Feedback on Game

from Stardock Forums

I've been playing this game since it came out almost non-stop. To clarify, this means the open ended game, not the Chapter I saga. Like many games, this one starts out strong. The city development, the unit evolution linked with tech developments are all solid.

But like many games, after a certain point, the game play gets flabby and uninteresting. By the time I have my channeler with his enchanted army, I can pretty much kick anyone's ass I want. When the channeler's kids come of age, I now have several armies of this ilk and basically no one really strong enough to fight. The exception is if I decide to kill off my neighbors, and then there is some strategy involved. Still, it is not hard to win by just wiping everyone else out.

The tech tree takes too long. The early game pace is good, but again, at a certain point I found myself just killing turns waiting for the next tech level to mature.

So here are some suggestions. ( I know it is easy to back seat drive and hard to execute, so with the understanding that I appreciate the work so far, here are some ideas.)

Quests: There is a lot broken in my experience here.

-The dragon's egg quest works less than half the time, and that is even using "teleport" to get to the temple and back to the dungeon.

-The Forge quest also breaks for me. Got two pieces, fought the third battle and not only did I not get a forge piece, the quest disappeared completely. This happens more than once. What is up with that?

- As the game progresses, the quests can become a bit more involved, more multi-layered. Quests later in the game should be harder and more complex than the ones early on. The challenges should be greater and the foes much stronger. Not all of it has to be fighting, either. There are some great puzzle opportunities. Everything should not be solved with combat.

-The enchanter and blacksmith shops are a great idea, but they only appear once each. As the game progresses, they could stand to appear at least two or three more times to make items of great worth.

If some of these features already exist in the game, I did not encounter them.

I guess my biggest complaint about this game is that it does not scale as the game play matures. I'm looking for a level of play that matures as the capability of the characters matures. If I can make dragons, there should be something that can kick their asses. At a certain level in this game, I just become the bully on the block who can go where he wants never be defeated. Scale it up, folks!

 

elemental
5,126 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

Thanks for the feedback.  I agree.

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

I would like to second what Hellers1155 has very carefully explained. Without going into the problems of the combat or magic systems that other people have complained about this is a very important problem with the game. I find the Early game a lot of fun, exploring, building and fighting monsters. Mid-game comes at different times depending on the map size, usually when everyones borders are set and there is no more expanding room. That's the point in time where you have to make the decision about how you want to specialize your tech to win, if you haven't already.

diplomacy victory

magic victory

conquest victory

adventure victory

- i suppose technically we could have a civ victory where you win by building a wonder of the world or something like that.

 

From my experience the rate of learning tech works well if you know exactly what you want to get out of what you are learning and what you need it for. If you are learning the game and are not sure what the various techs will do for you, then the comp will definately blitz you and steam roll over you, even on  easy when they declare war on you. That is not a complaint on the ai, but a comment on the tech tree. I am not sure if that particular note is helpful. Now that i think about it, my point is there is a learning curve to the game - it took me 2 weeks or so to figure out how to take advantage of the tech tree and now i can't lose against the ai. I rarely advance to the late game. In the beginning it was because the ai killed me in 300 turns or less. Now it's because  the ai can't touch me anymore and i find i am gimping myself to try to make the game interesting for late game.

 

 

EDIT: I just noticed the post be Keal (spelling) on the proposed changes to 1.1 and i am very excited.

possible uses for int and wis

int: could be a requirement to boost attack spells

wis: could be a requirement to boost buffing spells

cha: could be a limit on the level of spells you can cast - make it so that levelling this up once or twice unlocks a new spell level.

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

This OP, and a number of others, captures some of the weaknesses of the current game. That said, this game has the potential to be better - possibly much better - than its spiritual parent MoM. It is not there yet but I am very positive about the direction Stardock is taking. Looking forward to 1.1 and beyond.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

There has been alot of negative feedback about the game, most relating to the buggy state of the original release (and it was buggy) but I think its worth saying that despite all the bugs it really is a fun game (1.09 is actually really stable for me, the most recent patch of Dragon Age crashes more often.), this is seriously some of the most fun i've has with a tbs since civ II.  

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Unfortunately, this is a perennial downside with many 4x titles.  4x titles can often be imagined as a race.  In the beginning, every racer is racing separately, and doesn't necessarily know who is ahead - which is fun.  Often developers have put a lot of focus into the opening moves to make them balanced as well.  It's easy to play the first hour and test that, and also those first hours are the ones game reviewers usually see.  Plus the whole 'hook them in the first 15 minutes so they don't return it' phenomenon.  

However, when the racers come together, most 4x games naturally allow lots of interaction - at which point, the racers in front start tripping the ones behind.  Unlike the experience of real-world empires, there is no friction that brings down a 'big empire' eventually.  And rubber-banding loser is also a lame-feeling solution.  4x games also usually have multiple, multiplicative places to be dominating in, meaning that small advantages can get more magnified.  So an economic advantage turns into a military one and both multiply together against another player.

