Frogboy Frogboy

Elemental: Sneak Peaks

▼

Elemental: Sneak Peaks

from JoeUser Forums

imageAs some of you know, Elemental BETA 3-B is the last public beta prior to the Modding beta (Beta 4). The modding beta will take things into a different direction while the team focuses on polishing, fixing bugs, and adding your requests into the main game in time for both the DVD release version (August 6)  and the Day 0 release version (August 24).

Having done these beta programs over the past 17 years, we’ve gotten a lot better at addressing beta tester concerns after the beta closes. Part of that is obviously the tech – until 2003, we had to do all our communication using public Usenet groups or static web pages. Not an ideal format as you can imagine.

In addition, starting with Galactic Civilizations I (2003) the retail gold and digital gold versions started being different.  This was fairly nice as it gave us an extra couple weeks to add other niceties based on player feedback.

So here are some FAQs we have gotten over the years and I’ll do my best to answer them:

Q: How much will the the released version be different from the last beta version?

A: Historically, a LOT.  Sins of a Solar Empire’s last public beta didn’t have infinite resources for instance.

Q: Why does so much change between the last betas and the release versions?

A: During the final stages of the beta, stability becomes our primary concern. The last beta cycles allow us to catalog the typically massive amount of crash and other stability problems that we then address as the beta closes. Then, with the game stable we get to look closer at all the great ideas people had and start incorporating that in. Tweaking gameplay and such is not time consuming.

Q: What is Stardock’s position of Elemental’s multiplayer?

A: Elemental has multiplayer. To ensure that it is robust, we basically threw money at the problem (i.e. set up servers around the world to just host the game) rather than monkey around with trying to get players to connect with one another.  However, Elemental IS a single player game that happens to have multiplayer.  Out of the box, Elemental’s multiplayer will be essentially skirmish on fixed maps that have been pre-balanced (i.e. not randomly generated). 

Our standing policy continues to be that we won’t sacrifice the single player experience for multiplayer. That is, if we want to have a cool feature in single player that would de-balance multiplayer, we’ll just disable it from multiplayer rather than not have it in the game at all.

Over time, we will gauge the interest in expanding the multiplayer to see how many resources to put on it. 

Q: I want to know more about tactical battles

A: Without putting too fine a point on it, Elemental’s tactical battles are designed to be fairly similar to Master of Magic’s tactical battles. If you liked those, you’ll probably like these.  It’ll be an area getting the most refinement over the next 30 days and beyond since we hope to release mini-game modes that let players just play tactical battles.

On a personal note, I don’t like tactical battles normally. However, I do like MoM’s tactical battles and I do like Elemental’s tactical battles.

What is the most challenging in terms of doing tactical battles “nowadays” is that the bar on visuals is so high now. So we’re having to gather together a lot of animation assets, spell effects, unit moves, etc.  That’s what has made doing tactical battles so lengthy.  Elemental has a lot of monsters and each one has to have its own series of attack, hit, defense, casting, etc. animations. Beta 3B will basically have just a core set of these that will get greatly expanded over the next 2 weeks internally (though I did make a fuss about units “stabbing” with a club).

Q: How come there doesn’t seem to be a lot of worry about stability?

A: I’m going to show my age here. The tools for debugging nowadays are simply insane. In MY day, if we wanted to find a crash, we had to use beeps. We’d ask people for saved games and then try to reproduce it.  We’d measure crash fixes by N per week.

Now, if we get a .dmp file, we can load it up in Visual Studio and see the line of code it crashed in and the call stack.  That’s sick. Now, one person can go through an entire forum of crash dumps and fix them all before lunch (as in literally, before 12:00pm EST).  Modern developers are sissies.

Luckily, I personally try to add as many bugs each week as I can to help even the odds.

Q: How are you dealing with video card stuff?

A: Now this is trickier. There are certain video cards that are giving us fits, especially with advanced lighting. That includes blurred graphics. Corrupted graphics. White textures, etc.

In the old days, I’d email a user having the problem and ask them if I could call them on the phone and go back and forth (hey, we’re one of the few indie developers left).  We couldn’t afford to buy every video card out there.

