[quote who="Cerevox" reply="31" id="2562004"] What is the point? The point is that they want the devs to spend time on things that don't actually enhance the game for some odd reason. Thats the only excuse i can think of. [/quote] Enhance the game for whom? If you are a person who sees these additions as being an enjoyable aspect, then to you at least these things will be considered an enhancement, as the purpose of the game is penultimately to entertain, th
Istari
I like the format of this idea. One question I have is, if TP is granted in-game, might that make the bonuses given by leveling up somewhat redundant or would it be worth it to have two parallel systems of character improvement/progression?
[quote who="sabrestrikealpha" reply="24" id="2559145"]I thought Heroes of Might and Magic V had a good system in multiplayer, although I'm not sure how well it would adapt here. Basically, every player had a "ghost" that they could control during other players turns that had an opprotunity to take certain actions, some benefical to the player, others gave some minor detriment to opponents. For instance, you could spend a certain number of the ghosts movement points to "haunt" a resource node
I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of randomness in the research trees, as I don't think it reflects the concept believably. Research is normally a directed, focused and ordered thing, and while occasionally discoveries are made that are not exactly specific to the purpose of a particular research, I'd not go so far as to say that researching for something specific and making a side discovery will always or even mostly result in the abandonment of the initial target. Also, although you
I'm very interested to know what we're looking at here in terms of income and expenditure of essence. How much essence does your sovereign gain, and how much is that relative to the costs of expenditure? Is it that you needs be extremely frugal, or is it something approaching plenty or abundance?
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="8" id="2556331"] The idea is to force players to play as quick as possible to deny possible bonuses to skillful players that play quick during their turn and master the minigames (bound to happen) to get more and more bonuses by the simple fact of being faster in their turns.[/quote] I think that may not be as accurate during real games. In TBS, certain things need to be checked on and adjusted, other things are not absolutely necessar
Gardener - Your sovereign becomes as fat and annoying as Samwise Gamgee.
[quote who="Cerevox" reply="2" id="2556097"]I abhor this idea. Mini games are fine. Having mini games that actually effect the real game? terrible idea. It means that the person who clicks the fastest will have an edge. If that is the case, we might as well be playing a RTS instead of TBS. The only thing that should effect the game is the game itself, not some mini games that you can complete to gain extras and bonuses. If you don't like players taking a long time, put a timer that
There is no doubt that this is the best solution for waiting times. The success of it will all be hinged on the quality of these mini-games and how significantly they impact other aspects of the game. It would be good if the type of mini-game was somehow related to the effect it will have on the larger game. For example, solving a puzzle might result in you researching your current spell a little quicker, a reflex game might improve the personal stats of your sovereign, or a
Thanks Wintersong. I have now adjusted the wording accordingly. [e digicons]^_^[/e] But am I to understand that someone has already posted a thread about tactical advantages that are not as per standard engagement rules? Meaning, where terrain and other "outside" factors are taken into account.
I came up with this idea whilst brainstorming for multiplayer modes in the most recent dev-journal based thread. (Usual disclaimer about possible previous threads with the same concept). It is understandable that many players might not want to fight all their battles manually, especially in the later stages of the game where it can become tedious to command the smaller skirmishes, or in multiplayer modes where people have to wait for you to finish. The idea here is to allow fo
Here are some silly options, either crazy enough to work or crazy enough to have me institutionalized. Absent Strategist: For people who like to take their time, but don't always have a lot of time to take. Meaning, there are no time limits, and the game saves at the end of every turn. In this way, players can leave the game and come back to it another day, just like a drawn out long-distance game of Chess. I think this would be a fairly easy thing to imp
See, that "Kingdom Report" looks more like some application's error log rather than an information summary. Maybe it isn't the intended final form, but this just looks like you're examining statistics or a company's financial statements - in other words very boring. If I wanted something like that, I'd be playing the stock market. It should be more along the lines of say, an image of your city with links to the treasury, the garrison, etc. Some things could be displayed i
I like screens. There I said it. One of the things I liked most about MoM was the plethora of different information and option screens that were organised and designed in a very nice way. From flipping through your spell book, to having a tongue-wag with the fickle AI, or simply staring at yourself in the mirror, it really made you feel like you were handling the seperate aspects of running your empire, in a seperated way. I have seen some games try to have
Dear God.... how many unicorns have to die until you are satisfied? [e digicons]8C[/e] A further repercussion could be the unrest caused by all the unsolved "Missing Peasants" case files and forced prayer Angel cults. And I imagine that new Unicorn recruits might have mixed feelings about joining the rest of their cattle brethren. I don't know, it's definately interesting, but how practical is it, and would it be more of a bother than a fun quirk?
There is also the question of whether sieges will be considered as any other battle. Meaning, will they have to be resolved in one combat/battle, having all units from one side either killed or made to flee or surrender (ala MoM), or will the sieges hold through multiple turns, such as in Lords of the Realm? I would like to be able to cripple a city over time, until the resources can no longer support the population and garrisoned army. But if there are no city walls, or the wall
Thank you Raven X, I hope your efforts are taken advantage of by the developers. Just a minor correction, you've listed my Crafting post under Gameplay and my Non-Random Events post under New Ideas and I think it should be the other way around.
Yes, clarity is quite important here. Another possible solution would be to include a surveyor tool ala MoM. This tool should display information about tiles surrounding a possible city site when you place the cursor in a grid-square, including what tiles will be immediately available for buildings. It looks to me like you wouldn't be able to build on squares 7 and 4 anyway due to the forest, or is that not actually an obstruction?
Sounds very interesting and would make exploration that much more fun. I foresee a possible problem though with navigation. I don't know if units can move through those clusters you are describing (it might be that they can) especially if they're all close together, unless some tree-chopping was implemented. Other than that, it's something simple and so probably not too difficult or costly to add, but with worthwhile rewards, especially if the deep forest type encounters are very diff
Firstly, in regards to +/- ability modifiers, I think it would be better to have everything done by percentage (e.g. increase of X% from all spell research improvements). This would make each talent or weakness pick more relevant throughout the whole game, from exploration to end game. Secondly, I agree that picks should have costs that are in some way proportionate to their advantages and disadvantages. Thirdly, I think that some pick
This makes me wonder, will there be something along the lines of a "Spell of Return" as in MoM?
This is an elegant solution. I propose a couple of possible improvements. 1. Place a limit on roads connecting two cities (i.e. 1). This should hopefully allow the upkeep to remain low, rather than using expensive upkeep to limit road building. 2. Include higher tiers of road type that are magically enhanced/enchanted, and possibly have the best road type be something like instant magical teleportation. Enchantments on roads could have benefits ranging from improved speed
In line with the original post, and looking at these types of customisation from a sales perspective. Do we have any data that would at least give us an idea of: a. The number of female TBS players. b. What features tend to attract them to TBS the most. c. Are female preferred features significantly different to the male preferences? With this information, a meaningful decision can be made regarding the level of additional
I think this idea is good in general, but I have a concern about the overall effectiveness of grouping cities for one purpose. Within one district, I might have designed different styles of cities for varying purposes (i.e. one for magic, one for military, etc.). If I have to group them into a district for which only one purpose can be assigned, I don't think I would be taking full advantage of the advantages of each different city type. This might be solved if you allow custo
[quote who="Juvantei" reply="7" id="2549276"]Without randomness, the game will get boring, repetitive and predictable because everything will become known. That's why most of these games for $50.00 go sour in the first month or two. We need a game that actually takes a bold step forward and puts in alot of random variable features. so that every playthrough is fresh. THAT would improve replayability, not cutting out random elements. That's a total contradiction.<b