Triumph.net, Plans & Age of Wonders 3 SURVEY

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Triumph.net, Plans & Age of Wonders 3 SURVEY

This topic contains 126 replies, has 99 voices, and was last updated by  BLOODYBATTLEBRAIN 4 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 127 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #212205

    TurtleNaTree
    Member

    I feel the game is pretty dam good and put strongly agree on everything for the first question except diplomacy. I only use diplomacy to help get my alignment where I want it, then ignore it. The only thing I would like is more races and a continuation of the story at the same quality of what has been done so far.

    #212206

    quo
    Member

    Thank you for posting the survey.

    To drill down in more detail on things I would want:

    – #1 Thing: More races and classes as expansion content. You have knocked the ball out of the park with the most recent two expansions. One or two more (or more than that even if it’s profitable) and IMO you are poised to have the best 4X game of all time, and might be able to enjoy residual sales for years, like the Civilization series has. It’s already really good.

    I know everyone has their favorite race ideas, but my personal favorite is the Mycanids: a race of underground mushroom people who attack with spores.

    Beyond that:

    – Fixing the tactical AI to use Builders with Repair Machine. Right now they flee in autocombat. This causes lots of issues.

    – Examining class matchups that are extremely one sided (Dread/Theo) or simply dull (Theo/Theo). IMO the emphasis should be on fun. A class that sees none of its abilities working in a matchup is boring to me. This does not mean “homogenization” it means adding fun, unique, strategic elements to the game to keep every matchup intense, with both sides equipped with ways to threaten each other in funs ways (not just overwhelming with numbers or using a cheese spell that wipes the map). Emphasis being that each side should have some fun power unlocks with cool status effects or spells, not just swinging at each other for higher damage.

    #212213

    SaintTodd
    Member

    The thing that has really come to bother me about this game, and it’s gotten worse as the game has expanded, is how there is so much content but so little that I can access on one playthrough. What I’ve figured out about why I don’t like the class system, is that I really want to create my own class. I want to choose my race, then choose my specializations, and have my access to units and spells determined by these choices, along with alignment decisions.
    I just feel the current system is too limiting. I hate having to choose between having angels and being able to resurrect my units. I want more and more access to different stuff as I progress through the game. The current system is geared towards shorter games, I suppose. It just frustrates me that every time I choose my class and specializations, I know I can’t get other stuff I want. Maybe if spells were given out more often for clearing treasure sites, and class units from other classes offered to join for completing quests, I wouldn’t feel like I’m missing out on spells and units I want.
    Does this make sense?

    #212214

    SirLeeroy
    Member

    Great game guys!! Thanks for taking the time to have a poll and listen to our feed back.
    I think multiplayer improvements are a must. Gamers should be able to simply connect thru Steam and not need to use other programs like Himachi. If multiplayer connection has problems or is complicated many gamers will just walk away and move onto a different game that does have simple convenient multiplayer. Disclaimer, I don’t use single player at all so I’m completely biased to multiplayer functionality.

    #212219

    deo
    Member

    as long as i’m ready to pay for any content you guys may offer, still i prefer more races and first of all – shadowland
    my dream is dlc containing two races – shadows and dark elves, 1 new class, and shadow land

    #212226

    Ericridge
    Member

    I just want living archons to come back for sole purpose of spamming Archon Titans like there’s no tomorrow.

    #212255

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Okay, let’s throw in some blue-sky thinking, with the knowledge that some of the below may or may not be practical:

    Races: More races definitely has its pluses. Creating additional races that each have their own niche in the game seems to me to remain very doable. The hardest part is keeping the lower-tier units distinct.

    One thing I’d really like to see, though, is more visual distinctions between class units of different races. That bald head gets tiring when it’s seen regardless of race – for some (such as orcs and draconians) it works well in context, for others (elves in particular), not so much. Most of the newer races have a reasonable degree of distinction there (halflings have that short hair texture on their bald guys, for instance) – it’d be worthwhile, I think, looking at the basic class unit model of the other races and seeing if it can be improved to fit the race better, and possibly looking at some of the particularly weird results of how class units are done (such as that patchy hair on bards, which seems to be a bit of a case of ‘one wig fits all’ that works for orcs but not so well for many other races, especially draconians…) and touching them up individually.

