Frogboy Frogboy

Elemental Beta 3 Walkthru

Elemental Beta 3 Walkthru

Greetings!

833,036 views 332 replies
Reply #301 Top

As it is, for any Champion to fight a dozen men... unless the dozen men just really suck, well. It's unrealistic. I doubt that happens much in real life and that concept has just been popularized by Hollywood. Everything should have a counter. A counter that isn't "do the exact same thing but better".

Realistic?! Man, have you ever read a fantasy novel in your life? The ability of a hero, or anti-hero, or antagonist, to defeat large number of inferior foes is a central aspect of much of the fantasy genre. Have you ever read or seen Lord of the Rings? Aragorn wasn't magical. Neither was Gimli, or Boromir. Or really even Legolas (besides a few bits and pieces of magic here and there, but largely his strength came from his training and his elven heritage). The carnage those characters inflict in the movies is not really a departure from the books. Their training, the status as the heroes of the story enabled them to face and defeat overwhelming numbers over and over. Brad keeps telling us that the adventurers that we can recruit as our heroes are the pesky adventurers you play in D&D like games, the characters in fantasy novels that stir things up in the kingdoms, while we are the sovereigns governing those kingdoms.

Realistic in this world? No. Realistic in the vast majority of fantasy worlds? Hell yes.

However... all in all this is really caused by instigating a hard-limit in armies. It makes the quality versus quantity argument weaker and it's very much bleh. Allowing champions to not be included helps but... I don't like it. If you remove that limit, s'long as I have a 5% chance to kill a super unit, I can throw enough mundane units at it until it dies.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And like I said before, how can Dragons be the overwhelming powerhouses that he wants them to be if we can't actually swarm them with huge numbers? Without the ability to pit quantity vs. someone else's quality, quality will always win and the person with the Dragon will be undefeatable unless by someone else with a Dragon.

Edit: OMG_BlackHatHedgehog:

Very good post, there isn't a single thing in there that I don't agree with wholeheartedly!

Reply #302 Top

Other thoughts: 

Essence is useless now and that makes me sad :-( 

20 Essence is all you need to win the game now, after all! I wish it would ebb and flob a bit more rather than it being a special mana bar.

---

Random Maps:

I also read a post where Frogboy said it took about 5 minutes for "random" map to be generated that they liked. So, they ended up creating a bunch of custom maps by hand.

Why don't you guys get a machine, and have it build maps all day for a week? I'm not sure how many maps you would want to ship on a DVD (for space concerns) but if your random-map generator is as awesome as you make it out to be (with a few tweaks here and there so that you can randomly place goody huts or resources or starting locations or monsters for different games) then you really shouldn't have to really sanity check it very much. 

You could probably sanity-check and improve 10 maps in this fashion in the time it would take to craft another map purely by hand. 

Also, including the Random Map generator in a post-release patch would be great, even if it did take awhile to run. On the other hand, "Custom" premade maps are better for more competitive play so I'm kinda happy in some ways that there will be a finite set of maps. 

Reply #303 Top

Realistic?! Man, have you ever read a fantasy novel in your life? The ability of a hero, or anti-hero, or antagonist, to defeat large number of inferior foes is a central aspect of much of the fantasy genre. Have you ever read or seen Lord of the Rings? Aragorn wasn't magical. Neither was Gimli, or Boromir. Or really even Legolas (besides a few bits and pieces of magic here and there, but largely his strength came from his training and his elven heritage). The carnage those characters inflict in the movies is not really a departure from the books. Their training, the status as the heroes of the story enabled them to face and defeat overwhelming numbers over and over. Brad keeps telling us that the adventurers that we can recruit as our heroes are the pesky adventurers you play in D&D like games, the characters in fantasy novels that stir things up in the kingdoms, while we are the sovereigns governing those kingdoms.

Realistic in this world? No. Realistic in the vast majority of fantasy worlds? Hell yes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjutsu?from=Main.ConservationOfNinjitsu

I understand. and the stories that do make fun of this trope are few and far between. Wheel of Time's Lan is one of the best swordsman you meet for the first half of the series or so. He gets faced with 7 ordinary thugs and he thinks to himself he will probably die and looks for a way out of there. 

