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

Greetings!  We haven’t done a FAQ in awhile so here we go:

S_DestinysGift_PaintingQ: Is Elemental: Fallen Enchantress an expansion pack to Elemental: War of Magic?

A: No.  Elemental: Fallen Enchantress is a stand-alone game. It exists in the same world and is a 4X strategy game, but beyond that, they are very different.

Q: How much does Elemental: Fallen Enchantress cost?

A: It’s $39.95.  You can pre-order it now and join the BETA. We plan to provide some additional goodies for those who own a copy of it prior to release.

Q: What kind of goodies?

A: Additional quests, monsters, and items.

Q: I have Elemental: War of Magic already, is there a discount for Fallen Enchantress?

A: Yes, if you registered War of Magic in 2010, you get Fallen Enchantress for free.  If you bought it in 2011, there is a discount.

Q: When will Fallen Enchantress be released?

A: When it’s done.

Q: No, seriously, I hate when people say that. Do you have any sort of time line?

A: This Spring we plan to release a BETA 3, in Summer we expect to release BETA 4. During Beta 4 we’ll evaluate where things stand.  But we still view the game as being in a good place but still months away from release.

Q: How much will the final game be different from the current game?

A: Probably quite a bit. We get into a lot of debates on this subject with beta testers because there is often a disconnect between what is part of Fallen Enchantress’s design principles versus what a user thinks “needs” to be in the game.

Q: Ok, that was pretty vague. What do you mean by design principles?

A: This would require a separate journal entry but broadly speaking, we mean that Derek Paxton (Kael) has a specific vision for Elemental: Fallen Enchantress which falls under a number of broad design principles. A common request is that the tactical battles be much more complex than they currently are. But one of the design principles of FE is that tactical battles should not decide the outcome of the strategic game. That is, no matter how good someone has mastered the tactical part of the game, it shouldn’t enable them to turn what would normally be a loss strategically into a win.  This is an intentionally vague concept since we want tactical battles to be meaningful but we don’t want someone to be able to win against 10 to 1 odds because they’ve mastered that aspect of the game.

Q: Does this mean tactical battles won’t be changing?

A: We have a number of changes planned. We just can’t commit to anything specific until we’ve had time to play through it via iteration.

Q: What areas of the game do you consider furthest along?

A: The general flow of the game is fairly far along in terms of having a solid core.  It’s not any particular feature. We are in BETA 2 presently, Beta 1 was to make sure the game was compatible (hardware wise). Beta 2 is designed to allow us to create a very tight core from which we can expand upon.

S_Domination_PaintingQ: What areas should we expect to see the game expand on?

A: Our recent poll confirmed that our beta group seems to be on the same page as us.  Making each faction be very different matters a lot to us.  Secondly, the city management is an area with a great deal of work ahead for it.  Not on the poll but diplomacy is an area we want to expand on.

Q: What is the future of multiplayer and why isn’t it planned for initial release?

A: 90% of the multiplayer features are in.  The issue is that we don’t want to split our resources between supporting multiplayer (from a bug testing / stability point of view) while also trying to do the same for the single player game.

Q: What can you tell us about the campaign?

A: It’s been designed and created by Jon Shafer (designer of Civilization V as well as having worked on the Beyond the Sword expansion for Civilization IV) and written by fantasy author, Dave Stern. Voice overs are being done by some of the people involved with Fall From Heaven and music provided by a team up musicians who worked on Civilization V and Galactic Civilizations II.

Q: I have heard that Fallen Enchantress is a different development team than War of Magic?

A: Yes. After the sale of Impulse, developers who had previously worked on Galactic Civilizations II were brought back from the Impulse team to the Games group to work on Fallen Enchantress. It is led by Derek Paxton (Kael) who had previously worked on the Civilization IV mod, Fall from Heaven and as previously mentioned the campaign was designed by Jon Shafer formerly of Civilization V fame.

Q: What is your role on Fallen Enchantress vs. War of Magic?

A: On both projects I am the Executive Producer.  I wrote some of the strategic AI for War of Magic.  In Fallen Enchantress I am the lead developer and am writing both the strategic and tactical AI. This is only possible because we sold Impulse so I have more time to devote to our individual projects.  Kael has the final word on design. It’s his baby.

Q: When will we see a trailer?

A: It’s being worked on.  Since Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion is coming out sooner, its trailer got the art team’s attention first. Now they’re onto the Elemental related work.

Update #1:

Q: How much will tactical battles change between now and release?

A: It’s too early to say. We have the broad requirement that someone should not be able to turn a clear strategic defeat into victory through “massive skillz” at tactical battles. But there are a lot of areas we are looking to expand on and enhance. We’re more inclined to find ways to make them more fun without them becoming more complex. Think MOO or MOM for what we’re looking for.

Q: Do you plan to use Steamworks in FE?

A: There are no plans to use Steamworks with Fallen Enchantress.

Q: When is the next beta?

A: We expect to release Beta 2-B this month.


Comments (Page 1)
9 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Mar 05, 2012

Again, another quality update on where things are at. Thanks for keeping us in the loop!

on Mar 05, 2012

Goodies for pre-orders is tempting... though usually those end up dissapointing me. Also, theres also the people who buy later and are angry they can't get the pre-order content. Will it be available as DLC for a couple bucks later? Will it be something inconsequential that I don't even care about having? Its a fine line to walk.

on Mar 05, 2012

Enjoyable read. 

on Mar 05, 2012

Thanks!

on Mar 05, 2012


Great!!!!  I can't wait for more on the campaign.

on Mar 05, 2012

Nice work.

