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

image So much going on this week and at the same time, so little. A lot of vacations here at Stardock pop up in June since this is one of the prime months here in terms of weather. 

On a sad note, Trent (Mittens) had his last day today. He’s off to Salt Lake City to take a position as a designer at a new game studio.  We’ll miss him.  Combined with the people on vacation, the studio area feels like a ghost town.

My executive planner and marketing manager gave me a “CEO make over” today with a bunch of new clothes. I guess trade show shirts and ratty shorts just aren’t good enough anymore.

Right now, we’re looking at dozens of issues that need to be addressed before we can even do the alpha build of the game.  Everything from the fonts looking crummy to setting priority on what should be on the setup.

For instance, if someone wants to create a custom civilization and in there choose “good” or “evil” that’s fine. But I’m having them get rid of being able to have pre-existing factions be good or evil because it would literally double the writing involved for each faction’s back story.  While that’s interesting to have, I would rather have more depth per faction rather than half the depth but a mirror universe version of each one.

The screen you see here will likely be significantly altered between now and release. But this gives you an idea of how iterative the process is.  I’ll probably eliminate the appearance area and put that into the custom race area. Right now, “design your race” is the only option. There isn’t a formal “choose your faction” area.  Elemental comes with 2 built in races and 12 factions but we plan to let people create their own races and factions as well, but that should be a separate area that is a lot richer. If you try to mash too much stuff together, it’s confusing to new players but still too weak for experienced users.


Comments (Page 7)
13 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Jun 10, 2009

psychoak
Yes, it is.

Why haven't you already played FFH if you're waiting for this game?  It's the best thing out there, although hopefully not for long.
Fall from Heaven 2 is at least eight kinds of awesome.

Calabim are one of my favourite civilizations, much due to the aformentioned tactic of Sun 2 Vampires. If upgraded to Vampire Lords instead of Paladins (which are in no way mutually exclusive) you can also take Sun 3.

My current favourite is Lanun/Octopus Overlords, though. Nothing fancy about it, just an insane economy.

on Jun 10, 2009

I never got into Civ 4. As I said, I always go with the military route, and it's the one thing that's sorely lacking in Civ4 and GalCiv - no tactical combat.

on Jun 10, 2009

Annatar11
I never got into Civ 4. As I said, I always go with the military route, and it's the one thing that's sorely lacking in Civ4 and GalCiv - no tactical combat.
Bah. Screw that.
I'm still disappointed it made it into Elemental.

on Jun 10, 2009

Heretic. Even Age of Wonders had it!

on Jun 10, 2009

Bring order to the world of Elemental... one way or the other...

 

That led me to a brief period of daydreaming about what a two-axis (i.e., D&D-style) alignment system would look like in Elemental.  I was never into D&D, so my interpretation of their alignment system might be a bit "free".

 

Lawful Good = a civilization of crusading paladins out to subdue the evildoers (i.e., everyone who isn't them).

Neutral Good = a small, prosperous civilization that wants to deal evenly and fairly with all its neighbors.

Chaotic Good = going Gandalf; nuff said.

 

Lawful Neutral = a civilization built around enlightened tolerance for all ways of life, even those that involve the occasional, or not so occasional, ritual sacrifice or zombie raising.  Focused on building coalitions and diplomatic institutions (to the extent Elemental supports this); will happily go to war to enforce treaty obligations.

True Neutral = a small den of bear warriors .... er, a civilization that specializes in recruiting and training the roaming beasts of the world.  Mostly wants to be left alone to investigate the properties of these really interesting plants, man ...... purely for research purposes, of course.

Chaotic Neutral = a lone channeler going for an Unvictory condition by raising the oceans / fracturing the world / opening portals to the nether regions / triggering the Zombie Apocalypse.  Hahahaha!  BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Lawful Evil = tyrannical despot out to subdue everyone who isn't paying him/her tribute.  Oddly similar to Lawful Good, but with less self-rightousness and more steepled fingers, petting of cats, and sinister laughter.

Neutral Evil = a civilization of crooked merchants and diplomats who will cheat you blind if you take your eyes off them for a moment.

Chaotic Evil = a band of marauding heroes out to kill and loot, led by a super-powerful channeler.  If they can stay on task for long enough to complete the Master Quest, well, let's just say we all hope they don't.

 

 

Actually, looking over that, it looks like we may have a lawful/chaotic axis after all, just not one that's explicitly called out as such by the game.

on Jun 10, 2009

Denryu
Will there be a neutral alignment?

I hope a neutral alignment exists...  I thought AgeofWonders:SM provided a good selection having:

   Pure Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, and Pure Evil

 

on Jun 11, 2009

Zaisha
Original plan:

You choose the Fallen race "Horrors of Watoomb" and you choose between "Good Horrors of Watoomb" and "Evil Horrors of Watoomb". (with differing backstories)

Now:

You choose the Fallen race "Horrors of Watoomb" and they are an evil race. (with an evil background description)

 

(names made up on the spot)
Not so...