And I'm perfectly okay with Champions destroying legions of men over the course of a game and coming out fine. It fits the genre. I'm just saying it's not realistic in the real world :3 I'm just saying it's silly in some ways. 

---

Also, XP needs to be split! Holy crap I didn't know it wasn't. 

Reply #304 Top

I understand. and the stories that do make fun of this trope are few and far between. Wheel of Time's Lan is one of the best swordsman you meet for the first half of the series or so. He gets faced with 7 ordinary thugs and he thinks to himself he will probably die and looks for a way out of there. 

And I'm perfectly okay with Champions destroying legions of men over the course of a game and coming out fine. It fits the genre. I'm just saying it's not realistic in the real world :3 I'm just saying it's silly in some ways.

Can't argue with that :P And I really enjoyed the Wheel of Time books, although there were a few in there that got really boring. The guy finishing the series did a great job with the latest book though, I think. It was a real page turner, and I loved every chapter with Egwene in it!

To be honest, I think stories with plain old heroes, magicless and without all sorts of fancy magical swords or equipment are much more interesting if they err towards realism. For example, A Song of Ice and Fire. The characters there are pretty much regular people, and they don't go around destroying dozens of men single-handedly and it's great. It would suffer if he made the main characters or antagonists capable of fending of huge numbers of troops just with their swords and shields and armor and whatnot.

But in a game, I like my heroes to really, really stand out. In a book, the main characters already stand out because they are the focus of the story. You get to know them, you get to appreciate (or fume about) all of their deeds and actions and decisions. In games like this we don't really have that luxury. The game is not centered around them, they do not come with 200+ pages of story, and so the only real way for them to stand out as special and fun is for them to be over the top.

Reply #305 Top

Quoting Raven, reply 285


Quoting Tormy-,
reply 272

Raven, have you played with Dominions 3? If yes, what is your opinion about SCs [super combatants] in the game? Basically SCs are super-powered champs. I had no problems with SCs in Doms 3. It was a valid tactic to create & use them. They were capable of destroying whole armies alone, but they were not unbeatable, IE. the game itself was not imbalanced because of the SCs.



I have Dom 2, unfortunately I never got around to picking up Dom 3. That sounds pretty Bad Ass though if you ask me 


You should buy Doms3. It's amongst the top3 TBS fantasy strategies, but it's not the best game for singeplayer fans, because the AI is bad. :X That is the only problem with the game.

Reply #306 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 304


I understand. and the stories that do make fun of this trope are few and far between. Wheel of Time's Lan is one of the best swordsman you meet for the first half of the series or so. He gets faced with 7 ordinary thugs and he thinks to himself he will probably die and looks for a way out of there. 

And I'm perfectly okay with Champions destroying legions of men over the course of a game and coming out fine. It fits the genre. I'm just saying it's not realistic in the real world :3 I'm just saying it's silly in some ways.

Can't argue with that And I really enjoyed the Wheel of Time books, although there were a few in there that got really boring. The guy finishing the series did a great job with the latest book though, I think. It was a real page turner, and I loved every chapter with Egwene in it!

Yeah he really did. Can't wait for the next one!

To be honest, I think stories with plain old heroes, magicless and without all sorts of fancy magical swords or equipment are much more interesting if they err towards realism. For example, A Song of Ice and Fire. The characters there are pretty much regular people, and they don't go around destroying dozens of men single-handedly and it's great. It would suffer if he made the main characters or antagonists capable of fending of huge numbers of troops just with their swords and shields and armor and whatnot.

But in a game, I like my heroes to really, really stand out. In a book, the main characters already stand out because they are the focus of the story. You get to know them, you get to appreciate (or fume about) all of their deeds and actions and decisions. In games like this we don't really have that luxury. The game is not centered around them, they do not come with 200+ pages of story, and so the only real way for them to stand out as special and fun is for them to be over the top.

To be fair, Lan likely would have won against those seven thugs. He's just smart enough to realize that it's a pointless risk to fight them and he's needed to do something more important. But the very fact that it's not assured is what makes it interesting.