Luckily, now, nVidia and ATI send us their cards and because of our non-game work, we have a compatibility lab set up which we’re hijacking starting this week to speed up the process.

Q: Where does the AI stand?

A: That’s what I’m working on from here on out. I’ve had to do a bit more on other areas of the game than I had intended but now I’m getting back to it.  My position on AI, however, doesn’t change. If the AI can’t use a feature, it comes out of the game. Period. Sorry.  Modders are certainly free to go nuts but in terms of officially sanctions “stuff” I only let that stuff in if the AI is able to use it.

One of the reasons why the game has changed (improved) so dramatically in the past month is because of the AI. The same frustrations you humans have the AI has double. Economics too slow or research too long? The AI notices it very fast.

Q: Will you keep us informed on what happens after the beta ends?

A: Absolutely. Users would be shocked I think to find out just how much of the forums we read and how many ideas we get that aren’t necessarily directly suggested.  Plus, I have Jason Ocampo (former editor at IGN and Gamespot) and Brian Clair (former editor of Avault) yelling at me every day on the things they don’t like.

180,731 views 100 replies
Reply #76 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Mandelik, reply 75

Quoting marlowwe, reply 63RTS games test a player's ability to make effective decisions quickly, something that takes practice by the way, and is the hallmark of any good strategist.
Total nonsense!
*snip*

This is what we call "arguing semantics," which diverts an argument away from the issue and focuses on the words instead. The fact of the matter is, the word "strategy" has a few loosely similar definitions, one of which you've outlined in the quote from Wikipedia.

Here are some more:

1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war

(2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal

3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies of insects>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy

I believe Marlowwe's use of "strategy/strategist" would fall perfectly in line with 2a/b.

Reply #77 from Elemental Forums Top

Way back when I remember you saying that you wouldn't release the game (or maybe would consider not releasing the game) if the beta testers didn't think it was ready.  With all the talk it is sounding like you are definitely planning for the August 24 release barring some major catastrophy.  Also it sounds like the game will have many changes and enhancements beyond what the beta testers will have access to.  Does this mean that you will not be asking for our input on whether we think the game is up to our expectations for release (assuming I understood your intentions in the beginning).

Just curious if this was still the intention (if it ever was).

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #78 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Wizaerd, reply 76


 Having never played or even seen Master of Magic, much less the "tactical battles" from it, what exactly are we talking about?  What is a tactical battle mean in a TBS game?  And I mean for strictly single player, because I have zero internest in multiplayer.

 

In a game like Civilization (or Elemental up to now), combat is resolved via autocombat/diceroll on the main map, and the results are instantly displayed.

What happens in tactical battle is that the screen "zooms in" on the combat, and you actually play out the battle.  It typically involves things like using terrain to your advantage, using your abilities wisely, etc.  Think of it as a mini-TBS wargame, designed to be resolved in about 3 minutes or so.

So while the main game is focused on the strategy aspects of managing your empire, Tactical battles are more involved with how you manage your units/abilities.  When do you use your Dragon's firebreath?  Do you fly him over the enemy troops to roast the archers, or do you flame his front line infantry while your cavalry races around a hill and flanks them?

Games that have had tactical battles:

-MoM
-X-COM
-Age of Wonders
-Fire Emblem

etc... 

Reply #79 from Elemental Forums Top



Our standing policy continues to be that we won’t sacrifice the single player experience for multiplayer. That is, if we want to have a cool feature in single player that would de-balance multiplayer, we’ll just disable it from multiplayer rather than not have it in the game at all.
  

 

As an old school gamer (@37), I purchase games strictly for their single player content. I honestly could care less about multiplayer. The main reason I am drawn to Stardock's games is because of the strong single player content and their dedication to that experience. If more gaming companies would focus on single player, perhaps I would purchase more games then. I realize, however, that the xbox generation is pushing most of the gaming companies into MP so they can brag to all their online friends about their 'achievements', or frag them, etc. 

Multiplayer has no charms for me, so I will rely on Skynet to be a worthy foe...and hence why I will plunk down my hard earned shekels so that Frogboy can spend his days making the game better for all of us.