Can I just say this beta process has been soooooooo much better as a tester that WoM. Very enjoyable and the feedback has been awesome from Stardock.

on Mar 05, 2012

Thanks for the heads up Brad! Wow this betas going longer than I thought. Very good! Take your time.

Glad the poll turned out the way it did. I loved faction variation in GCIITOA.

I hope I get my replacement mouse this week. I want to play Sins beta badly and report stuff too.

on Mar 05, 2012

..there is often a disconnect between what is part of Fallen Enchantress’s design principles versus what a user thinks “needs” to be in the game.

Ok, that was pretty vague. What do you mean by design principles?

A: This would require a separate journal entry

 

Looking forward to this. When I read the forums there seems to be many ideas that would require major redesigns...sharing a clearer idea of the ultimate vision for the game might be helpful so people know where to spend their energies dreaming. 

on Mar 05, 2012

enoeraew37
..there is often a disconnect between what is part of Fallen Enchantress’s design principles versus what a user thinks “needs” to be in the game.

Ok, that was pretty vague. What do you mean by design principles?

A: This would require a separate journal entry

 

Looking forward to this. When I read the forums there seems to be many ideas that would require major redesigns...sharing a clearer idea of the ultimate vision for the game might be helpful so people know where to spend their energies dreaming. 

Yea, I think it'll have to be an entry that Derek and I collaborate on since there are technical vs. design principles that come into play.

For example, the people who want really involved tactical battles. They're not going to happen. Not because we don't have time or budget but because we don't want the game to revolve around tactical battles.  That doesn't mean we won't add other elements to tactical battles, but it'll be carefully evaluated as to whether it's causing tactical battles to deviate from their relative place in the game experience.

On the other hand, something that would seemingly be a "big" change to gameplay like adding a third resource (food, materials and X) could potentially be done because that would be part of the existing design philosophy -- as long as it can be balanced because building up your civilization is a major part of the game and features that enhance that part of the design are definitely considered.

In the forums, players themselves have already discovered how much better they can make the *current* beta just by playing around with stuff.  It'll become more extreme once modding starts up (probably beta 3).  I made wholesale changes to the game this weekend just by opening up a text editor and playing with values.

Other players have observed how much better the AI suddenly becomes when it has more units to choose from to train -- i.e. the AI gets smarter the more you play the game because it makes use of what you make.  Each update we ourselves add more and more units to the game but we also want to encourage players to make the game theirs too. 

 

on Mar 05, 2012


One small correction:

Jon Shafer was not the designer of Beyond the Sword, he only worked on a component of it: Espionage. Please correct.

 

About the beta, my daughter is happily playing it (b2), but complaining about the crashes. She just loves FE, pre-ordered it with her own money because she could not wait to try it. Any chance that a new beta comes out sooner than spring (or maybe early spring)?

 

Thanks,

on Mar 06, 2012

frogboy

Q: Ok, that was pretty vague. What do you mean by design principles?

A: This would require a separate journal entry but broadly speaking, we mean that Derek Paxton (Kael) has a specific vision for Elemental: Fallen Enchantress which falls under a number of broad design principles. A common request is that the tactical battles be much more complex than they currently are. But one of the design principles of FE is that tactical battles should not decide the outcome of the strategic game. That is, no matter how good someone has mastered the tactical part of the game, it shouldn’t enable them to turn what would normally be a loss strategically into a win.  This is an intentionally vague concept since we want tactical battles to be meaningful but we don’t want someone to be able to win against 10 to 1 odds because they’ve mastered that aspect of the game.

See information like this I would really like to hear because then I would know what feedback I could provide that would be useful to you guys. If I had a better idea what the design principles were I would be more inclined to spend more time giving feedback.

on Mar 06, 2012

A thoughtful and transparent post. Appreciate it.

Seeing City Management on the list gives me back hope.  

on Mar 06, 2012

Very nice Q&A. Thx a lot Brad.

on Mar 06, 2012

A common request is that the tactical battles be much more complex than they currently are. But one of the design principles of FE is that tactical battles should not decide the outcome of the strategic game.
So Kael is committed to making sure that tactical battles are never interesting or important? That's not exactly new information but it's still very disheartening to hear said outright.

on Mar 06, 2012

The tactical battles news does honestly make me a little sad. I guess I shall reserve judgement until I know precisely what these 'other changes' will entail, but I would like to put forward that:

  If the goal is to make the tactical battles so basic that they don't affect the outcome vs. automatically resolving, don't include them. I would much rather deal with Civ style auto resolve as the only option, than knowing there is this 'tactical' system tacked on for no other reason than to include it in the feature list.

  That is based primarily around how it stands now though, and I am curious to see what changes are yet to come for it, but I must also point out that even in the current iteration of the battle system I think it has failed in the stated goal of making no difference whether you do or do not use the tactical system. Consider a new player who rushes his units across the board -- without being able to reach the enemy for an attack of his own; yet putting his own units in reach of theirs -- vs. a more experienced player who moves just out of the enemies range, ensuring they will get first strike.

 

9 Pages1 2 3  Last