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 #176 Top

Quoting onomastikon, reply 175
quoting post
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. 


OK -- but then you WILL need to have something to allow for unit countering. CivIV, Dom3, WCIII, SC, AoW, etc. -- all have unit types to which they adhere (e.g. CivIV "knight" and "tank") and unit families (e.g. "melee" or "mounted" or "archer"). If you are not going to have some form of differentiation in damage, then you should consider allowing for unit type flag creation in unit creation -- e.g., "is an archer". The novel thing you could do would be to make these flags conjunctive, unlike your competition; i.e., other games treat these flags as disjunctive: a unit can be an archer, but if so, then it cannot also be a melee unit. Perhaps your units can have more than one ability and family to which they belong (e.g. mounted archers, rangers (melee capability and to a lesser degree ranged as well), etc.  -- they should then cost more.

Wouldn't having a bow make him an archer?

Reply #177 Top

As I side note, I really hope the words 'disjunction' and 'conjunction' find their way into Elemental spell names.

 

 

Reply #178 Top

I love the way research is going forward. Never the same from game to game. Always some variation and always a possibility of getting ahead.

 

Good work.

Reply #179 Top

The way I saw it, above arguments were made with the assumption that a single soldier could have two weapon slots. Not for dual wielding, but for switching back n forth (aka Sword/ n Longbow) or (Claymore/ n sword+buckler) or (Pike/ n Longsword), and perhaps either having a shield or dual-wielding would dis-allow you from carrying an alternate weapon. Either way, I definetly like the "alternate weapon" policy.

Either it could be more automatic like in Total war, or it could be selected (ability to select en masse of course) kind of like in Dragon Age (I usually have a melee option and a ranged option ... for various tactical situations)

Reply #180 Top

Overall I'm very enthusiastic over the tech research system. Also agree on the need for greyed-out techs, but I don't really like the idea of getting these for free on a random basis. Let's not forget that basic, "low-level" techs can sometimes turn out to be extremely important to have although they would not cost much to research early in the game. Now, what we don't want is a situation where later in the game you lose control over your basic non-researched techs that might be needed when something changes in the game or when you decide to go for a higher tech that has a grey one as a prerequisite.

As posted above, I think the best way would be to let the grey techs cost less than they would if you just pay the "breakthrough" price. This would avoid the annoyance of having to pay a zillion points for something quite basic (higher cost is ok, but there should be a roof). 

   

Reply #181 Top


~snip~
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.
~snip~

I'll be quite honest about this.

What I don't like, reading the discussions here, is the seemingly large proportion of people whose opinions are "it should be like <game x>'.  Master of Magic, Dominion, a couple others get tossed around. The issue with 'hardcore' fans isn't just that they want more complexity or higher difficulty, it's that the die-hard fans of a certain game tend to expect (perhaps 'demand' would be a better term) the same features. For some of those people, instead of asking 'is this feature good or bad' they ask 'was this feature in my favorite game'.

The things that caught my attention about Elemental are the ideas that are new and innovative, and that don't just rehash the same genre tropes over and over. And Stardock has hands-down the best design philosophy of any game studio I know, so I expect good things. It's just frustrating to read, over and over, "It's been done like this in the past and it is unthinkable to do any different."

All my favorite games are the ones that were willing to slay the sacred cows. Just saying.

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.

That's well and good, but what about the idea of having open-ended research? Is that still in the plans?

What you're describing sounds like a traditional tech tree, where I'm researching specific technologies like 'barracks', 'archery', 'plater armor' and moving up the tree to higher level techs. But eventually I'll hit the end of the tree and have no new techs to research. So if I research Plate Metal Armor, is there a chance of having another breakthrough in 'Plate Metal Armor' that will improve my existing armors?

Also, regarding the idea of randomly appearing technologies, i.e. the 'forest defense' that doesn't show up in every game, I think it's a bad idea. The problem isn't with the technologies themselves, but with the idea that they'd be randomly selected at the start of the game.

I can imagine a scenario where 'Forest Defense' gets generated, but there's no forests on the map - so it's a useless tech, nobody bothers researching it, and it would have been better to have some other option.. Or where I end up surrounded by forests, and would really love to be able to research that tech, but I can't because it wasn't randomly generated this game.