    I’d also like to see a ‘stable’ type building that can be used to acquire a special mount associated with the race for your heroes. It always struck me a bit weird that, for instance, you could have your common cavalry riding phasing unicorns or fire breathing raptors and so on, but your heroes could only get such things by random chance. There’d need to be some balancing factor between races with tier 3 cavalry and races without (granting gryphons and eagles and mounts might just be too good) but it would be nice for each race to have a mount item that they can produce at sufficiently developed cities.

    I think there’s also space for new dwellings, particularly a dwelling for underground creatures that can lead to Kharaghs. Maybe I just want Kharaghs back.

    Classes: Classes to me feel like they’re pretty much complete, although there’s always the possibility of more as fitting for the story. One gap that I do feel is that it doesn’t really feel like it’s possible to make a truly convincing fire wizard at the moment. This probably isn’t enough of a concept on its own, particularly since the fire specialisation exists, but I think it would be good to have a more magically-oriented class than the dreadnought that makes enough use of fire that you can think of it as a fire class (at least if you add fire mastery to it!)

    Specialisations are something of the gift that keeps on giving. One thing I’d love to see are specialisations that represent alliances with various beings outside of the main races. For instance, a specialisation could represent having a special relationship with dragons that allows a player to research wyvern riders as a unit that can be produced in their cities, to give one example.

    Diplomacy: The lack of an ‘or else!’ option is one that I feel a bit in diplomacy. There are times where it really is a case of “if the AI doesn’t do what I want here I will be hitting them with everything I’ve got”, but there’s no way to communicate to the AI about your intentions. “Alliance or war”, for instance, is often the choice at the end of a map when allied victory is enabled, but an AI player that you otherwise have good relations with will not understand that. At a less game-ending level, there’s being able to extort the AI, or being able to do things like telling an allied AI that you expect them to help in a particular war or the alliance is off.

    It would also be useful to have some means of saying ‘dibs’ to the AI regarding independent settlements, and vice versa. Essentially, this would be a message that if the AI does something that’s going to interfere with your ability to claim the settlement (whether it’s the AI conquering it, buying a vassalage before you do, killing a quest stack, and so on) you will be annoyed at it. It would then be up to the AI on whether it still wants to complete that action.

    Tactical Combat: We’ve probably all seen those cases where you start a battle and all of your troops are exactly where you don’t want them to be. It would be nice to be able to do something to set up the formation of a stack before entering battle, so you can have them in a useful formation.

    This is particularly important for big multistack battles in open terrain, where it’s often possible for the defender to charge into units on the flanks of the attacker’s force before the attacker has a single turn. If a formation system is impractical, an alternative would be a system by which opposing forces in multistack battles are positioned further apart if reasonably practical. For instance, a system could be made where if all the stacks on each side are contiguous, then the armies line up opposite one another (similar to a siege battle, without the walls) rather than one side enveloping the other – the idea being that the armies all came together on both sides before the battle started. While this does limit the ability for strategic flanking somewhat, at the moment attempting to do so usually works out to the detriment of the attacker in any larger battle.

    #212265

    MartyD81
    Member

    I just want living archons to come back for sole purpose of spamming Archon Titans like there’s no tomorrow.

    +1

    #212268

    AS for exploration and treasure sites I really like them so far. only thing I would REALLY love to see is the “dungeon crawling” treasure sites we had in AoW 1. Back then when you entered a dungeon/cave/cryp etc site you had to explore the tactical combat map and could not see your enemies. It also had been possible to rush in search for items on the ground and then flee without killing the guardians (quite difficult depending on site nad number/strength of guardians)

    #212270

    Diplomacy: The lack of an ‘or else!’ option is one that I feel a bit in diplomacy. There are times where it really is a case of “if the AI doesn’t do what I want here I will be hitting them with everything I’ve got”, but there’s no way to communicate to the AI about your intentions. “Alliance or war”, for instance, is often the choice at the end of a map when allied victory is enabled, but an AI player that you otherwise have good relations with will not understand that. At a less game-ending level, there’s being able to extort the AI, or being able to do things like telling an allied AI that you expect them to help in a particular war or the alliance is off.

