegience if you don't give it away at the outset :)

Reply #36 Top

Quoting austinvn, reply 21
I usually don't mind micromanaging, but adjusting GC2's tax rate or Civ4's research slider turn-by-turn was something I never cared for.

I couldn't agree more. I'll be thrilled if I never see a spending slider in Elemental.

Reply #37 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 34
This is perhaps the most ridiculous paragraph I've ever seen on these forums. Nowhere did Stardock sign a contract that says that they can only listen to people who pre-ordered the game, everyone else be damned. Who gives a crap that we already bought the game? It does not entitle us to anything; the fact that we get to beta test the game and thus have, in all likelihood, a disproportionate effect on the game's development should be enough for you.

I mean really, the number of people who have pre-ordered the game is going to be vastly dwarfed by the number of people who will end up buying the game, even in a worst-case scenario that the game doesn't sell well. Ignoring all those people, their ideas and their concerns just because they haven't paid yet? That would be stupidity. Additionally, whether someone voices their opinion on these forums or somewhere else is irrelevant, why should that matter? People are members of certain forums, and they are perfectly entitled to discuss whatever they want wherever they want; Stardock would be remiss to ignore all discussion that didn't occur on Stardock forums.

That sound you hear is the intent going way over someone's head. ;) (At least, I hope so. It seems out of character for Raven to have actually been serious though, I sure didn't read it that way.)

Reply #38 Top

A few comments in no particular order:

1. Frogboy reads the bay12games forums? Awesome. We may yet get some dwarfiness into this game after all.

2. I don't know how good the new research mechanic will be, but at least it's interesting. Linear tech trees are stale; everyone does them, and they work, but it feels like a cop out. The Alpha Centauri total-randomness system may have been frustrating at times, but it was new and unusual and prevented you from relying on a favorite tech so much that it made the game boring. This looks like a good compromise.

3. Opportunity costs for unchosen techs could be controlled by building an "Inventor's Guild" type of improvement that gives you a chance to randomly discover a very-low-level green tech you've been ignoring. You could say it represents casual civilian research. For example, even if your empire officially focuses only on infrastructure and heavy defenses, you could still end up with some bright spark building a prototype Krallix Bladegolem in his barn.

4. "Too much micromanagement" is often a failure of the interface rather than a design flaw. Please don't take out promising-but-hard-to-use features without at least considering whether an interface tweak could make it work. (You probably already do this, but I felt it worth mentioning just in case.)

Reply #39 Top

Quoting Jalicos, reply 38
2. I don't know how good the new research mechanic will be, but at least it's interesting. Linear tech trees are stale; everyone does them, and they work, but it feels like a cop out. The Alpha Centauri total-randomness system may have been frustrating at times, but it was new and unusual and prevented you from relying on a favorite tech so much that it made the game boring. This looks like a good compromise.

Agreed. In Civ4, the only difference between my games was how hard I needed to fight to get to the resources to build my Troops - I played enough games that I found my best "build" of what to research and when, with only the first three or four changing depending on starting resources. I always ended up exactly the same, though.

I like the idea of the 'breakthrough' mechanic a lot, and would like to see it extended with 'revolutionary' technologies - random, one off discoveries that are very, very, very rare and random each game but substantial enough that can add to your Kingdoms 'personality'. Being heavily focused on Horses, for example, might lead to randomly discovering the ability to 'tame' other beasts enabling you to create 'Wolf Riders' and such as well as Horses. Just a random thought.

Reply #40 Top

 

Quoting pigeonpigeon,
This is perhaps the most ridiculous paragraph I've ever seen on these forums.

When I read it, I had a strong feeling that it's simply a sarcasm... Oh well, I simply disregarded it. No need to comment on something that ... stupid. No hard feelings Raven.

Quoting CaesarGhost,
so I like to Micromanage... this game isn't for me?

You forgot about one important thing: the game will be extensively moddable. You probably don't know that, but I am against making resource system so simple. I've already posted a couple suggestions about it, but as it seems Frogboy chose the other way. Do I feel bad? Not at all! I strongly believe, that our favorite AI developer, will make the game as good, as possible. Remember, no matter which way Frog chooses, there will be always people, who will criticize him. If you are looking for more micro-managed game, then be sure that there will be at least one mod, that will try to address this issue (I'm talking here about my mod).

Finally, onto the topic!

