Brad Wardell's site for talking about the customization of Windows.

Some of the concepts we're talking about will be hard to envision without actually having the game but one of the real innovations we're trying to introduce with Elemental is the concept of unlimited expansion.

The key to this is not hard coding civilization capabilities but rather leaving them open-ended.

So let me start at the beginning:

When someone first gets into Elemental, the relationships will be simple between things. A player who wants to design a horse mounted knight will need to have researched animal husbandry which lets them train horses. They will need to have a city that has used one of its tiles to make use of a herd of wild horses on the map. They will need a mine on a metal deposit to create the armor.  And once they have all those things, it'll be a matter of training and equipping the knight.

The above example is one of the more complicated relationships one will see initially in Elemental...

But what about users who want to keep making more and more sophisticated relationships?

Maybe I want to have knights equipped with sunfire dread chain mail riding tamed Demon steeds and the knights have a secondary power of carrying tomes of unmaking which vastly increase their damage in battle?

Well, there would be a host of technologies one would have to have researched. There would have to be spells researched as well and new city buildings that produce these tomes and then have been enchanted to make these tomes magical. The demon steeds would require various technologies and the finding of demons to be tamed in the first place and so on and so on.

How do you control the level of sophistication here so that it doesn't become too complicated?  The answer is with a new series of game options that are practically games unto themselves.

Because, did I mention, that all the things mentioned in the second example were things produced not by us but by players and broadcast to all other players so that you have access to them automatically? No expansion packs needed. No paying for mini-content needed. It's just thousands of players creating cool stuff and broadcasting it to one another.

So here's how players control it.  They have a screen called the Bestiary where they can control what types of creatures are in game. When someone broadcasts content, Stardock moderators rate and define it more closely. From this screen, players can decide what types of creatures they want, the quality of the submission desired (we will rate the broadcasts in terms of production values as well), etc. These creatures will have associated technologies that are attached to them that are required.

There will be additional screens for managing resources, techs, etc.

So for most players, they will probably stick with what we include or maybe a handful of expansions that Stardock provides. Others will insert some content made by other players. And still others will go for a truly huge scope experience.  But the point is that players control this.

Now someone might say that a lot of this sounds too ambitious. But Stardock already does a lot of this, today, right now, on WinCustomize.com with its non-game stuff. 

Now what is the gameplay result of this? One of the cooler things that will result is that the units that players make use of will really be different from game to game. And there will be a real pay off in the battles for players who have managed to assemble the necessary components to create some of the truly sophisticated units.

In multiplayer, the default it going to be the least common denominator settings. We will probably have other options but we won't know until we've had a chance to play it online with you guys to see what other settings are the most fun.


Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Apr 29, 2009

Cikomyr
To be honest, I think it would be more interesting to see random sampling of new features everytime you create a new game. It will increase re-playability, and also put more incentive toward shuffling your strategy.



I like this idea...am I understanding it right?  Lemme do my version.

Each time you start a world there are different variables that determine the 'flavor' of the world.  AND possibly the player does not know right away what these factors are.  Maybe there is a rarity of horses, or abundance of dragons, or metal is virtually non existent ( game breaker?)

I can see how if the wrong variables get implemented the game may become impossible...OR I don't know...is there enough means for the player to pursue to overcome most any problem.?

IE dragons are common, metal is not.  Instead of well equipped warriors maybe the player has to rely on numbers and large stores of food for an almost too large population of mediocre pointy-stick wielders to go remove dragon problems.

This would probably have to be an option I guess...or maybe highly limited to what is randomized in this fashion.  But I like the idea that this 'feature' would randomize end-game play.

Most games that have random maps and encounters still use the same inventory every game, so the player know what the most powerful creatures and spells and items are at the start...so they know when they are maxed out for effectiveness.  The 'best' equipment never changes game to game, just the path.

GalCiv2 works well this way.  Having the best weapons and armor is not going to ensure victory, in fact depending on the game following that path may lead to certain defeat.  You have to figure out what type of victory is easiest (or most fun) to attain and figure out your own path.

PROBLEM:  It would SUCK to find out 10hrs into gameplay that you are not going to survive the game because the variables are so overwhelmingly against you the game is in fact impossible.  So I assume there would have to be a 'weight' system to these so that +/- can be relatively balanced.