I can't figure out why, exactly, a 'forest defense' tech should be a binary on or off. If it's randomly generated, then everybody can research it, regardless of whether they have any forests in their territory. If it's not, then nobody can get it, not even the guy with lush forests.

It would make more sense to have those technologies be contingent on the circumstances, rather than simply generated at the start of the game. Realistically, a civilization will learn forest-fighting by fighting in a forest - so the technology would be situational. There could be requirements before the tech would even show up: if you have no forests in your territory, then forest defense does not even appear on your list. If you have 1 forest, it shows up as a red tech, if you have 5 forests, it shows up as yellow, 10 or more forests and it shows up as green.

That way the minor techs are more likely to show up when people might actually want them.

Reply #182 Top

I can't figure out why, exactly, a 'forest defense' tech should be a binary on or off. If it's randomly generated, then everybody can research it, regardless of whether they have any forests in their territory. If it's not, then nobody can get it, not even the guy with lush forests

Hmm haven't read anything to support what you are saying, I think each player's tech tree is separately generated - some things may be included due to your faction, some by random generator love, and some that are the standard techs that everyone (?) gets. I do not see techs being binary on/off and everyone in the game either has them or doesn't.

Really disagree with your statment that peopoe are "practically demanding" that certain things be done as in their favorite game. I have come from being "make it MoM 2" to now being excited to see how they break the mold as well as what features, if any, are the same. I don't think when talking about various subsystems to explain what you like by saying "I like the way <insert game> handled it." For a lot of people that is a lot easier than doing a ten paragraph explanation of said system. And I certainly don't see anyone holding EWOM up to such and such a game and wanting features based on that it was in a given game. I tend to assume that people ask for certain features because they found those features enjoyable, not jsut because they were in <game>. Barring that you have acquired the ability to read people's minds, maybe you could be a bit more careful about assigning motives. ( For instance imagining that people don;t ask if a feature is good or bad, but simply ask "Was it in <my favorite game>? " Pretty arrogant on your part. As well as the "it's pretty frustrating to read over and over 'it's been done this way in the past and it is unthinkable to do any different'". Wow, you must not be reading the same posts I am, sure someone might take that kind of position but it is in the EXTREME minority here. That position certainly isn;t taken to any degree that you could be "getting sick of reading it over and over." 8(|

Welcome, have fun presenting your ideas, and feel welcome to be critical of others ideas that you don't like. But coming in and making generalized blanket statements that essentially say "OMG everyone here is such a noob and they just want a re-do of their favorite game ever and Wow, I must be the only person that cares about a game being original, and everyone else's ideas are just sooooo derivative...." yeah that is REALLY going to get people to want to get behind your ideas... just saying.

BTW i do like you idea in the last paragragh regarding forest defense. Ratherthan basing it on how many forest squares on in your territory (that could be changing all the time) I think that actually fighting in a forest square would be what triggers a possibility of it showing up in your tech tree - since fighting in a forest is what is going to teach forest defense, not just having one in your territory.

Reply #183 Top

Ratherthan basing it on how many forest squares on in your territory (that could be changing all the time) I think that actually fighting in a forest square would be what triggers a possibility of it showing up in your tech tree - since fighting in a forest is what is going to teach forest defense, not just having one in your territory.

Or, fighting in a forest could act as the trigger, but the probability for a forest-fight to actually activate "Forest Defense" as a researchable tech could be based on how much forest there is in your territory.

So if your territory is covered with forests, you'd be likely to trigger it even after just a few forest battles. If you have very little forest, or even none, it could still become activated but you'll probably have to fight proportionately more battles to get it.

I like that idea. A densely forested nation would likely be able Forest Defense much quicker than a nation without (its people would be much more familiar with forests in general); the nation without forests might never even activate it at all, unless they happen to be fighting a huge number of battles in forests - their people aren't so familiar with forests and learning how to use the forest environment to their military advantage, on a kingdom-wide basis, would take much longer.

Reply #184 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 183

Ratherthan basing it on how many forest squares on in your territory (that could be changing all the time) I think that actually fighting in a forest square would be what triggers a possibility of it showing up in your tech tree - since fighting in a forest is what is going to teach forest defense, not just having one in your territory.


Or, fighting in a forest could act as the trigger, but the probability for a forest-fight to actually activate "Forest Defense" as a researchable tech could be based on how much forest there is in your territory.