It makes me very happy that the UI looks VERY similar to what I've imagined. Also the system (with 5 trees and multiple levels) feels somewhat familiar ;). Couple of questions/suggestions, if I may:

  • You mentioned about random techs, and that they will be rather 'minor' techs. Wouldn't it be better, if there could be some higher-level techs also? I mean, if anyone can develop such techs, so why not to allow some small imbalances into the game?

    I don't know how many tech levels there could be, but let's assume there are 20 of them (for each tree of course). From 1st round till 50, only random techs from level lower than 6 could show up. These techs would be of course available to all players. After round 50, techs of level lower than 11 could be developed. After round 100, techs of levels below 14. And so on...

    As there are 5 major tech groups, there should be an equal chance of a random breakthrough of all techs (from all groups). In other words: in the round 10, the random tech is taken from warfare; in the round 25 another tech is taken from the warfare. But later, some other techs could come up.

    How fast these random techs would appear? It should be either a selectable game option (slider), or it should be connected to the research speed option (if such is even possible). One more thing. I assume that random techs would somewhat consume/devour/substitute the so called 'situational techs'. Imho, there's no need for both of them.
  • While the breakthrough system seems quite nice, the randomness of development (as a basic game mechanic, not an option, as "blind research" in a few games) isn't looking so great. I don't know if you have tested/talked about an optional development mechanics in which there wouldn't be any randomness (apart from randomly emerging techs).

    You can select a tech, and regardless of how expensive it is (or how deep in the tree), it will be developed in the same time (ie. it will cost the same amount of resource points). The more techs you want to develop, the more costly they will be (as you already proposed). Of course, in order to restrict acquisition of a deep tree tech very fast, you can simply make a long chain (prerequisites).

    Such system wouldn't be so unpredictable, but still the random techs would add their own randomness. The advantage of such system would be, that players would have to specialize, and the first player who develops a valuable tech wouldn't be chosen by a RNG (aka luck). The downside is, of course, that the player would somewhat be forced to develop techs from all trees, not from the one that they like so much. Although, you could balance the increase of dev. points needed for the next level, so that while it would be greater and greater, the cost would behave like a logarithmic function.
  • Shouldn't there be more ways of spending money, but only on upkeep? This way we force every player to make an army. Can't a player choose a different course of action? Diplomacy, trade, ascension?

So far so good. Eagerly waiting for a new build!

Reply #41 Top

Hmmmmmmm........ not sure if I like the direction the research is going in.......... still far too chancy........ I'll play it out in when it comes, but unless there are a LOT of green techs as opposed to red and orange ones, I don't think I'll be happy.

Reply #42 Top

Overall, I like where research is heading.

The one thing that has me a bit worried, as others have mentioned, is the really old greens start getting crazy expensive to research after a certain time. Is it a design decision to make it hard to grab all the "low level" tech? If not, it might be cool to make it eventually turn grey, and allow you to pick 2 for 1 during a breakthrough.

Since you mentioned certain techs being race based, it would also be pretty cool if certain races had there techs show up as green/yellow/red at an earlier level. For example an archer based civ might end up with archery starting at green instead of yellow.

Reply #43 Top

I'm not a fan of tech randomization. If there is a tech that I consider important, I don't like being denied access to them for any reason. An unexpected delay may be annoying, but I can ussually live with that.

From what I understand from the post, even red techs might (or will) become green after a while. So long as I can expect to research the techs that I desire (or consider most valuable), I'll be fine.

----

On the topic of techs, is there going to be unique tech trees like there is in GalCiv2?

If so, then there are a few things I would like to be able to do. I would like to be able to encourage the AIs to research unique techs so I could trade for them. Alternatively, I would like to be able to perform a joint research project with another civ (where I could even research the whole tech myself), and get a copy of the said tech once done. I would also like to be able buy the "theory" of the tech itself so I could later research the tech myself at my convience, with or without the cooperation of the civ I bought the "theory" from.

Reply #44 Top

I'd like to address the issue of "green" techs getting prohibitively expensive due to doing a lot of research in one area.

If you focus on warfare, warfare warfare, the cost of doing so is that you are not advancing in other areas. This may be a "realism vs fun" issue, but seriously if a faction focused on just warfare, wouldn't they start to get really good at developing warfare tech and thus push research costs down? And I realize this is all still up for a LOT of tweaking.

I love the red, yellow and green concept and how likely it is for the tech to be available when you make the next breakthrough. And the research cost SHOULD go up because as you advance up a tree those really powerful techs become available. But it also makes it really tough to go back and do "leather armor" when it is going to cost you, say, 160 research points to do it.

