|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Feb 1, 2015 22:53:13 GMT
No Moo hasn't specifically said that, but it is what it is, it will be Real Time Strategy it's the only description that would fit Godus single player battles as far as I can see? It is really only a generic description, RTS has resources and units you send to fight. That's why battles should be a choice, that is what should make Godus different, the choice to ignore/persuade/defeat enemies. Not forced to play a certain way.
To be clear I think if you were to play Godus purely for war it would be as an RTS. I think if you want that there are plenty of better game out there for that.
That is why I think Godus should go with a mix of 3 optional modes of play (Not like menu items, but they way you play), RTS battle mode, economy mode out populate/trade others, or live with and build around ignore/integrate.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkmoondragon on Feb 1, 2015 23:44:38 GMT
SpiderwebI really like your idea of having optional ways of dealing with the aggressive tribe! I only question the RTS combat format because they are often rapid, multitasking click fests and the core game is tranquil and almost meditative. Nothing wrong with this kind of game; I've played them. It just doesn't seem godlike to me and seems to clash a bit with the existing themes. Every god I've ever heard of that's worthy of the name either exists outside of time, can freeze time or looks down from Olympus or Valhalla and is so much more powerful than the humans below that he/she might as well be watching a chess game below. I don't know what the answer is here. But turned based strategy would seem more apt than RTS. I have absolutely no idea what FuriousMoo thinks. Clearly if he thinks RTS is a good fit then RTS is what it's going to be. We just get to throw ideas out before him. It is nice that we are discussing this with more specificity.
|
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Feb 2, 2015 0:00:41 GMT
SpiderwebI really like your idea of having optional ways of dealing with the aggressive tribe! I only question the RTS combat format because they are often rapid, multitasking click fests and the core game is tranquil and almost meditative. Nothing wrong with this kind of game; I've played them. It just doesn't seem godlike to me and seems to clash a bit with the existing themes. Every god I've ever heard of that's worthy of the name either exists outside of time, can freeze time or looks down from Olympus or Valhalla and is so much more powerful than the humans below that he/she might as well be watching a chess game below. I don't know what the answer is here. But turned based strategy would seem more apt than RTS. I have absolutely no idea what FuriousMoo thinks. Clearly if he thinks RTS is a good fit then RTS is what it's going to be. We just get to throw ideas out before him. It is nice that we are discussing this with more specificity. Any form of combat system in Godus is, by necessity and definition, an implementation of a rts. A player needs to move troops, kill enemy troops, and take over enemy territory in real time. There's just no way around it. Populous was an rts. Black & White was an rts. Godus (if it's to have combat) is an rts. Pacing is a design feature for the games. A good number operate on larger scales, but still fit the category. Crusader Kings II technically counts as an rts and it looks nothing like the stereotype. The problem with trying to incorporate 3 different strategies for victory is that Godus lacks depth in any of the three to be viable. The current staff at 22Cans is going to be lucky if they can put sufficient depth into one area. This idea is, at best, pie in the sky. With combat being a primary concept all the way back to the Kickstarter, all indicators point to them focusing on that aspect over the others. |
|
|
|
Post by darkmoondragon on Feb 2, 2015 2:05:04 GMT
SpiderwebI really like your idea of having optional ways of dealing with the aggressive tribe! I only question the RTS combat format because they are often rapid, multitasking click fests and the core game is tranquil and almost meditative. Nothing wrong with this kind of game; I've played them. It just doesn't seem godlike to me and seems to clash a bit with the existing themes. Every god I've ever heard of that's worthy of the name either exists outside of time, can freeze time or looks down from Olympus or Valhalla and is so much more powerful than the humans below that he/she might as well be watching a chess game below. I don't know what the answer is here. But turned based strategy would seem more apt than RTS. I have absolutely no idea what FuriousMoo thinks. Clearly if he thinks RTS is a good fit then RTS is what it's going to be. We just get to throw ideas out before him. It is nice that we are discussing this with more specificity. Any form of combat system in Godus is, by necessity and definition, an implementation of a rts. A player needs to move troops, kill enemy troops, and take over enemy territory in real time. There's just no way around it. Populous was an rts. Black & White was an rts. Godus (if it's to have combat) is an rts. Pacing is a design feature for the games. A good number operate on larger scales, but still fit the category. Crusader Kings II technically counts as an rts and it looks nothing like the stereotype. The problem with trying to incorporate 3 different strategies for victory is that Godus lacks depth in any of the three to be viable. The current staff at 22Cans is going to be lucky if they can put sufficient depth into one area. This idea is, at best, pie in the sky. With combat being a primary concept all the way back to the Kickstarter, all indicators point to them focusing on that aspect over the others. You might be right and I could be totally wrong. It's fine with me if it's an RTS. It still makes little sense that the enemy tribe would have priests or wizards with powers like (god) the player unless they have another "actual" god or some upstart Demi God to derive their "powers" from. If it is another god then this is no longer a god game. If it is "magic" then this is no longer Godus but rather a Sword &Sorcery or fantasy game. Quite possibly my view of RTS games is too narrow as I've only played a few. Real time is great if it works. I like the idea of combat in the game (obviously) but I'm not very knowledgeable about RTS games since I've preferred open world games for years. Maybe I'll download Crusader Kings II and try it out. It would be great if FuriousMoo simply indicated what kind of battle game was going to be incorporated into Godus. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Feb 2, 2015 2:11:03 GMT
The reason I recoil when RTS is used in relation to godus is that there is a real chance any controlled combat system with precise movement required will be craptacular. Any control system implemented badly infuriates the player and let's face it GODUS's record in terms of player controls is abysmal. I take earls point that RTS is a very broad definition.