    It would also be useful to have some means of saying ‘dibs’ to the AI regarding independent settlements, and vice versa. Essentially, this would be a message that if the AI does something that’s going to interfere with your ability to claim the settlement (whether it’s the AI conquering it, buying a vassalage before you do, killing a quest stack, and so on) you will be annoyed at it. It would then be up to the AI on whether it still wants to complete that action.

    +20! 😉

    #212273

    Rabenschwarz
    Member

    Classes: Classes to me feel like they’re pretty much complete, although there’s always the possibility of more as fitting for the story. One gap that I do feel is that it doesn’t really feel like it’s possible to make a truly convincing fire wizard at the moment. This probably isn’t enough of a concept on its own, particularly since the fire specialisation exists, but I think it would be good to have a more magically-oriented class than the dreadnought that makes enough use of fire that you can think of it as a fire class (at least if you add fire mastery to it!)

    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/demon-class/

    #212275

    lanstro
    Member

    I’ve been with the series since the start, likewise AoW3 from the start. I’ve bought the base game and each DLC at launch to show my support of this type of game. Thanks for asking for an opinion!

    I think the game has improved vastly from launch, and I’d rate it as a solid 8/10 right now. I think it’s still got some work to do to be a top shelf TBS game to last the ages (like HoMM3 / the better games from the Civ and Total War series, each of which I rate 9.5).

    I’d love to see, in descending order of importance to me:
    * continual work on the AI to iron out its weaknesses, especially in city founding mode;
    * greater variety from game to game through more types of random events, quests, greater variety of neutral site guards/encounters;
    * more options in peacetime – eg more diplomatic manouverings, trade, more technologies / wonders / global quests that reward the first to achieve;
    * I think the impact of race on units are sometimes a bit too subtle – in what feels like too many many cases, some racial units just differ in some defensive stats/resistances. A pass through the more vanilla/boring units would be nice; and
    * some extra features in multiplayer to make co-operative vs AI play fun. For example, inreasing the maximum number of players, helping to control a part of a human ally’s army in all tactical combat, an option to share research/resources, etc.

    #212277

    Dagoth Ur
    Member

    Drax nailing it.

    Agree with all of this, especially the class unit appearance diversity.

    Another thing that I would like to see, is a new embarking mechanic, or at least different naval battles, all units boarding in a sloop with melee units just ramming into each other is a little weird. It should be something in between of what it currently is and what they had in Heroes of Might and Magic 5 (haven’t played the later installments and only played the first one before so I don’t know how they did it in the other games).

    #212278

    ten9
    Member

    What would make the game even better than it is for me:

    – more attention to the underground!
    – perhaps combined with the return of the dark elves!
    – make each hero more unique (steps have already been taken but we’re not there yet)
    – Better dimplomacy – for instance fleshed out personalities for the AI

    #212279

    Host
    Member

    Leader Class System:
    I didn’t like this at the start, and I still think the way it was set up was a bloody-stupid idea that could only ever bite Triumph in the ass. It essentially did, since a great deal of the time post-release was spent making the class-race matrix something other than dull-as-dishwater – more time than they would have had to spend if they had just made 12 races instead of 6 classes and 6 races. But that’s the past; Triumph put in the work to make that system something that works, and while it took more effort than it should’ve, the class-race dynamic is now enjoyable. No further changes need to be made there.
    …Possibly more to the point: adding more classes would compound future work even further, so I’d prefer that you didn’t do so – especially since each class seems to be meant to represent an overall playstyle, and most overall playstyles are already covered by the existing classes. warlord: hit things in melee, dred: hit things at range, rogue: hide and hit things indirectly, sorc: summon and disable, theo: heal and never let units die, necro: snowball off of aggression (gets units when killing indies, gets pop when killing indies), druid: …uh, lol randum + summons + play pokemon (ie, evolve)?

    Main Races:
    I’m taking ‘improvement’ of this feature to mean ‘put in more races’, rather than ‘change existing races’. Existing races are basically fine, but we’re still missing some of the content from the former games that really should be here – shadow demons my primary concern among them. I suppose I’ll also take the time to note my general dislike of the design philosophy of only including members of a race in the racial lineup, and my hope that this is ignored for future races, but I don’t see any need to modify the races that exist currently.