I would liek to suggest a fourth tech color - grey. And I think that it should be used just as it is used in an MMO (when an opponent is so far beneath you that killing it does not give you experience. My suggestion is that 3 or 4 (or whatever you guys deem appropriate) tech levels beyond when a tech "goes green" that it goes grey. It can still be selected when a breakthrough is made. However, each tech on the grey list has a 10% chance of being "auto-developed" each time you make a breakthrough - even a breakthrough in a DIFFERENT tech area! (again the exact percentage, the number of tech ranks from green to grey etc are specifics for you guys to balance out.

So from your example, when you reach warfare IV, barracks and weapons (which were green at warfare I) go grey. you can still choose one of them if you want, but if you don't, they each have an x% chance of being developed every time thereafter when you make a breakthrough. If you then researched adventure I, after selecting the adventure tech that was available, again there would be a x% chance each for your greyed techs to be researched.

Reply #45 Top

Quoting Denryu, reply 44
I'd like to address the issue of "green" techs getting prohibitively expensive due to doing a lot of research in one area.

If you focus on warfare, warfare warfare, the cost of doing so is that you are not advancing in other areas. This may be a "realism vs fun" issue, but seriously if a faction focused on just warfare, wouldn't they start to get really good at developing warfare tech and thus push research costs down? And I realize this is all still up for a LOT of tweaking.

I love the red, yellow and green concept and how likely it is for the tech to be available when you make the next breakthrough. And the research cost SHOULD go up because as you advance up a tree those really powerful techs become available. But it also makes it really tough to go back and do "leather armor" when it is going to cost you, say, 160 research points to do it.

I would liek to suggest a fourth tech color - grey. And I think that it should be used just as it is used in an MMO (when an opponent is so far beneath you that killing it does not give you experience. My suggestion is that 3 or 4 (or whatever you guys deem appropriate) tech levels beyond when a tech "goes green" that it goes grey. It can still be selected when a breakthrough is made. However, each tech on the grey list has a 10% chance of being "auto-developed" each time you make a breakthrough - even a breakthrough in a DIFFERENT tech area! (again the exact percentage, the number of tech ranks from green to grey etc are specifics for you guys to balance out.

So from your example, when you reach warfare IV, barracks and weapons (which were green at warfare I) go grey. you can still choose one of them if you want, but if you don't, they each have an x% chance of being developed every time thereafter when you make a breakthrough. If you then researched adventure I, after selecting the adventure tech that was available, again there would be a x% chance each for your greyed techs to be researched.

I like this idea. I like the new research plan to begin with, but I'm a little worried about how long it would take to research early stage green techs. I think this would solve it quite well.

Reply #46 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 13

so I like to Micromanage... this game isn't for me?


Yes. That's exactly what I said.  Not being able to manufacture swords in one city, ship them to another city, and then have the local barracks then equip the soldier is the same as saying that there's no way to micro manage anything...

Because isn't that the only option here? Either you're personally forging iron ingots into swords to ship off OR it's been completely dumbed down into a console game.

I think this and the 'too hardcore' fear is a pretty important issue.  Ultimately the goal is to make a game that is fun, but different people enjoy different things.  In order for the game to have broad appeal, it needs to be simple, streamlined and user friendly enough to pick up and play without a steep learning curve.  Most people won't want to spend hours optimizing a resource distribution network for an iron resource.  Making them have to do this would kill the game for lots of people.

On the other hand, some of us love being able to do this.  Micromanagement comes from having lots of options and details you can play with, and I find that engrossing and strategically challenging.  I like micromanagement intensive games (I play a fair amount of Dominions 3, for instance).  It's not the actual time consuming micromanagement that is fun (having to click things a million times sucks), it's the control and the depth that is awesome. 

People who worry about making the game 'too hardcore' don't want game killing forced micromanagement, and I totally agree with them.  A GOOD game doesn't require this.  The automatic resource distribution, AI city governance, etc, should work so smoothly and well that the game SEEMS simple and straightforwards, allowing these people to focus on the strategy and fun.   But the fear goes the other way for us who LIKE 'hard core' games.  No one should have to worry about resource distribution if they don't want to.  But if we DO want to, please, please let us!  If Elemental is to be GREAT, it needs to satisfy both camps.  Make it play fun and simple, but allow us to look under the hood and have all the micromanagement there for us IF we want it.  That way everyone can be happy!

