New trailer

[unmerged(104940)]

One of the worst trailers I've ever seen.

That was awful.

It was neither clever nor funny in the least bit. It was just stupid.

That's my honest opinion, and right now I am not liking the direction of this game at all.

Thank you for sharing your oppinion.


I LOVE THIS GAME, this game is amazing, this game is unique in all ways and this game has definatly a good spot on the game market being so special.

This commercial spot is funny and fresh. For people who already know the game they know exactly whats going on. For people who never played this game, have no clue except its an rpg game. And this game isn't a RPG game . So a clear trailer would fix it up. And make it longer as well. Keep it funny and fresh. But don't make it an Overlord "Since ppl can flame it was a ripoff from the overlord trailers"

 

[Alfryd]

Gamespot's Q&A with 1C's CEO Alexey Kozyrev:

Thank you for that. It's nice to have some fresh information.

We've all spent a good deal of time playing both games and the key challenge for us so far has been to ensure we design a multiplayer game with good balance. The first part was designed with a focus on the single-player campaign.

Sounds good so far.

If everything goes according to plan, the kingdom will attract new peasants and citizens. As a result the city will grow and prosper, and new buildings will appear to give the royal tax collectors much more gold.

Sounds good. Attracting peasants sounds considerably more sim-like, in any case.

For example, players will find that the nomadic barbarians, Krolm's adepts, have become mighty blade masters since centuries will have passed from events found in the first part.

Fair enough. Nice to have that much clarified.

The background story is that the hunters of Ardania can become such skilled archers, that it becomes impossible for them to miss and they need to blindfold themselves to keep challenged. As for the baseball cap--it's a fashion item that appeared in Ardania, when a mighty wizard summoned a powerful hero from another realm to slay a dragon. When the hero immediately fled back to his realm after receiving the business proposal, he lost the cap on the way.

Guys, if you have to explain the joke, then it's not funny. ...Not that this would be great at the best of times.

The player will be able to select which type of hero he would like in the party; however, high-level heroes will not want to make fellowships with new ones.

That seems to work against the key concept of indirect control. Besides, some heroes (e.g, paladins and cultists) really ought to be very reluctant to work together. On the other hand, it does imply that 'relationships' of some form will be implemented. Hmm.

I'd like to see some more news regarding economic balancing and AI, in particular. I'm also curious about the Fog of War...

 

[Hassat Hunter]

Sounds good so far.

Hmm... have to disagree here. Played more SP than MP (I think most players did), and I certainly hope they didn't let SP suffer more to achieve that. Too many games have done that already.

Sounds good. Attracting peasants sounds considerably more sim-like, in any case.

It sounds like 4 heroes = 1 house. Which I don't mind, but apparently slipped from your memory as being the exact same way in MFKS1.

Guys, if you have to explain the joke, then it's not funny. ...Not that this would be great at the best of times.

I don't think I have posted in this thread yet, but yes, I have to agree I didn't think of this new trailer to be that funny.

That seems to work against the key concept of indirect control.

Quite agree here. Maybe he means you can use incentitive flags (gold) to team up heroes together (and any hero can come) than specifically asign heroes. I certainly hope so atleast.

 

[unmerged(60143)]

The player will be able to select which type of hero he would like in the party; however, high-level heroes will not want to make fellowships with new ones.

Even though I usually don't like the direct control approach, I think this is a case where it could add to the gameplay. I can't imagine the AI of the heroes to be so good that they'll be able to figure out how to defeat certain enemies and bosses by having certain partyconstellations. They'll either know how to defeat them or not. If they do, it wont be that fun to watch, if they don't, it'll be luck or the combined levels of the heroes that determines the outcome.
Trying to figure out how to defeat a certain boss by selecting the right partymembers could be fun, and even more so if relations between different factions and herotypes come into play.

 

[Alfryd]

Hmm... have to disagree here. Played more SP than MP (I think most players did), and I certainly hope they didn't let SP suffer more to achieve that. Too many games have done that already.

Better balance between the factions can only be a good thing in my book.

It sounds like 4 heroes = 1 house. Which I don't mind, but apparently slipped from your memory as being the exact same way in MFKS1.

Not really. Houses were never a significant economic factor, and citizens are new additions to my knowledge.

I can't imagine the AI of the heroes to be so good that they'll be able to figure out how to defeat certain enemies and bosses by having certain partyconstellations.

Actually, I've gone to some length to explain exactly how the AI could be smart enough to figure that out. ...in theory.

They'll either know how to defeat them or not.

Since random events and unknown elements are a significant factor in play, not really.

I don't mind having the option of encouraging heroes to form a particular adventuring party, but I'm curious about how, exactly, that will be achieved. And heroes should be capable of forming parties on their own without sovereign intervention. The player should not have to waste time and effort compensating for shoddy AI on the part of his/her own heroes.

I also find it strange that all the 'hunters' have identical outfits. Wasn't there a plan to have individual heroes vary substantially in gear and appearance?

 

[unmerged(104940)]

Alfryd i would like to hear your theory about that .

 

[Alfryd]

If you mean how to have heroes form parties autonomously, I tried to cover the idea here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358582

(Personally, I reckon that Nerdfish's system of relationship simulation should be pretty adequate by itself, and he took great pains to explain the idea down to the tiniest detail. If two heroes 'like' eachother, that generates a likelihood that they'll form an adventuring party together. The more they like eachother relative to other characters available, the more likely the party will be formed. There nothing intrnsically difficult involved there, programming-wise. ...Well, as far as I can see.)

 

[Alfryd]

Yeah, he does kind of look like a possum-man.

In fairness, I didn't mind the ratman so much (though I did mistake the poster's portrait for a varg, initially.) I quite liked the little touch of leprous skin around the eyes.

 

[Alfryd]

At any rate, it's nice to see some shots of actual gameplay.

 

[unmerged(98933)]

That seems to work against the key concept of indirect control.

Maybe it just means that you can select what kind of heroes you want to have in your kingdom (i.e. you can choose the pool of heroes a party can draw from)?

 

[Alfryd]

I guess that's one interpretation. It is nice to know that relationships of some form are being implemented, anyways.
I still reckon that, even if you do somehow manage to have, say- healers and WoDs recruited in the same kingdom, they'd be pretty reluctant to work together in the long run. (Of course, WoDs aren't really 'team players' at the best of times...)