That kind of encounter would be a waste of ink if it was Rand instead, simply because Rand would wave his hand and erase them all from the timeline. (I mean he one shotted Graendal, her entourage, and her bloody castle before they realized he was there. I guess that's the equivalent to volcano? ;) )

Reply #307 Top

Quoting Tormy-, reply 305
You should buy Doms3. It's amongst the top3 TBS fantasy strategies, but it's not the best game for singeplayer fans, because the AI is bad. That is the only problem with the game.
On the other hand, he knows already all he has to know by having Dom2.

Dom3 has just a few spells more, a few factions more, a few UI improvements and a random map generator; everything else (95%) is the same. I don't know if it's enough to buy it (I did because I lost my Dom2 CD).

Best thing would be for him to try the demo. B)

Reply #308 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 295

Do you understand what Imbuing means in terms of game mechanics? It means "Give your Champion 1 essence", which means your champion can now have mana and eventually as he gets more essence through levelups or whatever can actually cast a little bit. There's a huge difference between a Sovereign with 15 essence and a Champion with 1. The mere act of imbuing does not automagically (yes, that's on purpose) make a Champion amazingly powerful.

 

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 299
As BlackHatHedgehog said, I think it's possible to imbue champions repeatedly (correct me if I'm wrong - or, I'm about to play another game so I'll double check myself anyway), thus transferring more than 1 essence. And yes there is a huge difference between a sovereign with 15 essence and a champion with 1 essence.

The spellbook that was given in another Dev Journal thread describes Imbue Champion as "Allows a Champion to cast spells. Initial Essence = Caster's INT/2". So, if it'll end up working as described, it won't be as simple as a one-to-one transfer of Essence. The wording also makes me doubt that we'll be able to (meaningfully) use it more than once on the same Champion (unless it works differently on Champions that already have Essence).

 

Experience not splitting is something I don't like, and is going to be hugely abused. It greatly favors always fighting everything with as many troops, champions, creatures, etc as you possibly can to get the most experience. Where in reality 200 knights, 50 longbowman and a dragon killing a spider shouldn't really get anyone involved a noticeable amount of xp.

Agreed.

Reply #309 Top

Well, like I've been saying since the beginning, I have no problem with powerful champions, but how powerful they are has to be balanced against how many of them you can have, as well as the (admittedly dreaded) army limits. You can't just say "Imbued champions should be Sauron-like!" with no consideration for the fact that if you can get a bunch of those into the same army, no limited mundane army can ever kill them and if the other player doesn't have his own army of super-champions then he just flat out loses. The game mechanics have to be considered when talking about how powerful something should be, and for the most part people haven't been doing much of that when pushing for super-champions.

There are a bunch of factors to consider:

- Game length (map size)
- Number of imbued champions easily attainable
- Mundane army limitations
- Whether or not Champions are part of army "stack" limits
- Whether or not you can have more than one champion accompanying an army

In short, there's nothing wrong with having powerful imbued Champions, as long as the game mechanics don't allow them to be horribly abused (like sticking 10 along with a conventional army and laughing as your opponent can't do anything). The mechanics have to guarantee that their number is both more limited and more irreplaceable as you make them increasingly more powerful.

As for xp, I would definitely support an XP split so it wasn't so easy to level up a bunch of Champions really quickly. There should be a trade-off between having few and many, such as if you have few they're generally higher level due to less xp split.

+1 Loading…
Reply #310 Top

Isn't the land completely barren in the first place? So therefore you would have to use essence for that essential first city.

Other than that it looks amazing.

Reply #311 Top

Well I applaud you for not making the Tactical Battles RTS there are too many RTS games in the market as is.

I do have a question, Can we set the Tactical combat to always start no matter how many units are particapating. For me one of the funnest elements of the game is the tactical combat as it was for all the AOW and MOM. Without this I would probably just stick to CIV.  And please allows us to scale the lenth of the tactical combat (put a setting that says 'It's over when it is over') I perfer no time limits on tactical combat

Reply #312 Top

Quoting ddd888, reply 1
i like changes to magic system, looks promising and solving various problems reported in past beta

 

im looking forward to try it asap

 

also its very cool to have units(and champions) with special abilities, i loved very much that kind of things in kings bounty and if its going to be similar im very happy

Kings Bounty was good but AOW did this even better (Had a lot of special abilities that could be added to Units, Heros, and Magic items. And you could EASLY edit/create them with the game editor.