So if your territory is covered with forests, you'd be likely to trigger it even after just a few forest battles. If you have very little forest, or even none, it could still become activated but you'll probably have to fight proportionately more battles to get it.

I like that idea. A densely forested nation would likely be able Forest Defense much quicker than a nation without (its people would be much more familiar with forests in general); the nation without forests might never even activate it at all, unless they happen to be fighting a huge number of battles in forests - their people aren't so familiar with forests and learning how to use the forest environment to their military advantage, on a kingdom-wide basis, would take much longer.

Again, not sure why how much forest is in your territory would be a factor. What if you are an expansionist and although you are in a desert, your neighbor (where you are doing most of your fighting) is all forest. It seems like you would still learn about forest defense/battle based on your experiences, not based on how many forest squares you have in your borders....

Reply #185 Top

Again, not sure why how much forest is in your territory would be a factor. What if you are an expansionist and although you are in a desert, your neighbor (where you are doing most of your fighting) is all forest. It seems like you would still learn about forest defense/battle based on your experiences, not based on how many forest squares you have in your borders....

So you're saying someone who has lived in a desert his whole life would be as likely to figure out how to use a forest environment to his advantage in combat just as quickly as somebody who has spent a reasonable portion of their life in one? In reality it'd take said desert dweller a hell of a long time to figure out how to travel in a straight line, let alone to figure out how to exploit it.

So yes, if you are constantly fighting with your neighbor in a forest, you will probably trigger Forest Defense to appear eventually, but it might take some time; whereas your opponent in this hypothetical scenario would probably trigger it much faster; his people are predisposed to it, you could say, while yours are most definitely not. Don't really see how that's such a crazy idea...

I dunno if Stardock has any intentions of delving this deep into situational techs, but I for one think that would be awesome!

Reply #186 Top

yep ... pretty awesome.

Reply #187 Top

haha sounds like this Pigeon vs Denryu debate is about the "situation" in the situational tech should be based on gamer action or how a gamer build their empire.  I'll then day it depends on the tech to see which one is more 'realistic'.

I'll like to have the "situation" (aka condition) displayer to the gamer.  Then the gamer has to work on that condition before he can get the tech.  I believe it will be more fun.   It'll more like a 'quest' to get a non-core tech.

Reply #188 Top

Hmm, knowing certain requirements for valor techs, or rather proficiency techs, I don't see a problem with ... but situational/natural inheritance techs (environment) ... I would rather them be odds-based according to your starting location or how you build your empire (only build cities on mountain peaks, or in forest thickets, ect)

Reply #189 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 185

So you're saying someone who has lived in a desert his whole life would be as likely to figure out how to use a forest environment to his advantage in combat just as quickly as somebody who has spent a reasonable portion of their life in one? In reality it'd take said desert dweller a hell of a long time to figure out how to travel in a straight line, let alone to figure out how to exploit it.

 

The thing is, this is a game. If I have no forest around me and I get the optional forest defense tech, theres no gun to my head forcing me to research it. The thing is, as soon as you start ladening the game with all these layers of complexity, you are starting to move it away from "fun" into "tedius". Does the desert kingdom knowing how to fight in the forest make sense? There are arguements I could make saying yes, but thats not the point. The point is that it is just a game, one where fun should take precedence over reality.

Protip: magic doesn't exist in the real world.

Reply #190 Top

Well, I agree a quest to kill the Arch-Necromancer/Draco-Lich, rummage through his ancient texts, gather materials, ect would be fitting to gain a tech like Necromancy or Advanced Necromancy or Necromantic Mastery, depending on how the techs/spells are approached. Could it simply be that finding your first ancient necromantic text allows you to research the Necro techs, and once you research the mastery tech, defeating the "uber necromancer" in his lair and rummaging through his texts, you will be able to unlock an ultimate spell or two (or perhaps auto-gain them into your spell-book).

Reply #191 Top

The thing is, this is a game. If I have no forest around me and I get the optional forest defense tech, theres no gun to my head forcing me to research it. The thing is, as soon as you start ladening the game with all these layers of complexity, you are starting to move it away from "fun" into "tedius". Does the desert kingdom knowing how to fight in the forest make sense? There are arguements I could make saying yes, but thats not the point. The point is that it is just a game, one where fun should take precedence over reality.

Protip: magic doesn't exist in the real world.

