Hmm.  Good points.

Best regards,
Steven.

With all respect, how can the magic system get 'dumbed down' from here?  That's not sarcastic, I'm honestly wondering how it could get more simple....

I want to see some underground areas like the underworlds as well most these features you guys mention.

That's very true, and probably a good fix as well. I think what a lot of people mean when they say it's "weak" though is the fact that it's the same-ol stuff we always see. There's nothing that has drastic effects like in effecting the world or the whole battlefield or that has unique effects like "Darkness" and things like that. It's mostly bland.

Months ago the forum goers wrote up a HUGE spell list at Frogboy's request. They shouldn't be lacking for creative spell ideas. I'd say that list was long enough that they should have interesting spell effects ideas to last them for 3 expansions. Of course it takes a lot of time to implement complex spell mechanics, which of course was a factor of some things not being there at launch. It does need to be expanded upon and improved and have interesting spell effects added to it.

I've seen Frogboy mention a "pooled mana source" and I'm not sure how I'd like that but I'm waiting for him to give more details on it before I make any judgments on it. I think it could damage the worth of individual champions though. The value of some champions is that they have a high INT or you gave them a lot of Essence as they leveled up, thus they have more mana and are more valuable. If all the champions are drawing from One mana pool, none of them have more mana than the others. None of them are "special" and it gives some of the champions that might not have had much value a much more important role. It looks like it might have some good aspects, but I see some bad aspects too. I'm hoping we'll have a chance to discuss a lot of this with the Devs like we did with the Elemental Beta Process as well. If it comes down to having to pre-order future expansion, well, they can just go ahead and put me down for all of them Now and Count Me In on the discussions. I didn't buy Elemental so I could not get all the expansions as well. I'll be investing in this project until it's finished and the last expansion is made even if that's not for 2 more years down the road.

While I agree with what you desire to see, I do not think that Frogboy meant by 'complexities' that he thought the game was to complex. It is a minor thing, but just thought I would say something. I agree with the substance of your argument, however.

That's one of the things I was thinking of when I referred to "dumbing down the magic system." However, Frogboy said in another thread that he'd be posting the proposed changes to the magic system later, so I'm waiting to see his post.

Dito. I'm hoping there's some good stuff in that post that will balance out what I think could be lost with "pooled mana".

If you look at Frogboy's comment in context, I think its clear that he's referring to a different type of complexity (n^2 problems and analyses are huge in programming, especially with things like AI.  In any case, its obvious that the community wants a more compelling tactical game, and Stardock is nothing if not responsive to their community.

Google/wikipedia N^2 or N2 to see some examples of the types of problems he's referring to.

I'm confused.

What 'solid concepts' are you all talking about?

Because from what I've seen there are 'concepts' but the execution of them is so poor and incomprehensible I don't really see how anyone taking an honest look at the game can call them 'solid'.  Even Brad seems to hold this position.

Unless you mean something like 'it has tactical combat, and that is a solid concept' or 'it has spells, and that is a solid concept'.

Look, it's a fantasy TBS, it *HAS* to have certain elements, but really?  The execution of them is 'solid'?  By this logic, MoO3 had 'solid concepts'.

>boggles<

As I said before, don't be afraid to use the old proverb "Good artists copy, great artists steal", meaning that you take the good aspects of an existing thing or concept and them improve upon them. As Magic and tactical combat (along with its ugly cousin, unit stats) are the worst offenders right now, I can only say: it is not sign of weakness to take some proven ideas, even if they come from 16 year old games - and then improve upon them.

I think that largely depends on what one means by "the heart of Elemental". Where do the core aspects of the genre end and the core apects of Elemental begin? There seems to be some disagreement on that front.

Personally, I think that Elemental has a lot of "core" systems and mechanics that are just floating there in one-dimensional pointlessness, unconnected to the rest of the game. Dynasties being a prime example. As things stand, the game would lose almost nothing if they were cut, but would be massively improved if they were re-worked to be more integrated. Having dynasties is a solid concept. The current implementation of dynasties does little for the game.