In terms of CKII you'd probably find Europa Universalis 4 more accessible although all paradox games have a steep learning curve.
|
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Feb 2, 2015 3:53:09 GMT
The reason I recoil when RTS is used in relation to godus is that there is a real chance any controlled combat system with precise movement required will be craptacular. Any control system implemented badly infuriates the player and let's face it GODUS's record in terms of player controls is abysmal. I take earls point that RTS is a very broad definition. In terms of CKII you'd probably find Europa Universalis 4 more accessible although all paradox games have a steep learning curve. Yeah, the problem is that if Godus has any combat beyond random guys slapping each other it'll need to have some form of stereotypical rts interfacing. The only rts game I can think of that lacks unit direction is Majesty and it's more a kingdom simulator. Anything where you have units that are supposed to find and wipe out an enemy will require some form of direction. Godus wasn't designed for any of this. While the prototype/earliest version had rudimentary pvp, the latter implementations almost completely lack follower interaction with the world. As for CKII, I used it because how different from typical rts games it is. It looks and feels more like turn-based strategy but it is running constantly. It's also more a board game, requires a lot of study into lineage, and entices people to do dark and dirty things (more roleplay than expected). |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Feb 2, 2015 6:51:18 GMT
The reason I recoil when RTS is used in relation to godus is that there is a real chance any controlled combat system with precise movement required will be craptacular. Any control system implemented badly infuriates the player and let's face it GODUS's record in terms of player controls is abysmal. I take earls point that RTS is a very broad definition. In terms of CKII you'd probably find Europa Universalis 4 more accessible although all paradox games have a steep learning curve. Yeah, the problem is that if Godus has any combat beyond random guys slapping each other it'll need to have some form of stereotypical rts interfacing. The only rts game I can think of that lacks unit direction is Majesty and it's more a kingdom simulator. Anything where you have units that are supposed to find and wipe out an enemy will require some form of direction. Godus wasn't designed for any of this. While the prototype/earliest version had rudimentary pvp, the latter implementations almost completely lack follower interaction with the world. As for CKII, I used it because how different from typical rts games it is. It looks and feels more like turn-based strategy but it is running constantly. It's also more a board game, requires a lot of study into lineage, and entices people to do dark and dirty things (more roleplay than expected). Although Godus is not designed to be an RTS, it will be when you add conflict, unless you remove all unit direction, which would require a very good fake AI and probably be beyond implementing at this stage. Godus's leashing system, allows multi unit select but is a little clunky compared to a tradition RTS area selection tool. I still think an aggression level is doable by simply replacing happiness, and set an enemy attack level dependant on that. I think that would work really well. After all real wars don't just start immediately and can sometimes resolve through non-aggression type pacts. I think a proximity trigger to start the enemy trying to attract your followers and escalate depending on you reaction and how that reaction effects aggressiveness, you can reign it all back with happy making gesturers to enemy. my reason for pushing this method is that it covers several types of gamers, causal zen players, PvAI players after a single player experience. And the mix of the 2 (where I'd put myself) Conflict in single player mode is a good start for multiplayer PvP gameplay. My only issue with this is how it all fit in with era progression, are we going to get guns/horses/tanks/fight jets/spaceships and would they fit this model. I don't really see era progression making in into the game anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Feb 2, 2015 7:58:09 GMT
A little off topic but...