    …I’d also like to see the return of the assorted other old staples that are currently missing, like the Kharagh, doombats, spider queens, etc, though this wouldn’t necessarily be tied into any race or dwelling specifically (however, I can see most of the assorted missing units fitting into dwellings; one dark elf dwelling for the evil, cave-based units, and one wood elf dwelling for the good, forest based units (leprechaun, fairy dragon, satyr, centaur, etc).

    Magic system & Research:
    I’m not completely opposed to the randomised research tree, but I also wouldn’t care much if it was changed. Narratively, the opening of the shadow gates should mean that more and more-powerful magic will be returning to Athla in short order, so I imagine Triumph will have to do -something- with magic in the next major plot update, and I’m excited to see what they think of, but my only complaint with the current setup is the lack of unit enchantments in the overworld.

    City System & Economy:
    This isn’t Civ; the city building seems sufficient to me. That is not to say that I would by unhappy if more was added to this, but I do not personally see a need for any changes in this system currently.

    Diplomacy & Relations:
    They’re bland, but also only a tertiary focus of the game for me. I see no pressing need to improve this, though room does exist for improvements to be made. Primarily, if you consider AI Leader behaviours to fall under this category, then adding selectable AI Leader themes could be nice.

    Exploration, Sites & Dwellings:
    My sole issue with exploration is in the severe inability to easily get around a large map in the late game in single-player games. AoW:SM avoided this issue by having the portal gates in cities; something similar, and sufficiently late game would also be appreciated for the lategame of this iteration of the series, regardless or whether or not the AI I’m stomping over understands how they work or not. Someone else in the thread mentioned the AoW1 dungeons with fog; that is the only improvement I can think of for sites, and even then it would be a low priority. Dwellings I see no real reason to change, barring perhaps giving them the ability to build and benefit from the node-based buildings, and that would also be low priority.

    I suppose this would be where I would also mention that I’d like to have builders get the ability to build signs on the world map, purely for improving the ability for the group of people I play with to RP various goings-on and remember what each random swamp or forest is supposed to be called. These would, of course, also need to be raze-able.

    World Map Army Strategies:
    From what I can see these are set up reasonably well, bar the late-game large map single-player inability to easily move an important army from a cleared section of the map to an uncleared section.

    Tactical Combat:
    The pride of AoW3. Now if only we could use said primary feature in the 80% of a multiplayer game that you spend fighting the indy AI, without also stopping the other humans from doing anything. Of course, I realise this is essentially impossible, so I have marked this as not requiring improvement.

    Random Maps:
    There do not appear to be substantial issues with random maps themselves. The only issue I can note with random maps is their inability to be created in the editor, which I have noted under the editor/mods question.

    Pre-made Standalone Maps:
    These were a huge point of AoW1, primarily because 1 didn’t have any random maps. Each and every one had a good deal of effort put in; signage to build the world of that map, interesting AI groups and general map design… not all scenarios need some scripting gimmick to make them interesting, as seems to have been the design intent for AoW3.

    Single Player Campaign:
    Triumph, I’ll speak directly. For starters, you don’t need any voiceover. Scrap the expense of having a guy mispronounce tiger-an every few seconds, and spend it making more than 3 maps. Then, spend those maps expanding on the plot and putting in the necessary words to explain what the heck is going on, rather than ‘lol Tigrans back from nowhere, no we’re not going to tell you why they left or where they were’. You’ve clearly got a plot that you’ve been pimping in each and every expansion with those cheesy cliff-hangers at the end of each campaign, so I certainly hope that you put a good deal of effort into making it worth the anticipation you’ve been trying to build for it. (Though the 3 maps in EL were the best you’ve made in AoW3 so far, the fact that no other maps in the campaign have reached this level of interesting design in the maps themselves is not something to be proud of.)

    Outside of the technical aspects of the campaign, there are a good number of characters that were important and interesting in the past, which haven’t yet shown up or aren’t showing up much. Meandor is always a favourite, and a decent few of the wizards were interesting; given the cues in the story, they should be appearing, and should hopefully be interesting once they do appear. Merlin’ll likely make himself known more as well, and in something beyond the mysterious-old-man capacity.