Actually more complexity = better in my book of magic. ..but it's not necessary. Simple game mechanics can be fun as well. I think that these are the most important things, what needs to be fixed [gameplay]:

- Combat system. We need a better UI ; more informations [damage types / resistance types and percentages / etc. should be dispalyed], bigger and more diverse [Ex.: more obstacles, which are breaking LOS / blocking the movement] battle maps, much more & diverse special abilities/traits for the creatures, polished ATT/DEF/DMG/RESISTANCE system & balancing of course.

- Magic system. 1 thing is for sure: We need much more spells, and diversity. Having lots of unique/special spells = WIN. [Good example: Dominions 3.] Other than this....well, I am waiting for Froggie's post about the upcoming changes regarding the magic system, so it's pointless to make any suggestions now. Let's wait for his post first.

the key point here is surely complex versus complicated.

Surely we do not want a complicated game.... game mechanics that are fiddly but don't add much in the way of depth, interest, etc.

We want a complex game. One with interesting, balanced decisions, clear design, accessible information, and depth in the gameplay. Remember, the "simpler" the game is, the easier it is for the AI (and human players!) to learn, so the more skilled you need to be to win. Chess and Go would be the obvious examples. Neither are complicated games, but both allow for deep and complex game play. 

The indie game Solium Infernium is an interesting example (look it up if you haven't heard of it) is anther interesting example. In many ways, its selling point is that it's complicated... giving experienced strategy gamers something to sink their teeth into. But then again, it's combat is very simple, (and with only a very small element of luck). Which in turn allows players to understand exactly what the outcome of different tactics will be... sort of like rock/paper/scissors times 10

The Total War games are kind of the opposite... each unit has lots of stats, but the game doesn't tell you what they actually mean. And it turns out that you can still win easily if you don't understand how any of the game mechanics actually work.

Excellent post here my friend.

I can agree with your whole reply here except this one statement about the TW games. All the information on a unit's stats is accessible in game, at least it is in Empire and Med 2 which I play often and I'm pretty sure it was in Rome and Shogun as well, which I have, but admittedly haven't played lately. Some of the unit information IS buried though and only accessible in full detail on the drafting/recruiting screens when on the strategic map. The meaning of all the stats is always displayed on the units information sheet and normally by hovering your mouse over something it will pop-up with a info box. Elemental does this with it's "Tool Tips" as well if the player has them enabled though I do admit they are rather sparse on the information right now. I think once they get everything hammered out and working they can fill in the information gaps in Elemental with tool tip pop-ups as well and maybe even some right click context menus which would be preferable.

I do think you're right in saying you can often win in a TW game without knowing what some of the finer aspects of the stats are, but, this is only because the TW games are so good on a strategic level in tactical combat. If you know anything about warfare and formations then you can be competent enough to win a battle, because in the TW games things like that actually matter. In Elemental, not so much. In Elemental you have to know what the Str of your unit is and the Def of your enemy is. Paying attention to your enemies Atk is probably a good idea too. The two games, any TW game and Elemental, both play in completely different ways. They both use strategy though, or at least "should", when all is said and done.

If you take away technical issues, Elemental isn't the best game out there but it's a good game (with its balance issues and some things in need of serious polish/tweaking).

The game needs more depth and a much better UI. Why is there no moral, happiness, or approval rating for your units, cities, or kingdom? Why is there no tax rate adjustment? The other economic systems discussed during the beta sound much more engaging, I really hope something can be modded for the economy. Caravans could have been so much more instead of just being a bonus and road builder. Cities all feel the same, in GalCiv 2 I could specialize planets, one planet would be my industrial center, others my research center, etc.

Where is the army and city management screens? I want to see all my units stats/location/wages on one screen. Cities icons on the left side just look like clutter, they worked for Sins because it's a real time game, you needed to act fast. There is no need for it here.

There is a good game here, it's just hiding behind a terrible UI and few flaws. Hopefully Stardock fixes these issues and what they don't can be modded in to the game.

Well, different champions would still have different "casting skill".   That's how it worked in MoM and AOW, each turn you could channel X amount of mana towards a spell.  Mana still comes out of your global pool.  

Overall, this is a very welcome change.