When the question 'What if I like micromanagement?' is asked, I think it's hitting on something here.  Brad kind of gives a sarcastic answer here that shows the question is frustrating him, and I know he's trying hard to come up with a proper balance to satisfy as many people as he can.  I just want to suggest that the proper way to do this is to include good amounts of options and possibilities, but have the game work so well that you don't have to pay attention to these things if you don't want to.  The answer is NOT to make the game mechanics limiting to make the game simpler. 

For instance, regarding the battle system.  Currently I see lots of debate about damage types.  People want more, and I agree.  Developers don't want to make the system too complicated, and I totally understand that too.  Someone should be able to pick up the game, play it, and have it be fun and make sense of things without having to study a chart or formula.  But wouldn't it be cool if for those of us that DO want to study charts and formulas and figure out how to make my army 5% better, we can?

In other words, include a variety of damage types, but have the effects be subtle, so you don't have to worry about it overly if you don't want to.  Or include them and have them disabled by default, so that modders can utilize them later.  I think the more parameters and options you make be a part of the infrastructure of the game NOW completely determines the depth of the world we can play in LATER.  If you don't include diverse damage types now, is it really possible to mod them in later?  If so, then great, but if not, then those of us who like higher levels of complexity and depth will never be able to have it in this game.

In short, yes it should play fun and simple.  But if we want to micromanage and play in a more complex world, we should be able to do that too.  Only then is everyone happy, and I don't think the two need be mutually exclusive.  Of course designing the game so that both is possible is quite challenging, and the more parameters involved the more difficult it is for everything to be well balanced and polished... but that's why we're doing all this work now in the beta, right?

Reply #47 Top

Quoting Denryu, reply 44
If you focus on warfare, warfare warfare, the cost of doing so is that you are not advancing in other areas. This may be a "realism vs fun" issue, but seriously if a faction focused on just warfare, wouldn't they start to get really good at developing warfare tech and thus push research costs down? And I realize this is all still up for a LOT of tweaking.

 

Bear in mind that more expensive does nto equal taking longer to research. It depends on how your population is growing and adding more researchers.

I do like the idea of field specific research boosts though. Now that they've split up the techs into fields the "education" bonus currently in game can be used for all fields and other bonuses can also be field-specific.

Reply #48 Top

I haven't seen anything to suggest that this is going to be a dumbed down game. I'm not worried about that a bit.

I think the answer is to give players as many options as you can think of, but not all at once! Stretch the content across the factions and from game to game. As long as you don't overwhelm the player with a dense pile of things to pay attention to, I think everyone would appreciate as many different game mechanics as you can think up. I think it's possible to make a very complex game that everyone will enjoy if you get the pacing right.

It might be very enjoyable to micromanage sword production, as long as you don't have to repeat yourself over and over, or as long as you don't end up with no swords because you forgot to check something. If it's something that you can set in motion and you're done until you get a new kind of metal, that's hands on fun! Go ahead and make it 50 games in one box.

Reply #49 Top

Quoting Denryu, reply 44
-snip- I would liek to suggest a fourth tech color - grey. And I think that it should be used just as it is used in an MMO (when an opponent is so far beneath you that killing it does not give you experience. My suggestion is that 3 or 4 (or whatever you guys deem appropriate) tech levels beyond when a tech "goes green" that it goes grey. It can still be selected when a breakthrough is made. However, each tech on the grey list has a 10% chance of being "auto-developed" each time you make a breakthrough -snip-

+1 for liking this.

I really like this approach to tech.  I think one of my main concerns initially is that it sounds like it could get overwhelming fast.  3 levels in and you have 7 possible breakthroughs in just that one area, and five areas total - we're looking at 35 potential breakthroughs and I can only choose one?  That sounds like a lot of balancing, to say the least.  I want to be confident that whatever I'm researching I have just as good a chance of standing up to my neighbor with the same research output.  I'm the kind who will wait until I have every level 1 tech before moving to level 2, which sounds like it could take several hundred turns from the example, and I'd be pretty put off when my neighbor starts ruining me with enchanted armor and flame-throwers come turn 199 because they've been min-maxing warfare the whole time.

Reply #50 Top

Awesome post, very exciting ideas...couple of quick questions: How are you looking to integrate tech trading into this model?

Would it be possible to use a tier system that could tie in with diplomatic relations? Closer allies get more access or something?

Keep on truckin!