    Presentation (Audio/GFX):
    AoW1 had blood, meaty hit effects – I can still remember the look of the bloodsplatter when an orc swordsman hit their max damage, and the sound of the hit, as well as a number of damage noises (‘Hik!’ ‘Ouugh!’)… while in AoW3 I can’t remember a single one. This is a minor complaint, however. Somewhat more important is the bland class unit designs that resulted from the class-race matrix mentioned in the first point; a lot of the class unit designs just don’t fit the races they’re made for. Oh, and ripping half the head off of the draconians is still a bloody travesty, difficulty of leader/class-unit design be damned. I’d support the lizardmen getting added purely so that we could have a snouted-reptile race to make up for it.

    Fantasy Setting:
    I’m going to assume that ‘improving’ the fantasy setting would mean including more stuff that was present in previous AoW releases, but is missing from AoW3, like the Kharagh/incarnate/(living)Archons and others. I would consider this the most important aspect, however I’m assuming that it will come in tandem with adding more singleplayer campaign and plot.

    LevelEd and Modding:
    Certainly we could do with having some features, the ability to generate a random map in the level editor chief among them. However I don’t think anything beyond that particular feature is of immediate or pressing concern.

    Multiplayer Features:
    I’m not too fussed. The ability to save a replay is fairly important to competitive multiplayer – to see where you made mistakes, where you could have tried to press an advantage, or what your opponent was doing that you could learn from or incorporate yourself. There’s also a strong argument for an observer mode for tournament play. Either or both of these features should be implemented, should the effort to do so be fairly minimal. However, as someone whose focus is not primly on competitive play (and moreso on the style and substance of the story and lore of the game’s universe), I’ve answered the poll with disinterest toward improvement in this area.

    #212287

    Taykor
    Member

    The thing that has really come to bother me about this game, and it’s gotten worse as the game has expanded, is how there is so much content but so little that I can access on one playthrough.

    Does this make sense?

    It does. I had a simple idea which could help with that: add a fourth specialization pick. But to not cripple your early game research techs it should appear only later in the game, and therefore it could be named ‘secondary specialization’. So secondary specialization is a 4th spec pick which is not visible to other players from the start (to add some surprise element) and skills from which only begin to appear in your skillbook after you learn your first (for example) VI tier tech. So at the start of the game you develop as usual with your class skills and 3 primary specs, and only in the midgame skills from secondary specs would appear.

    #212289

    Host
    Member

    The primary issue with the suggestion above is that the current first-level specialisation picks are all designed to be useful in the early game. This includes the empire-upgrade specialisations expander, explorer, and partisan, which advance growth rate, scouting, and… basically more scouting, though I can see advantages to having invisible single units in the late game.

    If your fourth pick happened to be the master-version of a sphere you already have the adept for, that could be useful, but that basically does require you to pick and adept and NOT a master for that adept in your 3 spheres, in order to make use of the 4th. i.e., explorer+creation master wouldn’t be useful, because you couldn’t then pick a master for the 4th sphere. Explorer+Expander+Partisan would be right out.

    #212307

    Eomolch
    Member

    Many of the things I am going to mention have been mentioned by others in this (or earlier) threads, but I am going to list them anyway since there may be subtle differences and also since I hope more people suggesting the same idea will make that idea more likely to be considered by the devs 😛

    realistic ideas:

    – improved underground with underground-only treasure sites/locations possibly including an underground-dwelling or an recruitment site for underground creatures

    – enhanced hero level upgrade system, e.g. with racial hero upgrades or a skill-tree for heroes with mutual exclusive paths

    – an additional AI difficulty setting on top of emperor (make it really unfair, so that winning an 8 player map (without teams) feels like a true accomplishment; e.g. give the AI production carry-over on top of their other boni)

    – reintroduce some summon units from older games as independent guards and secret spells (e.g. basilisk, water dancer, minotaur, chaos spawn/lord); consider the addition of the leprechaun and/or fairy dragon to the fey dwelling