Side note: I also like the idea for major events in this game.  This can change your path completely.

on Apr 29, 2009

It would SUCK to find out 10hrs into gameplay that you are not going to survive the game because the variables are so overwhelmingly against you the game is in fact impossible.  So I assume there would have to be a 'weight' system to these so that +/- can be relatively balanced.

Not neccesarily. In fact, a game called 'Dwarf Fortress' actually has a moto of "Losing is fun!" http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Fun

IMO, losing can be as fun or even more fun than winning. A slow struggle for survival can be much more interesting than what usually turns into a steamroll to victory by the end.

on Apr 29, 2009

I like this idea...am I understanding it right? Lemme do my version.


Each time you start a world there are different variables that determine the 'flavor' of the world. AND possibly the player does not know right away what these factors are. Maybe there is a rarity of horses, or abundance of dragons, or metal is virtually non existent ( game breaker?)

Exactly. You are effectively playing a different game every game.. Or at least, a different environment that is different with other things than just the shape of the map.


I can see how if the wrong variables get implemented the game may become impossible...OR I don't know...is there enough means for the player to pursue to overcome most any problem.?


IE dragons are common, metal is not. Instead of well equipped warriors maybe the player has to rely on numbers and large stores of food for an almost too large population of mediocre pointy-stick wielders to go remove dragon problems.

Yes, but think of it. If such occurence would happen, where metal is rare, you'd end up with a world focusing its research on magic weilders. Armies will be primitive, but mythical. That's what I like in a fantasy world: there is always an alternative.

And no metal + Dragon = Wizard Dragonriders. You'd end up with a world filled with magical beasts, with wizards and priests trying to tame and harvest them for supremacy.


This would probably have to be an option I guess...or maybe highly limited to what is randomized in this fashion. But I like the idea that this 'feature' would randomize end-game play.


Most games that have random maps and encounters still use the same inventory every game, so the player know what the most powerful creatures and spells and items are at the start...so they know when they are maxed out for effectiveness. The 'best' equipment never changes game to game, just the path.

I am not sure about that. I like the randomnization of elements that would be harvestable in the gameplay, it means that the endgame units will be different from game to game, the strategies involved will also be different.

Also, please remember: what happens to you also happens to your opponents. The player won't be 100% screwed just because there arne't any metal in his part of the world. None of your opponents have metal either. So it's a race for a different kind of warfare. If you happen to face an ennemy that have the single source of metal of the world, he focused his technology on metallurgy, which might cause a surprise against everybody... But then again, he will probably be lacking in some technological field that the non-metal opponents have focused on.


PROBLEM: It would SUCK to find out 10hrs into gameplay that you are not going to survive the game because the variables are so overwhelmingly against you the game is in fact impossible. So I assume there would have to be a 'weight' system to these so that +/- can be relatively balanced.

Side note: I also like the idea for major events in this game. This can change your path completely.

A weight system might be nice, indeed. But then, remember a basic mantra: you aren't changing the circumstances of a single faction. You are changing the world. all the factions will then suffer or thrive equally because of those circumstances..

I'd understand why a city which has access to the only source of Iron of the world would be a "King of the Hill" situation, with everybody wanting to seize it. Does it make it un-playable? Maybe. Does it make it fun? Hell yhea. You'd end up with strange situations in the game, and avoid repetition.

on Apr 30, 2009


It would SUCK to find out 10hrs into gameplay that you are not going to survive the game because the variables are so overwhelmingly against you the game is in fact impossible.  So I assume there would have to be a 'weight' system to these so that +/- can be relatively balanced.


Not neccesarily. In fact, a game called 'Dwarf Fortress' actually has a moto of "Losing is fun!" http://dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php/Fun

IMO, losing can be as fun or even more fun than winning. A slow struggle for survival can be much more interesting than what usually turns into a steamroll to victory by the end.


Dwarf Fortress reference... it takes a certain type to play that game.  I'm scared to go into Fortess building.