I reckon they could fit some era type conflict progression in. If anyone have played mega-lo-mania by sensible software, that had a very good era progression system via new worlds. So new world= new era and building/military. It would be simple to use a subset of real world weaponry progression.
I think each world conquered (Maybe the conquered tech is more advanced and acquired by you)should allow you to use those buildings/tech in homeworld, which should be a total safe haven. Build how you like there, no conflict, total "zen" garden. But allow you to sail to multiple lands progressing in eras as you sail(kind of like mini games now but not lemmings islands more like weyworld). But always able to unlock the new era content back in Homeworld. Keep these other worlds smaller than homeworld but larger than mini games, and allow trade between them.
You could also force the occasional return to these other era maps with invasions or natural disasters or rebellion (which happens when you aren't there) but effect trade with those colonies. Requiring a return.
|
|
|
|
Post by FuriousMoo on Feb 2, 2015 12:01:45 GMT
Some interesting comments. The whole idea behind the 'priest' unit (and I really wouldn't get hung up on the name or theme at this stage) was to make mitigate extremely powerful powers by making them difficult to use in combat without nerfing their potency to oblivion. Similar in principle and effect to the ghost unit and nukes in starcraft. The unit would be weak, vulnerable and fairly expensive.
Outside of combat positioning the priest and using powers would be a non issue. But if you wanted to use power in combat you would need to provide an escort and screen of soldiers or it would be cut down before you could get a power off. Also it's a further way of balancing something as powerful as the meteor (which effectively 1 shots everything in a large radius and would end any battle as soon as it was used) in that the priest unit would be caught in the blast and sacrificed to instantly end the enemy threat.
An issue with implementing the priest would be working out a balanced targeting priority for the enemy. Closest target first priority would make the priest too easy to protect, while priest first priority would make it too difficult to protect.
Similar situation with the enemy 'power nullifier' unit, but in reverse. You would need to send in soldiers to take it out before you could unleash hell upon the enemy with god powers. Would also mean sacrificing your soldiers if you wanted to use the meteor at that stage as they would then be in range of the blast radius most likely.
Issues here would be the necessity for the player to have precise targeting controls for their units possibly leading to too much of a micro focus. The system wouldn't work if you couldn't command your soldiers to focus down the 'nullifiers'. Also leads to an awkward situation in terms of protecting enemy settlements (would need them permanently scattered around the enemy settlements covering the whole area to prevent you from nuking it easily at will).
I think if I go down this route I'm currently leaning towards the priest follower direction. Feels more interesting and opens up the possibility of this unit to have other non combat functions.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Feb 2, 2015 12:21:29 GMT
Some interesting comments. The whole idea behind the 'priest' unit (and I really wouldn't get hung up on the name or theme at this stage) was to make mitigate extremely powerful powers by making them difficult to use in combat without nerfing their potency to oblivion. Similar in principle and effect to the ghost unit and nukes in starcraft. The unit would be weak, vulnerable and fairly expensive. Outside of combat positioning the priest and using powers would be a non issue. But if you wanted to use power in combat you would need to provide an escort and screen of soldiers or it would be cut down before you could get a power off. Also it's a further way of balancing something as powerful as the meteor (which effectively 1 shots everything in a large radius and would end any battle as soon as it was used) in that the priest unit would be caught in the blast and sacrificed to instantly end the enemy threat. An issue with implementing the priest would be working out a balanced targeting priority for the enemy. Closest target first priority would make the priest too easy to protect, while priest first priority would make it too difficult to protect. Similar situation with the enemy 'power nullifier' unit, but in reverse. You would need to send in soldiers to take it out before you could unleash hell upon the enemy with god powers. Would also mean sacrificing your soldiers if you wanted to use the meteor at that stage as they would then be in range of the blast radius most likely. Issues here would be the necessity for the player to have precise targeting controls for their units possibly leading to too much of a micro focus. The system wouldn't work if you couldn't command your soldiers to focus down the 'nullifiers'. Also leads to an awkward situation in terms of protecting enemy settlements (would need them permanently scattered around the enemy settlements covering the whole area to prevent you from nuking it easily at will). I think if I go down this route I'm currently leaning towards the priest follower direction. Feels more interesting and opens up the possibility of this unit to have other non combat functions. That's why passive-active balance of the altar would easily solve the controls problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Feb 2, 2015 14:33:16 GMT
The system wouldn't work if you couldn't command your soldiers to focus down the 'nullifiers'. Also leads to an awkward situation in terms of protecting enemy settlements (would need them permanently scattered around the enemy settlements covering the whole area to prevent you from nuking it easily at will). I think if I go down this route I'm currently leaning towards the priest follower direction. Feels more interesting and opens up the possibility of this unit to have other non combat functions. You need a town centre nullifier, currently there is no centre to anything we build. Even a statue with there's or our image to generate godly protect over a area. Also from the way your describing (enemies needing nullifiers) it sounds like you aren't limiting casting anywhere else in the world so what would even be the need of a priest? Are you saying he needs to be present to cast at all times? |
|
|
|
Post by FuriousMoo on Feb 2, 2015 15:12:39 GMT
It's a case of either or. Priest or nullifier, both would not be needed in the game. A player would have a priest unit or an enemy a nullifier not both ( AI enemies will have a different set of mechanics and rules to the player).
