Stealth_Hawk wrote:
Holy.... Google Translate butchered that post when I put it in



but I actually think that is a very, very good idea. I mean, they said we will have physical trade routes now. And if the evil factions, who I am guessing do not rely on diplomacy as much, thrive during days of no sunlight (Winter, ie.) it makes sense for the 'good' races to have the disadvantage of trade routes being blocked during winter.



But I didn't see details of seasons in the post (besides in the vip section). For that matter, I did not even see a description of the scale of the turns. For example, 1 turn is 1 year in ES. But I think it would be cool if 1 turn was something like a month in EL, allowing for things like seasons, and creating a game that is 'shorter' than in ES. (I find it hard to buy that I am supposed to be leading my empire yet I'm still alive after 120+ years. It doesn't really matter, but I think it would be cool.)



So can we have clarification on this? is it just not possible? Because if it is possible, I think its worth at least a test or two.

Sounds great !



(and don't trust google translator - trust your german-speaking friend! )

Originally, I just spat out the two questions I had. After that, I decided to sit back, relax, and do a full (or at least more full) analysis of the Design Document.



They asked for comments and suggestions, so keep in mind that the following is just that. My opinion.



So prepare for a long-winded wall of text



First though I would like to throw in some more questions, because, after all, Inquiry leads to Conclusion, and Conclusion leads to Improvement, right? and I am not saying that these haven't already been thought of, or that they won't be fully addressed in another GDD.





Questions



1) Heros. These seem to be the life and blood of this game. If so, will there be a greater diversity of hero classes, and will they have a legitimate impact on the heros' ability to function? (



----- For example, I would hope there is at least 10 different classes, preferably more. Also, what I mean by legitimate impact, is that: While in ES and admin/corporate could lead a fleet, will the classes in EL be specialized to force the player to exploit them? So a Wanderer/Adventurer class combo would be best assigned to an army that can go fast and find artifacts more easily, and it would be absurd to do otherwise. (This would, of course, create a need for a larger starting hero pool than just 3, so the player can still get the heros s/he needs, but has the opportunity to hire 'specialized' heros.)



2) Speaking of units and armies, will they require actual population to create? Or will population sub classes fit this role?



3) Will there be a diplomacy mechanic involving minor factions? Or is conquering them the only way to go? It might be cool if a full scale diplomacy dynamic was given to the minor races, so the player would have to keep them happy with each other, otherwise your small factions might end up killing one another.



4) Will there only be strategic resources in the game? or will there be even more types than in ES? (Don't think we didn't notice the T-70 and Hyperium icons



*minor* Thoughts about Game Design



World Generation/elements



1) Increasing player experience in the world:

-----a) Variation. Variation everywhere. 10+ different variations of a terrain type gives worlds a unique feel. Ie, Mountainous jungles, swamp jungles, extremely dense jungles, A jungle with a completely different kind of tree, or Mountains: mountains that are snow capped (Yeah, I live in the Rockies so I'm a tad biased), Mountains covered entirely in snow, mountains that are a little bigger than hills, covered with beautiful shrubs. You get the point. 16 terrain types are boring if they are all the same. If they are given variants, they can easily feel like 160 different kinds of terrain.



-----b) The Winter days should feel just as magical as the summer days, just in a slightly darker way. This is important, otherwise the player will be bored with the graphics half of the game.



2) Increasing Player belief in the terrain. If the terrain doesn't make sense to the player, it will distance them from the game (for me, anyways) So temples and such should be found in highly defensible positions where the player would believe a civilization would put them. I can't give advice on how this could be accomplished from a programming perspective, but I don't think its completely out of the question. (For example, you could assign varying levels of "MP" to areas, and weighting them such that the game would rather place them there than somewhere else)



3) Cities. I can't speak for everyone else, but I found that only colonies in ES got kinda boring, (as long as you lump outposts in with colonies). I always thought it might be worth looking into mining outposts and such, which have little to no defense and allow the player limited access to the resource that is present there. I think this would help keep the number of cities lower, allowing a decreased amount of micromanagement, something that plagues the ES late game for me. (Also, low amounts of cities allows you guys to not have to worry about AI governors as much.)



Minor "player" Thoughts



1) I believe it would be for the best if minor factions were disassociated with the player they belong to, from the perspective of the enemy. After all, if you send them to raid trade routes to weaken a powerful enemy, you don't want them to know exactly who is doing it (in theory)



2) Travelers/Nomads/Wanderers may be able to add some lore and immersion to the game if they are implemented in a non-cliched way. Perhaps they could even serve to link the player to a world bigger than the map. (Although I would preffer the map to be so massive it encompassed all of Auriga, if that was doable.)



3) I assume revealed places on the map won't be able to be *fully* view able at all times by the player unless units are present. (based on how other games of this genre do it). If this is the case, I think it would be helpful, if not just cool, if there was a hero class that could evade the enemy, in the same way a scout is good at following them. For example, if you want to monitor a temple you just found before you take control of it (again, another assumption), It would be helpful to leave one of these 'spy' heros behind to keep an eye on the area, with his ability to remain invisible to the enemy being determined based on experience and what abilities the player picked for him.



Construction



1) Improvements should be more immersive, rather than just numbers on a page in my opinion (btw, great job on those icons!)

This could be accomplished by giving all improvements added effects, and showing the building in the city (the latter doesn't look like a problem). So for example, if you build a University, it should A) appear on the map, and B) Give your society more "philosophical" points, or something to that affect. So they have an effect not only on your city's FIDS output, but on their mindset as well. This would also present a way for the citizens' thoughts to be more quantifiable than in ES.