Reply #313 Top

Quoting Zawath, reply 12
3 minutes sounds about right for tactical battles. If they lasted longer, people wouldn't use them in multiplayer.

3 minutes is a bit too short for the tactical combats. You can't get anything done in 3 minutes. Well hopefully they will allow us to set the time on the combats

Reply #314 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 33



Quoting VermillionChaos,
reply 32
Reply to Markie:

 

Pioneer build time + Escalating cost(which could be adjusted up or down as needed)

Imagine that the first is 100, then 100, then 200, then 300, then 500, then 800, then 1100. then 1900, then 3000 (i.e. summation type)

 



This is pretty irrelevant though, since it's only a factor very early on. When you can make 5 Pioneers at once and have enough gold to found 5 cities at once, the system stops working.

Unless the cost is a percentage of total, the system scales very horribly to growing economies - something that requiring essence for people who didn't want to spend time waiting for land creep (another limiter to city spam that's going away) didn't have a problem with.

Personally I don't want 'City Spam' as you and others call it to go away. I want to be able to build many cities and create vast empires.  I like the change keep up the good work DEVs

Reply #315 Top

Well, as long as they are well planned, well resourced and have a good risk/reward ratio.  I don't think creating a large empire has ever been simple. =)

Best regards,
Steven.

Reply #316 Top

Quoting lwarmonger, reply 89



Quoting Annatar11,
reply 14

Obviously you guys have been working on it for a while and are better judges, but a 2-3 minute battle seems less than tactical. As long as there's enough opportunity for beneficial unit control (meaning, not just charge the enemy head on), it should be good.



I too am very interested in this.  2-3 minute tactical battles would make sense for multi-player, but for single player when my army of thousands clash with their army of thousands, a 15 minute tactical battle should not be out of the ordinary.

Just for the record I agree with the Single player comment you made but I also want the option to have longer tactical battles in Multiplay as well.  I will sometimes play hotseat (or if no Hot seat then have my second PC play other empires) and would not want the Tactical battles gimped. Also when I play my friends we will all want long tactical combats.  So there really needs to be an option that says "Tactical Combat always" Then if you want to auto resolved a particular combat there should be a button you hit during the combat that allows this not that I will ever use it mind you.

Reply #317 Top

Personally I don't want 'City Spam' as you and others call it to go away. I want to be able to build many cities and create vast empires. I like the change keep up the good work DEVs

Don't confuse "City Spam" for expansion. I have no problem with a measured and gradual expansion of your empire, allowing for lots of cities and vast empires on the really big maps. "City Spam" refers to just placing a lot of cities very quickly. It's kind of meaningless to have a vast empire if you had it only a couple hundred turns into a game, right?

Reply #318 Top

Quoting Raven, reply 137


Like I said in another thread the other day, if this isn't Done Right the First Time then Elemental will get Bad Reviews and it will be tanked by gaming sites before it ever really has a chance to get off the ground. No Matter What I DON'T want that to happen and I doubt anyone else here does either. We ALL want Elemental to succeed and be the next Successor to the Legend that is MoM. Even Age of Wonders, though it was a Great Game, didn't quite capture that Magical Feeling that games like the original MoM, MoO, and X-Com had.

 

I would have to disagree with you on this. AOW:SM did infact capture the Magical feeling and was better than the other games you named. At least for my frineds and I. We still play it today.

Reply #319 Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 318



Quoting Raven X,
reply 137


Like I said in another thread the other day, if this isn't Done Right the First Time then Elemental will get Bad Reviews and it will be tanked by gaming sites before it ever really has a chance to get off the ground. No Matter What I DON'T want that to happen and I doubt anyone else here does either. We ALL want Elemental to succeed and be the next Successor to the Legend that is MoM. Even Age of Wonders, though it was a Great Game, didn't quite capture that Magical Feeling that games like the original MoM, MoO, and X-Com had.



 

I would have to disagree with you on this. AOW:SM did infact capture the Magical feeling and was better than the other games you named. At least for my frineds and I. We still play it today.