Having a static 'nullifier shrine' would be one solution for the enemy settlement issue, but would still require precise targeting controls for the player.
For a priest, yes it would be needed to cast powers anywhere. Best analogy here is a 'Moses' like follower. You as the god cast the power, but your follower paints your target.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkmoondragon on Feb 2, 2015 15:46:31 GMT
Thanks for the input FuriousMoo. I believe the "priest type" character is more interesting in terms of story as well as gameplay. And I agree that the priest follower could have very interesting non combat functions and be a big first step in pulling the player's realm together in a cohesive way. This could happen in numerous different ways. I still think that the priest follower should have at least a weak force field type protection or superior armor which would make it at least somewhat less vulnerable than an ordinary warrior. It would still be necessary to afford this unit substantial protection. It seems to make sense that god, the player, would do something to afford his priest a bit more protection.
In terms of gameplay mechanics I'm thinking like this:
Okay, so you have an RTS game that feels like a turned based game which makes sense since most wars up through WWI were like that in reality anyway; a series of separate skirmishes and battles with "pauses" in between, everyone is still moving, time doesn't stop but there is a lull in battle and no one is fighting until the next move. That does make sense. So if that's the way it's set up then would it make sense to put these natural lulls between skirmishes on a timer? In other words, have the enemy AI programmed for pauses (ostensibly to regroup and make plans) in which the player has so much time to decide on strategy and make a move. The programmed pause could be variable in duration but with a minimum length. Then the question becomes how rapid do you want the gameplay to be. just some thoughts. My reasoning here is that the core game is tranquil and a crazy, fast paced battle scenario would feel completely unbalanced and out of place here. That's my feeling.
Just to clarify the thought above. If the "timer" (not visible of course) runs out the enemy will attack again. So the action never appears to stop at any point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Feb 2, 2015 17:23:36 GMT
Some things to consider with this Prior/Avatar/Priest style unit. Are they permanent? Once you make them they remain free of further charge? Is there a cost involved in retaining them? (I.E. they remain special by a constant stream of belief heading their way) Are there other restrictions? Are these one-size-fits-all special units or do you get specialized versions for different powers (adding a strategic element of placement, you need to get the right guy for the job in place). That kinda stuff. Belief should only feed the Prior's personal powers meter, not his life or existence. If the Prior is not using a power there should be no drain on the player's "god's" belief. There could be a charge in belief or resources to create the Prior but please, please, please NO GEMS!! ( Side note: I would have been much happier if I had paid $5. or $10. for Godus and there were no gems or "in app purchases" in the game, just resources and belief.) IMO it would be clumsy, fiddly and annoying to move around multiple specialized Priors: a swamp Prior, a FoG Prior, a meteor Prior; makes no sense at all to me. There should be one Prior possibly with some underling monks as Lord Ba'al suggested, ready to be elevated to Prior should your Prior succumb in battle. Although they would arrive with little or no belief driven power initially since they would be brand new. As Lord Ba'al and I suggested the Prior should also be the commander of the regular troops. So as a player you would be inputting regular battle plans such as formations and goals through the Prior via divine "inspiration" as well as inputting use of specific powers via the Prior. That is enough without having multiple Priors running around. I hope Lord Ba'al will correct me here if I'm wrong about his opinion. Hopefully FuriousMoo will comment here in the near future for any course correction needed as this is becoming somewhat detailed and I have absolutely no idea whether any of this appeals to him. Then again, as he has said frequently, he wants to have all kinds of ideas out on the table so perhaps no comment is necessary. Anyway, that's my take on your comments. BTW we already have monasteries. Why not just swap out monks for the breeders that are currently in them, which makes no sense, and have them create/elevate the Prior?? Monasteries don't need breeders to multiply, monks can multiply by divine inspiration. Have faith and ye shall multiply. I'm trying to stay on subject here but it's all interconnected. Its all about balance. While it is true that the special units own 'life' isn't something you pay for. His continued empowered existence is. If the player were to be able to pump belief into making a large number of these units all over the place, then