There are a few solutions to this that have been employed

The "everyone gangs up on the big boy" approach.  This can feel artificial and strange, and also means that any sort of diplomatic game is subsumed by the 'real politik' of beating up the biggest threat, no matter who your allies or enemies were in the past.  

The "cheat the computer stronger" approach also just usually means the player takes longer to catch up and pass, but the 'bully' problem is not subverted, just delayed - and if that delay is long enough, it allows the AI to be the bully, or demonstrates that the AI doesn't know how to take advantage of its strength

The "multiple win condition" approach.  The idea being that somehow you can be winning in one area and losing in the others, and still eke out a come from behind victory.  Because being good in one area seems to always make a player good in others in 4x style games, this always ends up being a fallacy - it's usually more of a 'choose your own ending' option for the dominant faction.  Or a "I don't feel like hunting down every last unit, I'll just ally with the losers" exit strategy.

The "big empires suck" method.  Usually some sort of grit is thrown in the wheels of a big empire, like the happiness mechanic of Civ 5, or the more expensive 'future tech' costs of many Paradox interactive games - which attempts to slow the progress of big empires so little ones catch up.  this is just rubber banding in reverse, and usually the design subverts this because big empires are still better.  Also, it still needs another solution to allow others to catch up or gang up on you, so it is not in and of itself a complete solution

The "divergent mechanic threat" approach - taken by Gal Civ 2, for instance, with the Dread Lords.  Some OTHER thing is your antagonist, isn't necessarily using the 'race' mechanics that you are, and can target the 'bully' civilization without feeling like a complete cheat. 

The "really awesome, not cheating AI approach" - never works.  Gal Civ 2 is a great example of a really good AI, but even there the players learn to beat it and the AI never catches up.  Even if you do have an awesome AI, the player will just end up not playing it, because frankly, who wants to lose the computer over and over because its *smarter* than you.

 

Out of all of them, I think the divergent mechanic actually works best, and is clearly a good option for Elemental, with what I gather from the back story.  I don't think anyone has every managed the multiple win condition thing right (outside of board games - there are some board game 4x style games where that has been done pretty well, like settlers, for instance) but maybe that's another option.

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting ppboyle, reply 6

There are a few solutions to this that have been employed

The "everyone gangs up on the big boy" approach.  This can feel artificial and strange, and also means that any sort of diplomatic game is subsumed by the 'real politik' of beating up the biggest threat, no matter who your allies or enemies were in the past.  

The "cheat the computer stronger" approach also just usually means the player takes longer to catch up and pass, but the 'bully' problem is not subverted, just delayed - and if that delay is long enough, it allows the AI to be the bully, or demonstrates that the AI doesn't know how to take advantage of its strength

The "multiple win condition" approach.  The idea being that somehow you can be winning in one area and losing in the others, and still eke out a come from behind victory.  Because being good in one area seems to always make a player good in others in 4x style games, this always ends up being a fallacy - it's usually more of a 'choose your own ending' option for the dominant faction.  Or a "I don't feel like hunting down every last unit, I'll just ally with the losers" exit strategy.

The "big empires suck" method.  Usually some sort of grit is thrown in the wheels of a big empire, like the happiness mechanic of Civ 5, or the more expensive 'future tech' costs of many Paradox interactive games - which attempts to slow the progress of big empires so little ones catch up.  this is just rubber banding in reverse, and usually the design subverts this because big empires are still better.  Also, it still needs another solution to allow others to catch up or gang up on you, so it is not in and of itself a complete solution

The "divergent mechanic threat" approach - taken by Gal Civ 2, for instance, with the Dread Lords.  Some OTHER thing is your antagonist, isn't necessarily using the 'race' mechanics that you are, and can target the 'bully' civilization without feeling like a complete cheat. 

The "really awesome, not cheating AI approach" - never works.  Gal Civ 2 is a great example of a really good AI, but even there the players learn to beat it and the AI never catches up.  Even if you do have an awesome AI, the player will just end up not playing it, because frankly, who wants to lose the computer over and over because its *smarter* than you.

 

Out of all of them, I think the divergent mechanic actually works best, and is clearly a good option for Elemental, with what I gather from the back story.  I don't think anyone has every managed the multiple win condition thing right (outside of board games - there are some board game 4x style games where that has been done pretty well, like settlers, for instance) but maybe that's another option.
End of ppboyle's quote

 

excelent post - How about a slight twist on your ideas - how about divergent personalities (this Ai is peaceful, this AI is treacherous, this AI is an opportunistic raider, This AI is a warrior but is entirely honorable.)  You may need a slight (or major) strength boost to make up for the non optimal character of the AI, but it shifts the balance from a vanilla race to a story.

Going one step further if you track the win loss record against the different types of AI you could increase or decrease the strength boost based on the past performance. (so if you can beat the raiders, but not the economic powerhouse the raider AI gets more of a boost, and the economic AI gets weakened a bit.) if you report the strengths used in the win screen (for bragging rights) and can set the average boost (to tune difficulty)  That would be a faboulous system.