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/watoomb.htm

http://www.comicvine.com/wand-of-watoomb/18-49002/

 

on Jun 11, 2009

Luckmann
I'm still disappointed it made it into Elemental.

I'm looking very much forward to tactical combat. If you don't like that you can always use auto-resolve or play Fall from Heaven 2.

on Jun 11, 2009

Wahngrok

Quoting Luckmann, reply 18I'm still disappointed it made it into Elemental.
I'm looking very much forward to tactical combat. If you don't like that you can always use auto-resolve
Not an option and I'm tired of people talking about it like it is.

Wahngrok
or play Fall from Heaven 2.
I already am.
Annatar11
Heretic. Even Age of Wonders had it!
Yeah. And it was worse off because of it. But even then it was better, since it didn't attempt some kind of twitch gaming/pause hybrid.

on Jun 11, 2009

Mandelik



Quoting Zaisha,
reply 8
(names made up on the spot)
Not so...


http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/watoomb.htm

http://www.comicvine.com/wand-of-watoomb/18-49002/

 

......... I guess there are only so many names that aren't already taken in a sci-fy/fantasy context.

(I made it up for the "tomb" part, ie. connection with the undead)

on Jun 11, 2009

I am with Luckymann on that one. Tactical Combat does not a good game make.

If you have tactical combat, it gives the human player an edge the ennemy AI doesn't have, unbalancing the game elements. If the AI already struggle with strategy, asking it to go for the tactics as well is not optimal.

I had a suggestion once posted on the GalCiv2 forum, which could incorporeate tactical genius with less micro-management on the part of the player. Wait a minute... finding link...

https://forums.galciv2.com/123277

In short, you could be given the options to create military doctrins for your army to follow. Less micro-management, as you don't have to command every single battles, but still the options to show off your genius - for becoming Sun Tzu, and writing the game world's Art of War.

on Jun 11, 2009

I am with Luckymann on that one. Tactical Combat does not a good game make.

If you have tactical combat, it gives the human player an edge the ennemy AI doesn't have, unbalancing the game elements. If the AI already struggle with strategy, asking it to go for the tactics as well is not optimal.

And if you don't have tactical combat, you're at the mercy of a simplistic stats and auto-resolve system where there's absolutely no challenge and it all boils down to "more and better wins".

Oh, and contrary to what Luckmann said, Auto-Resolve basically is what a game without tactical combat does. It just has a system for seeing how many units you've got, figuring out their stats, compares with the enemy, and figures out the winner. So those who don't like it can just go auto-resolve on all (which some players in the Total War games keep doing), and those who do like it will play with it. Everyone wins!

on Jun 11, 2009

Annatar11
And if you don't have tactical combat, you're at the mercy of a simplistic stats and auto-resolve system where there's absolutely no challenge and it all boils down to "more and better wins".
As it should be. I wouldn't agree with there being no challenge, though. The challenge is having more and being better. And it still is with tactical combat, with the added hassle of having to go into the trenches and tell the soldiers to put their right foot in front of their left foot.

Annatar11
Oh, and contrary to what Luckmann said, Auto-Resolve basically is what a game without tactical combat does. It just has a system for seeing how many units you've got, figuring out their stats, compares with the enemy, and figures out the winner.
How is that contrary to what I said?

Annatar11
So those who don't like it can just go auto-resolve on all (which some players in the Total War games keep doing), and those who do like it will play with it. Everyone wins!
Except those of us that don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot just to get rid of the hassle of tactical combat.

on Jun 11, 2009

Tactical combat is an important feature that works best when there's also an option to auto-resolve. I don't see why these two features wouldn't come together in order to satisfy the meticulous (I want to be in charge of every battle), the curious (hmm, let's give this a try) and the annoyed (gah! not this again!).

on Jun 11, 2009

As it should be. I wouldn't agree with there being no challenge, though. The challenge is having more and being better. And it still is with tactical combat, with the added hassle of having to go into the trenches and tell the soldiers to put their right foot in front of their left foot.

This is where we disagree. Building more and better is no challenge. Half of it depends on how lucky you get with the RNG on map generation and how the resources fall. No, winning a battle against a superior opponent, *that's* the challenge, and it's just not possible with a simple auto-resolve.

How is that contrary to what I said?

There:

I'm looking very much forward to tactical combat. If you don't like that you can always use auto-resolve

Not an option and I'm tired of people talking about it like it is.

Why is it not an option if you agree that that's what auto-resolve is?

Except those of us that don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot just to get rid of the hassle of tactical combat.

How is not clicking "Fight!" and instead clicking "Auto-resolve" shooting yourself in the foot? Take E:TW, if you do Auto-resolve you usually end up with way better results than you would if you actually fought it, especially when the odds are already in your favor (see more and better). When it comes to stat comparisons, the CPU is ruthless and it will not make mistakes like a player will. If I wanted the most optimal wins in E:TW, I would always use auto-resolve when I have an advantage (you get shown a bar that compares your army strength and the enemy's). But I always fight because it's FUN, even if I lose more.

13 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last