their creation becomes superfluous. The whole idea is that their existence sets special powers apart from "normal" everyday powers. Its not supposed to be a cheap hurdle that can be overcome by throwing "money" at it (even if that money is in-game belief). But rather a proper game balancing mechanic. So either you only get one (or a limited number) of these units. Or you need to tie a cost to them that limits them through other means. So the question is, HOW are they intending to work this mechanic without making it an inflated form of belief. Like it or not, cheap tricks poorly implemented are gonna result in bad game design. So its essential that some thought is put into this. The way I see it. If you have one (or a small limited number) of these units. Then that is going to cause problems with multiple worlds being a thing (homeworld and weyland so far) and with various other minigame style competative modes. Since the physical presence of this unit would be required to use these powers. The ability to move them around also becomes an issue. We already know its a hassle to have to grind your belief in the current way the game works. So imagine having to wait 30 minutes for this special unit to walk its way across the land whenever you need to use it. Ofcourse, as I said above - if you can make a lot of them. Then its merely a matter of time and belief before the player has made so many of them that the entire land is covered with them making their existence superfluous. So thats not a solution either. I'm not suggesting one way or the other being "better" - I want people to think about these things before rushing headlong into one mechanic or the other thinking that a quick fix will solve everything. When in reality the interconnected mechanics can cause a ripple effect. As already evidenced by how certain cheap fixes have caused problems down the line with Godus' development so far. Key example: The invulnerability of both the Astari against the swamp power aswell as the invulnerability of the giants in the voyage mode to sculpting to drown them. Both are cheap fixes that have drastic repercussions that were not intended because the bandaid did not include enough planning to forsee secondary repercussions. The one resulting in the Astari becoming a massive annoyance that is near impossible to deal with and the other resulting on area's becoming unsculptable even when the giants aren't near it because the games AI desyncs so often not showing them where they actually are. Which obviously is also why threads like these are important. Because it makes people think. Some suggestions are good, other suggestions need work and again others are useless or unworkable. You won't know untill you think about it - but many hands make light work and multiple minds know more than one. Ofcourse there's always the matter of control. There is a very split opinion when it comes to direct control in Godgames. Some players prefering more control over the shitty AI alternative. Others prefering a hands-off approach even if it means having to deal with bad AI. |
|
|
|
Post by darkmoondragon on Feb 2, 2015 17:50:51 GMT
DanjalOkay, one Priest/Prior unit per world ( Weyworld, etc, ) and they can quickly skim across the land using their priestly "powers" whilst their staff glows thus enabling them to arrive at a possible combat point in less than five minutes. And since no battle would commence until it is keyed ( or clicked ) in through the Priest, no problem. Furthermore the game should be able to be programmed so that a war scenario doesn't initiate until the Priest is in the area in the first place, so there is two solutions to that problem. No reason for the player to know its a set up and the priest happens to be in the right place at the right time. If necessary, and it's not, this could be explained that the Priest " heard rumors " of growing tensions in the area. I really like the idea that Priests/Priors are generated in the monasteries, which serve no purpose other than generating some extra belief. That's boring. This is one reason I like the name Prior which fits historically with monasteries. I know FuriousMoo said forget about the name but I want to get that thought in at least once.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkmoondragon on Feb 2, 2015 19:36:50 GMT
Since FuriousMoo brought the subject up,
Priest Follower/Prior having " other non combat functions.":
1.) an anchor to tie the player's world together. The Priest Follower could wander through your realm greeting miners, farmers and breeders and "talking" to them. This would make the core game more interesting and give players something to look for.
2.) finding lost or homeless units and notifying the player.
3,) locating treasure chests which have been undiscovered for a while.
4.) creating small land bridges across bodies of water.
5.) removing rocks from nearby abodes.
5.) planting something besides "forests," perhaps bushes.
6.) making a little rain of purity fall on crops.
7.) notifying the player in some way when " trouble is brewing on the border." This could be the transition into battle in the game.