@ Cikomyr: Just a few things to point out about my statements. I tend to ignore discussing magic in a game just because how undefined it is...magic can be used to fix anything (ie a simple dragon slaying enchantment on said sticks).  And I ignored the other team in my ideas because my concern was not of losing, was that neither side could win.  Glad I understood your ideas, means I didn't waste my breath 

Now to clarify MY standpoint.  I'm not really afraid of a 10 hr dead end game.  My concern is what would appeal to reviewers and a broader base, there needs to be a safety against this 'problem'.  One that us crazy people can turn off.  I'm one who has a more profound interest in the flavor of the game than the results but I do understand also this game needs to sell, and if a large enough people are put of by a feature us in the minority enjoy...it will hurt the future of this and other games.

A sample of my personal achievements are as follows, not finishing GT4 or Fallout3 (too much fun sandboxing), rarely complete a GCII, Sins, or Dom3 game (lose complete track of what my plans were in large games after coming back), afraid to build a fort in DFortress. 

However, not finishing these games is not a problem, I love their style.

I also liked but wanted to love the Heroes of Might and Magics... But i couldn't, the game always turned into a steam-roll.  To me the mechanics of those games very much show that winning can be very boring.  This is what I don't want Elemental to be like, I liked the HMM styles but hated the end game play of a super army hunt.  Which happens in Dom3 too but thankfully there are other paths to victory and the mighty army chase doesn't happen EVERY time as it does in HMM.

And seeing these games referenced here, (dom3 and DFort) and open-door policy SDock has had with GCII...I have a tremendous amount of confidence in this project.  I think all the right minds are here to make this a game I will have a ton of fun with.

on Jun 03, 2009

I really hope this game meets 20% of my expectations. 

on Jun 03, 2009


I am known in other Stardock forums for my "creative" spelling/typing.  Other members have even started speaking in "Zubish" to mock me.
On a more serious note, for the other user submission processes we dont' mark down for spelling/grammer.  We understand that English is not the first language for many of the users.  That being said, there is nothing stopping the community from pointing out errors so that authors can't re-up corrections.

The point really is that the other systems are for the community; by the community.

There is even a song about it, seriously, go to the off-topic forum and look for "Zubaz is A Jerky Jerk"

Anyway, I feel that the content idea will be interesting, that being said I would probably only take the best stuff/stuff that fits in my idea of what the game will look like

on Jun 03, 2009

post?

on Jun 03, 2009


I am known in other Stardock forums for my "creative" spelling/typing.  Other members have even started speaking in "Zubish" to mock me.
On a more serious note, for the other user submission processes we dont' mark down for spelling/grammer.  We understand that English is not the first language for many of the users.  That being said, there is nothing stopping the community from pointing out errors so that authors can't re-up corrections.

The point really is that the other systems are for the community; by the community.

There is even a song about it, seriously, go to the off-topic forum and look for "Zubaz is A Jerky Jerk"

Anyway, I feel that the content idea will be interesting, that being said I would probably only take the best stuff/stuff that fits in my idea of what the game will look like

on Jun 03, 2009

Single player, multiplayer AND modding tools to boot...

For mod tools, it would be great to also have building creation, environment tweaking and scripting elements.

on Jun 03, 2009

EDIT: forum malfunction.

on Jun 03, 2009

For mod tools, it would be great to also have building creation, environment tweaking and scripting elements.

Well a building editor is supposed to be part of the core game - you get to design your own buildings. Although, I think they mean we get to choose how they look - I would be surprised (but happy!) if it turns out we get to design our buildings in form and function! So yeah, if the regular building editor is just cosmetic it would be nice for there to be another that lets is actually create new structures. Or, just have one version that lets you do form and function but have the function part grayed if accessed in play.

on Jun 03, 2009

From the other journals and posts about the modding possibilities, I would assume the intention is to make buildings functionally moddable as well

on Jun 03, 2009

yay this thread works again

on Jun 08, 2009

I just wanted to say that your company is original and I dig your philosophy.  When I finally graduate this is where I'd want to work.  

Your work in fields other than games informs your game-production in ways that other game companies could never imagine.  This, I think is one of your greatest strengths.

on Jun 09, 2009

From the other journals and posts about the modding possibilities, I would assume the intention is to make buildings functionally moddable as well
Indeed:

 

6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6