Reply #80 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting SPARTANVI, reply 77
...

2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
...
I believe Marlowwe's use of "strategy/strategist" would fall perfectly in line with 2a/b.

No!

 

I won't 'argue semantics' long but people have to understand at least what they say. His sentence was just false.

"A careful plan" or "devising a plan" seems to me meaning "someone who takes his time to make a good plan" and not "I can make a decision faster than you".

Making a decision is not devising a plan: making a decision is choosing between options (once again carefully elaborated) or reacting to events (meaning you're in the action, not in thinking).

"Shall I take a pork chop or a hamburger?" is decision-making. But it has nothing to do with a careful plan or devising one, I'm sorry. He acknowledged that by saying that it requires practice, thus making it much closer to reflex or marksmanship. And, yes, RTS are much more about reflex and training the same patterns than about strategy.

Hence the "RTS stigma". B)

Reply #81 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Mandelik, reply 81

Quoting SPARTANVI, reply 77...
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
...
I believe Marlowwe's use of "strategy/strategist" would fall perfectly in line with 2a/b.

No!
 

I won't 'argue semantics' long but people have to understand at least what they say. His sentence was just false.

"A careful plan" or "devising a plan" seems to me meaning "someone who takes his time to make a good plan" and not "I can make a decision faster than you".

Making a decision is not devising a plan: making a decision is choosing between options (once again carefully elaborated) or reacting to events (meaning you're in the action, not in thinking).

"Shall I take a pork chop or a hamburger?" is decision-making. But it has nothing to do with a careful plan or devising one, I'm sorry. He acknowledged that by saying that it requires practice, thus making it much closer to reflex or marksmanship. And, yes, RTS are much more about reflex and training the same patterns than about strategy.

Hence the "RTS stigma".

What I wrote was fairly clear - you are arguing something else entirely however.

+1 Loading…
Reply #83 from Elemental Forums Top

We need some kind of executive forum decree that arguing over what "strategy" is can only take place in one isolated thread and away from any meaningful discussion. :P

Reply #84 from Elemental Forums Top

I really like these FAQs. Getting valuable info and at the same time a whole community gets their top 5 questions answered.

 

For some strange reason I wasn't much into AoW II MP but I should have been!   DarkMystery, you're here?   PawelS recognizes that name :)

 

 

I will create a RTS vs TBS thread some day soon. We need a flamewar to sort the wheat from the chaff ;)

 

In the meantime, sensitive folk should listen to this to practice getting a thick skin.

Reply #85 from Elemental Forums Top

Will we lose any of the game play elements in Beta 4, that will be in Beta 3B?

 

Reply #86 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Anomander, reply 28
It really pains me to read that MP and TB are token efforts, this was the only reason I preordered and now they are relegated to lets see if people want them expanded after release. Nowadays MP is essential imo.

Now that is only because the AI is usaly so piss poor its not funny. A good game needs to stand on single player (that is where all the work is). Adding single player to a multipalyer game is a waste of time, but the other way around is realy easy.

Reply #87 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting SteelFin, reply 56



Quoting Bellack,
reply 41


God I hope not. I would really hate to see any RTS elements in the game. With two exception I hate click-fest which most RTS games turn out to be.

Exception being: the Homeworld series and the Total War series.

 


 

I wouldn't want a click-fest either but turn based combat seems like a bore-fest to me. There are happy mediums. No turns but allow players to pause and give orders for example. It is just my opinion that battles shouldn't be as relaxed as the rest of the game. 

I perfer battles to be in turns. Now issueing orders and looking at the troops stats and stuff is a must of coarse but Turn based combat in a stratagy game is far more fun that a RTS click fest.

Reply #88 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting _PawelS_, reply 57



Quoting SteelFin,
reply 56
I wouldn't want a click-fest either but turn based combat seems like a bore-fest to me. There are happy mediums. No turns but allow players to pause and give orders for example. It is just my opinion that battles shouldn't be as relaxed as the rest of the game. 