I agree...in fact AoW2-SM was much better than MoM...this is my subjective opinion of course. :)

Reply #320 Top

I have a question about "Unit" caps?

I assume we will be able to grow a "Unit" to its Max size right? So if start off with 5 single men, then research and start to build Platoons, Company sized groups, can I then combine some combo of each to reach the max. "Unit" size of 20?

The question is. Once I combine 5 groups of 4 to max a "Unit" cap, and then having reached my max allowed "Unit" #, will it be impossible to break down a "Unit", back into it component parts, in essence creating more, but smaller "Unit", or will the max. cap # eventually come down to 400 guys configured into any # of "Unit" groups, never to exceed 400 (or 20x20)

P.S. And has it been determined yet if a SoV and or Imbued Champion will be considered as 1 FULL "Unit".

 

Reply #321 Top

Quoting diamondspider, reply 164



Raven X
comment 163
That's why You can End the Battle Any Time YOU Want. If you don't want to play through those long battles, YOU don't have to . Just hit Auto Calculate which you'll be able to do at ANY TIME. See what I'm getting at here?There's No Need to gimp the game for those of us who DO want to play through the long battles when those who don't want too don't have too.


As I've said, I believe 3 times now, autoresolve is not an option for a serious games unless you can't care about losing units.

It can never play nearly as well as you can manually... no game has ever been able to get autoresolve close to as good as manual play.

So then play out the whole battle. I'm not sure what your trying to say here. Either you Auto resolve the battle (Which I will never do because it is not fun.) or you fight the battle there is no other choice.

 

Reply #322 Top

Quoting Annatar11, reply 309
Well, like I've been saying since the beginning, I have no problem with powerful champions, but how powerful they are has to be balanced against how many of them you can have, as well as the (admittedly dreaded) army limits. You can't just say "Imbued champions should be Sauron-like!" with no consideration for the fact that if you can get a bunch of those into the same army, no limited mundane army can ever kill them and if the other player doesn't have his own army of super-champions then he just flat out loses. The game mechanics have to be considered when talking about how powerful something should be, and for the most part people haven't been doing much of that when pushing for super-champions.

There are a bunch of factors to consider:

- Game length (map size)
- Number of imbued champions easily attainable
- Mundane army limitations
- Whether or not Champions are part of army "stack" limits
- Whether or not you can have more than one champion accompanying an army

In short, there's nothing wrong with having powerful imbued Champions, as long as the game mechanics don't allow them to be horribly abused (like sticking 10 along with a conventional army and laughing as your opponent can't do anything). The mechanics have to guarantee that their number is both more limited and more irreplaceable as you make them increasingly more powerful.

As for xp, I would definitely support an XP split so it wasn't so easy to level up a bunch of Champions really quickly. There should be a trade-off between having few and many, such as if you have few they're generally higher level due to less xp split.

Now That I completely Agree with. :)

Quoting Bellack, reply 321

So then play out the whole battle. I'm not sure what your trying to say here. Either you Auto resolve the battle (Which I will never do because it is not fun.) or you fight the battle there is no other choice.

That's what I was getting at, Bellack. You'd have to go back and read all the posts to see the whole arguement and what I was trying to get across. I'm like you and would tend to Never use auto-resolve anyway.

Reply #323 Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 313

3 minutes is a bit too short for the tactical combats. You can't get anything done in 3 minutes. Well hopefully they will allow us to set the time on the combats

Just to be clear on this, 3 minutes is a target for how long they want a typical fight to last. It's NOT a hard timer (or a timer at all). If you want to spend 30 minutes in battle, the game will not stop you.

The goal is that combat should move at a pace that for a typical player, a typical engagement mid game will take 3 minutes.

Reply #324 Top

huh why is the whole post just gone?

 

All I see is Greetings!

 

Just got back form the hospital and was catching up but then hit that thing.. oh well moving on.

Reply #325 Top

Quoting Alexender000, reply 324
huh why is the whole post just gone?

 

All I see is Greetings!

That is odd. It must be a Conspiracy!!! sssshhhhh, don't tell anyone or they'll call you crazy :dur:

On a side note, I hope all went well at the Hospital.