Now we need casting radius and the far-caster equipment packs so that units can carry casting zones around them deep into enemy territory  

I agree Andon, however I think the magic system needs to have resistances added to it.  A fire spell should do more damage to and ice elemental etc.

as far as resistances go, i believe they should be subtractive rather than %s. %s are an awful mechanic: a low % at low levels is useless, a high % at high levels is obscene. better to deduct the first few points of damage received.

my belief is that the base damage of spells should be dependent on the spell itself rather than an attribute and that shards and attributes. tkae a lieston from dnd, which has been doing these things for decades. ie, fireball is 1d6 + 1/2 int + 3xno of fire shards. or whatever. this reduces randomness and gives an incentive to get higher level spells. right now spell research quickly becomes redundant once you reach higher levels.

alternatively, tie all affects to the spell itself (whilst reducing randomness) and use shards and attributes to reduce the cost of casting these spells to reasonable levels. this has the added bonus of making shards and attributes useful for all spells, not just the ones that produce direct damage.

there have been calls for different schools to have different affects beyond direct damage. a good argument can be made for this. however, one of the most unreported flaws with the game mechanics at the moment is that non-damage offensive effects are currently awful. they are either massively overpowered (because their success is always guaranteed). most of the ones available have been made pathetic to counter for their certainty of success, but some are obscene for the same reason. a party of shrills the other day just paniced an entire army (and sov) of mine for an entire battle and proceeded to devour them all. the game badly needs a magic resistance mechanic and a random element which assures varied outcomes.

but getting away from the magic discussion, the game need more complexity and a better stat system. it does not need more special abilities to complicate proceedings. i also believe the city development side of the game is as complex as i want it to be (though there are some small tweaks needed: caravans need to produce a better mix of bonuses and walls need to have their maintenance cost and footprint removed).

strategy map fine aside from balance, AI and performance. the war of magic part of the game currently sucks however.

As I suspected.  People are more interested in engaging in pointless debate instead of divining what was actually meant by 'complexity.'

Agreed, i don't want reblancing(yet) or subtracting. Addition is whats needed plan and simple. After one medium map play through you have seen pretty much all the game has to offer since it takes no time to explore all quests and research all techs. As you said the game needs alot more depth and content.

I have to admit, as someone who likes to tweak the game quite a bit, the thought of drastic changes coming makes it difficult to get in the mood to do a serious mod. It's the reason why most mods are done on a stable code base. Still, changes aren't necessarily bad, and some parts of Elemental DO needs it (like say... damage rolls?). I'm a bit worried about the coming changes to the magic system as well, but it's hard to say how bad or good it will be until we get more detail on it.

So here's to hoping that most of the changes will be done at the modular level (so changes to the base game only, not the engine itself), and thus if we happen to like a certain mechanic we can go back and mod back the changes to an older version (*cross fingers*). Although I suppose sometimes that isn't entirely possible.

I tried looking at this post from a game designer's perspective. More complexity seems to be the consensus but I can't help but to feel that you guys are reading way too much into a short few statements. I think frogsy is doing quite well to decide what he will or won't cut out and from his last post it seems like we are getting a more robust, if you will, magic system. If I were him, I would be a little annoyed about how much people make conjecture before a change is even announced.

As a fellow gamer and modder, I too am worried that we will lose some of my favorite things; and I am not just talking raindrops on windows. I want essence to be local to the caster as opposed to a global system. I want inteligence to have a greater effect on summoning and casting of spells. I want to add a million buffs and debuffs and monsters and minions, but we should really wait until we at least know what is on the table before we refuse it. I think these guys are good enough to surprise us with what they are going to change... that's a good thing.

Post on!

When I look at it that way it actually doesn't sound that bad. I didn't think about the Int modifier honestly so I guess there are other ways that individual casters can differentiate themselves.

There are some Really Great ideas and suggestions in this thread so hopefully the Frogster checks it out I admit I was most likely wrong on what I thought his meaning of "complexity" was referring too. I agree now that he was talking about the complexity of the code, not the mechanics.

Still, this post is very helpful because it shows them what aspects people like and what they shouldn't mess with and what they should. It shows Frogboy and the Team that we like a lot of the various mechanics and just want to see them fixed and expanded upon, and also hints and what kinds of Drastic changes none of us would probably want to see.

As seanw3 says above me, "Post On!".