We mentioned in a previous entry that Beta 0 of Elemental will be able to be played on a cloth map. Now to be clear, not all of the game elements will be able to be handled so abstractly. But enough will be that the basic game could be played on the cloth map.
But some users have emailed me asking why even bother having the zoom in map? And the answer is that a game, in our opinion anyway, is greater than the sum of its parts. What we hope to make special about Elemental is that each game is YOUR world.
What do we mean by that? Well, at the cloth map level, you’ll be able to label the world as you see fit. Give deserts and swamps and forests names. It’s purely cosmetic but it’s about making the world yours.
When you zoom in, you’ll be able to see the effect you’re having on the world. At the start of the game, the world is dead. You (and your competitors) are bringing it back to life after the Cataclysm. And how that world evolves depends on your actions.
The way we explain Elemental to some people is to ask if they’ve ever played Dungeons and Dragons. If they say yes, then we tell them that Elemental is the world you played D&D in except instead of being a party of adventures, you’re the sovereign of the kingdom that those adventurers were playing in – but the world is still just as rich and interesting as it was before. And to convey that, we have to let players get in close to see and care about that world.
Agree on the getting over-complicated point, but naming stuff really does matter to those of us with a strong RPG streak and probably others. Even if a river has no mechanical role in the game, naming it is part of transforming a randomly generated map into an immersive game world.
You know, in meatspace, many places have multiple names. It's not that complex. On my German maps the capital city of Bavaria is Munchen. On my English maps it's Munich.
If it were me, I'd store the users names locally and pass on to other players if they have X level of espionage or treaty. XML is cheap and easy.
I might be wrong, but it seems like there is a fairly simple solution. Let me name things and store that locally. Then, if I tell you to meet me at "my main town", you don't see "my main town", the computer send the co-ordinates. When you get the the message, it checks on your computer to see if you have named it something. Then, you either see the name YOU hve given that location, or the co-ordinates. I know that is possible, but not sure how hard it would be to program.
My biggest worry about the idea is how critical would spelling be. I can spell, but my typing can leave a lot to be desired LOL.
The communication via email outside the game and typed messages where gamers type the locations name is where the problem exists. I could ask you to meet me in the Dunkins Mark from an email message and upon looking at your world map you would have to check each individual terrain location.
Unless you're planning to include a terrain name search option. The terrain search option would need to specify the player name and terrain name... because two different players might have two different locations with the same name.
/throws 2 penniesSpeaking strictly multiplayer here...I dont really care how names are decided but I would want all players to share those names. In my mind, it will make communication waaayy easier. Not to mention, the world would seem more alive that way. Why make it more complicated by throwing map sharing & coordinates in the mix?
Just felt obliged to mention that the coming soon blurb for Elemental on Impulse caps the multiplayer crew at 8. That could still be a fair amount of clutter on a shared map or a fair number of maps to share, but it is a long way from 20 or more.
I'm still only flirting with the idea of putting time into multiplayer (at least post-RTM), but it would make the game seem *less alive* to me if there were some artificial Gods-Approved Map. Having the game interface be able to reflect something like the Malvinas/Falklands argument would make it *more alive* to me.
And some of the recent posts make me suspect that it doesn't need to be 'complicated' from a player usability POV. Zubaz has a good point--markup languages like XML are *designed* to do things like treat a place name as a modifier for a set of coordinates, and choose among a set of modifiiers in response to a CSS.
My point isn't that the naming stuff isn't a good thing (I love the idea of naming rivers and such), just that we don't need some of the complex solutions to handle it. I'm glad Zubaz chimed in with the real world example.
If it were me? I'd show the name I gave the river, along with a little indication (maybe '...' after it) to show that another player named it something else. I could then click that to see *all* the names. Or have a filter option where I can show your names instead of mine, to find what you're talking about.
There's no rules in that case, I can name everything however I want, but I can still find something you reference by another name. But I'm not sure its a big problem anyway. If we're allies and we *want* to communicate locations, why would I go around changing names of landmarks that you've already named and are using as references?
That sounds much more time consuming and cluttered especially for a game with LOTS of players which means LOTS of different maps. Multiple maps, each terrain having 5+ names... why should I need to store 5+ different maps which are always changing? It would be better to have one single MAP seen and shared by everyone where only the owners would have rights for name changing rights for their provinces. Very simple and if you wish to allow us to rename wild space provinces setup a voting system.
Here's one example of when the game ends and 7 friends/family are trying to discuss memories of a previous game where there won't be any consistent recollection of names for provinces. EXAMPLE:
Jason (a veteran player)says," Hey guys remember that Elemental game last week... it was the Western Forest where my troops were hiding. "
Clifford (a veteran player)says, "Well there was several western forests. Are you talking about Dunkins Mark or Greens Edge or what?"
Rosemary (a new player) says, "Every forest on the map was named after the actors of Scrubs... so which one?"
Jason says, "Each player can rename any terrains so I guess I'll have to try and describe its location... well it was not one of the four center forests, but a little to the south on the western side of the world map."
Clifford says, "Jason is right Rosemary... no one uses the same names for lcoations, so Jason there's no way we'll know which forest without reloading the map when we visit your place next week because the map was quite large."
Rosemary says, "Wait a minute... so when you guys kept calling my capital UGLY PEOPLE CITY you actually named it that on your maps! That sucks."