What's so boring in turn-based combat? It's just you making decisions. If the battle is too easy, you can resolve it automatically. If it's balanced, every decision matters, so it's not boring.

In some cases watching the battle and then pausing and giving orders can take more time than turn-based. Also in pausable realtime the combat effectiveness relies on the player's reflexes (when deciding the right moment to pause), which is not good in a strategy game.
[quote who="SteelFin" reply="56" id="2679070"]


True but combat based on reflex is great in shooters and IMHO MMO's. But Stratagy games should really be turn based. In fact I don't really see why people even like RTS games. Now games like Total War is a nice blend of Turn-based and RTS. The TRS in total was tends to not turn into a click-fest because you have enough time to issue your orders to your troops without doing the typical highliting a bunch of troops and spamming the attack key while your being Zerged.

Oh and Homeworld was fun as well but it had a bit too much of the Zerg /click-fest in it. However it was not nearly as irritating and unfun as most RTS labels.

Reply #89 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting marlowwe, reply 63



Quoting Austinvn,
reply 61
Edit: Sorry for double post, should've included this in the first one.
I'm not arguing for Elemental to change back to realtime combat, they already tried it and decided on turnbased; just making the case that if done right realtime combat can be as strategic as turnbased (and not the reflex-based clickfest that 99% of RTS games unfortunately turn into).


The "clickfest" RTS stigma is completely overblown by a lot of posters on this forum. RTS games test a player's ability to make effective decisions quickly, something that takes practice by the way, and is the hallmark of any good strategist. What Stardock puts into their game is of course up to them, but let's not get ahead of ourselves and bash a completely valid component of strategy.

I've blayed many RTS games and no the "clickfest" comments are not overblown. RTS games are simply not fun. They always turn into one side zerging another and it turns into Highlighting a bunch of trroops and thow them at the zergers. You have no time to build up even when fighting the AI, because as we all know the AI always cheats in a RTS. With players the Zerging is not as bad but it stills boils down to who can create the most troops faster then zerg the other guy. No real stratagy involved

Reply #90 from Elemental Forums Top

Oh noes. :O I can't believe that you gus are arguing about this again...this is a pointless discussion.

Q: Which combat system is better? RTS? TBS? Continous TBS? WEGO?

A: All of those systems are equally good. It's just a matter of subjective opinion, that which one do you like.

That being said, my favourite is the TBS battle system.

Reply #91 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 90

I've blayed many RTS games and no the "clickfest" comments are not overblown. RTS games are simply not fun. They always turn into one side zerging another and it turns into Highlighting a bunch of trroops and thow them at the zergers. You have no time to build up even when fighting the AI, because as we all know the AI always cheats in a RTS. With players the Zerging is not as bad but it stills boils down to who can create the most troops faster then zerg the other guy. No real stratagy involved

I once beat a Carrier stack in Starcraft with 12 Hydralisks and 2 Defilers. You think there was no strategy involved in that?

The idea that RTS is nothing but zerging is silly. That's more true in a game like Civ, where the stack of doom is the only real war strategy that's needed. Mediocre players in RTS play by zerging everything. Good players use their unit special abilities and can take on dramatically larger forces because of it. (You can't zerg a Protoss player who knows how to use High Templar, and you'll get oblitterated if you try.)

RTS is a different kind of strategy. It's not no strategy.

Reply #92 from Elemental Forums Top

@Tormy: OK, I'll try to refrain from discussing this, I agree that it's pointless now when the decision has been made.

Reply #93 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 92
That's more true in a game like Civ, where the stack of doom is the only real war strategy that's needed.

You're right, that's why I'm glad they're changing it to a "one-unit-per-tile" system in Civ5. It should add more strategy to the warfare aspect of the game.

 

Quoting Tridus, reply 92
RTS is a different kind of strategy. It's not no strategy.

For me it's "half strategy, half no strategy". :\

Reply #94 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting _PawelS_, reply 67
Of course turn-based combat can be done right (examples: Age of Wonders series and the new versions of King's Bounty*), or boring (example: Disciples 3). I'm curious how good it will be in Elemental.