Uhh, ok? You completely missed my point... Everything I suggested I suggested because I think it would be fun. My response to Denryu was just to explain to him why it isn't nonsensical - he seemed to think that the chance to unlock something like "forest defense" being tied to how much forest there is in your lands is strange and unintuitive, that's all I was responding to.

I didn't suggest it because it's realistic. I suggested it because I think it would be fun; the fact that it is also realistic is just a bonus.

And also, though this isn't really relevant, I'm sorry but no one who grew up in a desert and has never seen a tree is going to be a master at fighting in forests. If they're skilled and experienced fighters/tacticians then they will of course be able to use some of that environment to their advantage; but if you pit them against equally skilled fighters/tacticians who grew up in and around forests the desert people would be outmatched. The reverse is also true - a forest-dweller would be at a disadvantage vs. a desert-dweller in a desert, even if just because the former wouldn't know how to move as efficiently or precisely on sand as the latter... They can learn, of course, but they don't have a lifetime of familiarity with the environment to draw from and so mastering it would take time.

Reply #192 Top

Quoting endofdayz, reply 189

The thing is, this is a game. If I have no forest around me and I get the optional forest defense tech, theres no gun to my head forcing me to research it. The thing is, as soon as you start ladening the game with all these layers of complexity, you are starting to move it away from "fun" into "tedius". Does the desert kingdom knowing how to fight in the forest make sense? There are arguements I could make saying yes, but thats not the point. The point is that it is just a game, one where fun should take precedence over reality.

But you don't think it would be annoying to start up a new game, and find out that the random number generator has seen fit to give you options that aren't going to do you any good? You end up in the forest, but you get 'desert combat', or you end up in the desert and get 'forest combat', maybe you get 'seafaring' but your starting position is landlocked in the middle of the continent. No, you aren't forced to research it - but you are being denied the opportunity to research another tech that might actually be useful to you.

It maybe the that the forest defense was just a bad example. But there's a pitfall to randomly generating techs like this - if you only get 1 (or 2, or 5, or 10, or however many) of these techs in the entire game, and the tech(s) that you get aren't useful... well, then you're stuck with something that's just going to sit there gathering dust, and that's not really fun at all now is it?

So specifics of how and why aside, it would be nice to have a mechanism wherein these 'randomized techs' were weighted to come up for the players who seem like they'll get the most use out of them.

Reply #193 Top

yea, such specific techs should have a much higher chance of showing up as options based upon your surrounding terrain. Sure ... if your lucky you can "get" it ... and also units which have succesfully fought a battle can get a medal which grants them the same bonuses the tech grants, but only those units which complete the sucessful battle, and only one of the three medal slots, which is a strategic and irrevocable decision.

Reply #194 Top

(prestige/10 + (population*prestige)/10)% .... while I like the simplicity of the equation, and the single-variable approach ... I think the equation is just a tad too boring (repetitive). I think the denominator needs to be played around with.

Firstly, I don't think the denominator below (population + prestige) should equal the denominator below prestige. I think the number below population+prestige should be slightly higher, otherwise pop growth will *always* be faster than migration. Im thinking something like a number between 30-100 instead of 10. 30 for relatively fast growth, and 100 for more realistic medieval growth. 10 would be more like bunny rabbits :9

Reply #195 Top

Sounds fantastic!   A great compromise between getting what you want and having that slight uncertainty. I can already imagine the headache of deciding between steelweapons or that red tech of doomstones for catapults X|

 

I'm skeptic about the grey free tech though. Don't forget that you'll most likely research 1 lvl of every category (civ, dip, war, adv and magic) because of the accelerating costs unless there's a crucial tech that you need immedietly or you risk losing the game.

Reply #196 Top

No free technologies, please! If you ignore them and don't research them, you still may trade, capture or steal them.

Suggestion: if stealing and capturing technologies work the same as in GC2 (= 1 random technology), I suggest the low tech stealing is more probable. Let us say you have conquered a city so you get a technology. The target civilization has three technologies you don't have. Each technology has some probability  of being research.

Let us put the probabilities in the line (technologies are x, y and z, more "letter" the higher the probability is:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyzzzzzz


The technology x is easy to achieve, y quite difficult, z mediocre. Let us get a random number between 1 and the sum of all letters. Let us say we get 20.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyzzzzzz

The stolen technology is z. It would work with floating point numbers as well, but It would be hard for me to describe.