Jason says, "Yeah it was funny for us... we didn't think it'd make you feel so bad. What really sucks is we can't talk about the province terrain names from previous games without having a map loaded for everyone to see !! Guess we should just focus on this game of darts."
I love this idea, by sharing maps with names, but not unit sight, I could have a tag for a location named "army rally point alpha" and in a few turns when I double cross him, he might expect units from that location. In reality, that might be my most fortified towns and my army could attack from another point. Essentially this allows some bit of subterfuge among allies even. This is important in any complex game of diplomacy.
I have an idea with naming... let the people decide.
Whenever you discover a new feature, you can name it. And as long as you have the most peple living close to it, that's the name that will appear on all maps.
Player A named the forest Verdant Swarms.
Player B named the forest Dark Thickets.
Since Player B has many more cities nearby, travelling merchants tend to use his name more, and the people of Player A start using that name as well.
That's how it works in real life.
That would be awesome.
This is better than the multiple terrain names and multiple maps being shared. I've suggested related recommendations earlier, but in any case it should be one single map with each terrain having one name used by everyone. Otherwise problems such as 4 players meet via IM chats to discuss an allied strategy against one super powerful player would cause each player of the four players to be looking at 4 different maps.
Again, I don't see this happening. There seems to be an assumption that everybody will name everything. But if I *want* to communicate locations with you, why would I go around overwriting all your names?
If we get into a rename war, we're probably not going to remain allies anyway.
It's very possible that everybody will name everything since one of the developers seems to like this idea. I see this causing communication pains for email, phone and IM discussions especially when players are not in front of the game and don't have access to view other players maps.
It could start as a war between two players and out of spite they have a rename war with different terrain names, but during gameplay they may discover another player who's double the size and threat of both players combined thus a fast alliance is established. So one name and one map for all locations where players can rename a location every 20_turns or if the terrain has fallen into new ownership feels to be the most simple and provide the least amount of communication confusion.
Whatever happens in multiplayer, I seriously hope that the core singleplayer game will not suffer any of the 'multiplayer-friendly' limitations that you are suggestion. And I *want* to have the possibility of seeing and comparing other factions' maps to my own, most especially if it can help create a game analog to things like the Malvinas/Falklands-Falklands/Malvinas argument.
The real trick there will be seeing if the AIs can come up with the occasional counter-name for the player's major assets, e.g. I might call the area around a druid channeler's retreat Groveheart, while the steel-loving, overbreeding neighbors might call it Wasted Woodlands.
Good news! I love the D&D link and also the possibility to put your own names on the map.
MultiPlayer and SinglePlayer can easily be left as two seperate entities... the same as a MultiPlayer and SinglePlayer campaign.
I seriously doubt any AI opponents will be renaming terrain map locations since this would require multiple databases from each terrain for the different factions. The same is true within Dominions_3... players can rename any commander/mage unit, but the AI doesn't rename units as it just keeps the randomly selected ones.
Hi, I'm new to this forum. First, let me say Elemental is one of the games I'm really looking forward to. I'm a huge fan of strategy/RP fantasy games (and I'd rather play Master of Magic than these "fancy graphics, poor gameplay" modern strategy games... ).
Now, some questions, if you don't mind (and forgive my bad english)...
"Give deserts and swamps and forests names. It’s purely cosmetic but it’s about making the world yours."
"Elemental is the world you played D&D in except instead of being a party of adventures, you’re the sovereign of the kingdom that those adventurers were playing in – but the world is still just as rich and interesting as it was before. And to convey that, we have to let players get in close to see and care about that world."
These are some bold statements...
Let me explain. In a tabletop RP game (D&D, for instance), the gamemaster narrates how the world reacts and changes as the players' characters act. Of course, being a human being, the gamemaster is capable of creating interesting/relevant/unpredictable/story-oriented responses. A computer game that can come even close to that is a "holy grail" that pretty much everyone has given up searching for - specially in a MMORPG or strategy game. But I digress, I was going to ask something...
My question:
The close-up graphics are supposed to "make me care" about the world, but in what (semantic) ways does the world care about itself and about me? In which ways can the little "machine people inside the screen" (my units, heroes and people, e.g.) recognize me and themselves?
I mean... considering what has been discussed here about players giving names, etc. Wouldn't it be cool if the computer-people living near my keep named my territory the "DOOMED LANDS" if I'm perceived by them as evil?
As to MP map naming issues, I see 2 possible solutions.
First option. (a spin off of the who owns more cities/Pop. idea)
Since all MP players will be on the same Base Map, with un-named features, the first player, despite Team, that reaches, or pushes back the FoW on said map feature, gets to put up a unique name if one does not exisit. Despite a Rivers length, they have but 1 name, from origin to the Ocean, so no naming "my piece" of this river stuff.
Second Option.
Since the naming of terrian objects among Team mates could be confusing, and since all players will start with the same "Base Map", what if when you select a teammates game ID, form a pull down perhaps, your map instantly changes all named features to what they have currently name those items. Consider it a layered drawing of tha map, with each having a Layer to name on and when the Gamer ID is selected, that layer is revealed to the player who selected it.
So you would have a basic 4v4 player Map. Your team consists of Dave, Marie, Bob and Samuel, your Dave.
Dave has named the Central moutain range "Albacore Pass"
Marie has named the Central moutain range "Witchata Spine"
So when Marie selects Dave's gamer ID she see her Central moutain range name change to "Albacore Pass".
When the player leaves the Player selection Pull down, their own map layer is restored. I suspect that is what the XML usage would probably do....
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