*No, I'm not Hortz 

 

If it is anything like AOW:SM then it should be good. Kings Bounty was fun but I would not want the tactical combat to be like it.

Reply #95 from Elemental Forums Top

The point Brad made is that come launch day, for MP play at least, there has to be an even playing field. I agree 100%.

If Random Maps is your thing, and you don't mind starting with the enemy, all 4 of them possibly, starting in your immediate neighborhood, then cool beans.

As long as you can handle the shit load of "dropping" players, that will result, if you aren't always just playing with your "buds"....

As for RTS's. Try Company of Hero's (version 1.7) and see what a true MP Strategy game is like. ;)

 

Reply #96 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Icepick, reply 80




quoting post


Our standing policy continues to be that we won’t sacrifice the single player experience for multiplayer. That is, if we want to have a cool feature in single player that would de-balance multiplayer, we’ll just disable it from multiplayer rather than not have it in the game at all.
  



 

As an old school gamer (@37), I purchase games strictly for their single player content. I honestly could care less about multiplayer. The main reason I am drawn to Stardock's games is because of the strong single player content and their dedication to that experience. If more gaming companies would focus on single player, perhaps I would purchase more games then. I realize, however, that the xbox generation is pushing most of the gaming companies into MP so they can brag to all their online friends about their 'achievements', or frag them, etc. 

Multiplayer has no charms for me, so I will rely on Skynet to be a worthy foe...and hence why I will plunk down my hard earned shekels so that Frogboy can spend his days making the game better for all of us.

It is not just the X-box generation that likes MP. There are a few of us old gamers that do to. But Single play is still very important. I'm one of those old players that want to access the singleplay but as a multiplayer. I could care less about balance.  I would have loved to be able to play against my friends in a GalCiv game just as the game is. Yes this may mean that some of us would start in a bad spot but so what, it will be that much more challanging. 

Basically what I would like to see happen is make the Single play as good as you can then just put in the option to have multipule players. Don't worry about balance or map placement. I want to start on a map just as the AI's would start in the Single player game. Also in Multiplay I want the AI teams to be able to play too.

Reply #97 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Bellack, reply 97

Quoting Icepick, reply 80



quoting post


Our standing policy continues to be that we won’t sacrifice the single player experience for multiplayer. That is, if we want to have a cool feature in single player that would de-balance multiplayer, we’ll just disable it from multiplayer rather than not have it in the game at all.
  



 

As an old school gamer (@37), I purchase games strictly for their single player content. I honestly could care less about multiplayer. The main reason I am drawn to Stardock's games is because of the strong single player content and their dedication to that experience. If more gaming companies would focus on single player, perhaps I would purchase more games then. I realize, however, that the xbox generation is pushing most of the gaming companies into MP so they can brag to all their online friends about their 'achievements', or frag them, etc. 

Multiplayer has no charms for me, so I will rely on Skynet to be a worthy foe...and hence why I will plunk down my hard earned shekels so that Frogboy can spend his days making the game better for all of us.

It is not just the X-box generation that likes MP. There are a few of us old gamers that do to. But Single play is still very important. I'm one of those old players that want to access the singleplay but as a multiplayer. I could care less about balance.  I would have loved to be able to play against my friends in a GalCiv game just as the game is. Yes this may mean that some of us would start in a bad spot but so what, it will be that much more challanging. 

Basically what I would like to see happen is make the Single play as good as you can then just put in the option to have multipule players. Don't worry about balance or map placement. I want to start on a map just as the AI's would start in the Single player game. Also in Multiplay I want the AI teams to be able to play too.

 

 

The only MP mode I cared about isn't even making it into the game. Hotseat R.I.P.

Reply #98 from Elemental Forums Top

Q: What about the bears?

:X

Reply #99 from Elemental Forums Top

"I could care less about balance."

In some instances, like the one mentioned, among mates, it is fine, but the reality is MP will involve those who are strangers, those who expect the MP game to be "Fair" and want "their" game to be the deciding factor, not the RMG's game.

I must say I do like the idea of letting the Players have a GO in MP and then see what fits everyone collective taste(s) best. "Brilliant!"