But this applies most to Defense Improvements. In fact, I thought I heard something about this, but Ill still say this: Seeing Defenses in effect is awesome. Awesome beyond belief. Especially since terrain and unit position have so much effect, things like archer towers could make a big difference.



2) Having building units *might* be cool, and would allow a new hero class specific to construction. They could either build in the field (Ie, making bridges to allow more commerce and better transportation of armies) or, they could add a percentage boost to the city with regards to it building improvements. For example, the city could get -30% improvement building time while this hero and his team were at the city. From a balance point of view, I did not think too hard about this suggestion, though.





Again, I am not trying to impose ideas. Merely, I am writing whats on my mind.



I already talked my fair share on seasons and turn scale, so I won't belabor that point further.



And these suggestions are only based on details I noted from the post, and the concerns they generated.

@ Nasarog: Exactly, imo it would be better to have more traits that affect many different things and have multiple tiers



Stealth_Hawk brought another question; will the temples be like in Civ 5 where they disappear after you search them, or could you build a city around them or rebuild and repopulate them?

Sovereign wrote:
Pls give us enough traits so that we are able to create tons and tons of different races. Thats the thing i love so much in ES the diversity. There are unlimited possibilitys and in the Multiplayer one race rarely looks like another.

I hear you guys. I definitely don't want to loose that customization richness either. Just what I want to avoid as much as possible, is to have traits that are not game changers.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:


1) Heros. These seem to be the life and blood of this game. If so, will there be a greater diversity of hero classes, and will they have a legitimate impact on the heros' ability to function?

Actually Heroes are just one stone of the game's foundation. We want the Empire to be at the center of the game, with its people, research, units, commerce, industry... Of course being able to go on huge quest, and completing them, will give a big advantage, but they are not the center of the game.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:


2) Speaking of units and armies, will they require actual population to create? Or will population sub classes fit this role?

no, not at the moment.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:


4) Will there only be strategic resources in the game? or will there be even more types than in ES? (Don't think we didn't notice the T-70 and Hyperium icons

We have 6 strategic resources, and 15 luxuries. They all can be mined,harvested, stocked, and therefore traded.

Stealth_Hawk wrote:


1) Increasing player experience in the world:

-----a) Variation. Variation everywhere. 10+ different variations of a terrain type gives worlds a unique feel. Ie, Mountainous jungles, swamp jungles, extremely dense jungles, A jungle with a completely different kind of tree, or Mountains: mountains that are snow capped (Yeah, I live in the Rockies so I'm a tad biased), Mountains covered entirely in snow, mountains that are a little bigger than hills, covered with beautiful shrubs. You get the point. 16 terrain types are boring if they are all the same. If they are given variants, they can easily feel like 160 different kinds of terrain.

We are working on their variants, due to altitude. Yet, it is very important for us, that players can easily read a terrain's gameplay value. So here we have to juggle between Variety, and strategic planning.

Stealth Hawk - Good post. I agree with everything you said.



T41 - That an interesting prospect.



Space Troll - THere are 3 Fantasy 4x tbs games out right now that set the standard I think: Fallen Enchantress, Eador:Motbw, and Warlock:MotA. In all three of them the Heros play a crucial role, and each one takes a different tack to manage the Heros and their retinue. I think I like Eador's the best because each hero class is unique. Elemental has an amazing skill tree, and Warlock has the best integration. You have 3 very strong templates to look at and to get ideas from. They also handle magic differently. I like that in Elemental you have unique schools with their own specific needs, and in Warlock you have a randomized tree. In Eador, you see that their isn't a single spell that can't be countered. Another thing, there can't be any unit or group of units that doesn't have a soft or hard counter until the very late game.



No one says that you need to copy any of them, because you don't. but since they will be compared together, you need to keep that in mind too.



Strategic vs luxury resources is something will have to wait and see, but I do not think that 6 is enough. It needs to be double that.







This game has so much potential, I can hardly keep my excitement in check.



I wish I had jr VIP access so I would be in the know. But oh well, this is good enough. You all engage us and even sometimes enact some of our suggestions. Like I had stated elsewhere...





/throws money at them



Take it.. take it.. it's burning a hole in my pocket. I am so happy with you guys that I am even willing to try Endless Dungeon, and I tend to dislike those types of games.

Yeah Stealth Hawks posts was one of the best and construktivs posts i have read in a long time.

SpaceTroll wrote:


Actually Heroes are just one stone of the game's foundation. We want the Empire to be at the center of the game, with its people, research, units, commerce, industry... Of course being able to go on huge quest, and completing them, will give a big advantage, but they are not the center of the game.

Well, I meant to phrase that in more of a way to say that your life and blood will be deprived from you without heroes. But that's my fault.





And can we please, please, have more than just empires in this game? empires are nice and all, but they get kind of boring since bigger=better, not just in ES but in real life (woohoo my affinity for Political Science just came in handy!)



Nation-States would make me so happy. A race like this wouldn't have the need to consume, but would rather benifit from staying small, "pure", strong, and above all, keep loyalty high. So yeah. City states would be pretty awesome for a game like this as well. And city leagues would encourage player cooperation ten fold.



I know Empire is often used a generic term, so I am not trying to hold it against you. But it does refer to a specific kind of country, so I am just trying to be clear.