8,) visiting the monasteries, where hopefully "monks" have taken the place of breeders. Why the heck are there breeders in monasteries anyway??
These are just a few ideas. There might be better ones.
I'm actually fairly excited about this dual role possibility for the Priest Follower since it would tie the two aspects of the game together in a natural feeling way. It wouldn't feel like two separate games with the Priest/Prior active in both arenas. And if you lost the Priest Follower in battle you would feel like you lost something doubly important.
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Feb 2, 2015 20:12:40 GMT
It's a case of either or. Priest or nullifier, both would not be needed in the game. A player would have a priest unit or an enemy a nullifier not both ( AI enemies will have a different set of mechanics and rules to the player). Having a static 'nullifier shrine' would be one solution for the enemy settlement issue, but would still require precise targeting controls for the player. For a priest, yes it would be needed to cast powers anywhere. Best analogy here is a 'Moses' like follower. You as the god cast the power, but your follower paints your target. You could have the priest have certain powers of his own and cast them 'intelligently' without having to constantly concern yourself with it, leaving god to do his own stuff. I'm not so sure if only being able to cast spells within the priest's range would prove to be a fun or useful mechanic. Would that also mean no sculpting without priest? |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Feb 2, 2015 20:28:09 GMT
It's a case of either or. Priest or nullifier, both would not be needed in the game. A player would have a priest unit or an enemy a nullifier not both ( AI enemies will have a different set of mechanics and rules to the player). Having a static 'nullifier shrine' would be one solution for the enemy settlement issue, but would still require precise targeting controls for the player. For a priest, yes it would be needed to cast powers anywhere. Best analogy here is a 'Moses' like follower. You as the god cast the power, but your follower paints your target. You could have the priest have certain powers of his own and cast them 'intelligently' without having to constantly concern yourself with it, leaving god to do his own stuff. I'm not so sure if only being able to cast spells within the priest's range would prove to be a fun or useful mechanic. Would that also mean no sculpting without priest? Seriously. I mean, who's the god here - us or the priest? |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Feb 2, 2015 20:28:28 GMT
What if you replace the "priest" with the "object of faith"? In Shinto, that would be Goshintai. In Greek, that would be sacred relic, a part of a sacred tree, perhaps? As these don't come easily, they would be much more precious than a man you can promote, right? And it can be a core of the altar, together with sacral fire. Don't you think that would be interesting? It would also draw power from main belief pool to sustain and charge itself and you would use the power from that charge while using special influence. And the same charge would be used to negate enemy power if the altar is used for protection prayers. Or even better: The influence around the altar increases in radius as the charge increases (of course, it would have a cap, but that cap is a matter of balancing) and this influence radius also serves as anti-influence barrier for other supernatural influences (The divine territory of the god is not easy to trespass, you know?). While this passive protection does give advantage, it still costs belief calculated from the cost of the power deflected by the barrier. Meanwhile, the same artifact charge belief pool fuels active divine powers inside this influence. This way the belief inside the influence is not drawn from global pool directly, but throttled through the altar and therefore becomes both time-dependent and tactically dilemmatic. I think the idea of a sacred relic is cool. As god you could pick out any ordinary object and make it sacred. Of course there would have to be objects in the game in the first place. Once you select an object with your divine selection method you could instruct your priest to go to it and make it sacred by performing some ritual. Once the object is sacred the followers would protect it at all cost or carry it in battle with them. On another note, way too much bolded text mate.  |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderweb on Feb 2, 2015 20:43:13 GMT
It's a case of either or. Priest or nullifier, both would not be needed in the game. A player would have a priest unit or an enemy a nullifier not both ( AI enemies will have a different set of mechanics and rules to the player). Having a static 'nullifier shrine' would be one solution for the enemy settlement issue, but would still require precise targeting controls for the player. For a priest, yes it would be needed to cast powers anywhere. Best analogy here is a 'Moses' like follower. You as the god cast the power, but your follower paints your target. You could have the priest have certain powers of his own and cast them 'intelligently' without having to constantly concern yourself with it, leaving god to do his own stuff. I'm not so sure if only being able to cast spells within the priest's range would prove to be a fun or useful mechanic. Would that also mean no sculpting without priest? I do hope sculpting isn't included as priest power, but another current gameplay issue is the enemy are easy to pick off in water, all you have to do in combat is make a water barrier and station troops at its edge. I can't think of a solution to that, so I hope Moo has one, or can anyone else think of something? |
|