    – grant ships the ability to bombard cities (damages or destroys walls, has chance to destroy other buildings, costs population and decreases racial happiness for that race) or units (e.g. 4 physical, 4 fire damage) within 1 (frigate) or 2 (galleon) hex distance wich costs 8 (16?) movement points to be performed

    – grant ships the ability to raid a coastal city (takes % damage based on defender strength and steals % of that cities gold and mana income)

    – enhanced sea battles
    — compensate for the lack of natural obstacles on non-structure sea maps by adding (randomly chosen) global enchantments such as
    ** troubled sea: at the beginning of each turn, all non-flying units get displaced up to 2 hexes away from their original position and have a chance to take 6 physical damage
    ** thunderstrom
    ** wind ward

    – add one new T2/T3 unit per race (may vary depending on race)

    wishful thinking:

    – traderoutes, featuring new map resources such as gold, silver, incense, furs, pearls, etc.
    — resources can be delivered to another city via a new caravane unit (/ cargo ship) or if both cities are connected by a road (/ both cities have a harbour) and have a distance < a certain hex threshold
    — the outcome of the trade route depends on the resource that was traded (gold, mana, local hapiness in target city, production …) as well as the size of the target city
    — possible additional supply options – with storehouse: send food to boost population growth; with builders hall: send tools to boost production; with library: send ambassador to improve racial hapiness or relations with independent city
    (one of the reasons for this suggestion is to further increase the importance of water, since trade routes between coastal cities would be easier to establish and there could be a variaty of martime resources)

    – addtional races (dark elves, archons)

    #212314

    Already commented, but got some ideas from reading others.
    I do miss the High Men from AoW1 though I gather something happened to them story-wise to make them the Undead Archons we see at the dwellings. I never played AoW2 so I know I missed some things.
    Though I don’t see why the AI themes from AoW1 were taken out; like Agressive, Defensive, Scorcher, etc. The behaviour AIs for this game have been rather bland and could really use pre-sets like those for different leaders and the ability to choose them for customs during creation. It was in previous games so I don’t see why it was removed.
    Also, for cases where a battle is happening on land with boats in an adjacent water hex maybe make another type of tactical map to represent this so the boats can take part? Say it is a city siege with one adjacent hex being water and there are boats there. Make a small harbor as part of the map. Or a large harbor if more than one hex. And for non-city battles like this, just make a part of the battlefield beachfront or something equivalent to the global terrain of the battle.
    And that previous comment reminded me of a thought I had. It always seems strange having units practically surround an enemy city, but when I attack they are all packed together around one stretch of wall rather than attacking the city on all sides, kind of like how fortress battles work. But I can kind of understand that as cities are supposed to be much bigger.

    #212317

    Tasslehoff
    Member

    Done.

    In AoW3 I personally don’t like the embarking system. I preferred the transport like in AoW2.

    In tactical combat I prefer an AI more conservative.

    Here is my two cents.

    #212321

    Taykor
    Member

    The primary issue with the suggestion above is that the current first-level specialisation picks are all designed to be useful in the early game. …
    that basically does require you to pick and adept and NOT a master for that adept in your 3 spheres, in order to make use of the 4th…

    This is only partly true. Firstly most things are useful even in the late game. Secondly even now some choices are more preferable than others depending on your class, race, type of map and everything else. Or even by default. So I don’t see a problem in that masteries could become good choice for secondary specs. Nothing requires you to do anything. And thirdly this definitely wasn’t an ideal solution, just simplest and easiest to implement.
    For me it would be much better if they just (greatly) expanded existing specializations. But they are very reluctant to do that, sadly. I don’t appreciate that much introducing more and more new specs…

    #212322

    razzafazza
    Member

    my personal feedback:

    Stuff i dont care about in AOW3

    1. Diplomacy

    I think of AOW3 as a wargame and actually prefer fighting against allied AIs. I really don’t need more diplomacy focus in this game.

    2. Economy

    I think of AOW3 as a wargame and d really prefer the economy to be kept simple and not too involved. I really don’t need wonders etc.

    3. More classes

    I think 7 classes is plenty and I d much rather have new content to flesh out existing classes rather than a completely new class that’s bound to have content that overlaps with other classes.

    So basically instead of a new class with (for example) 7 new units, 7 new combat
    spells, 7 new empire upgrades and 7 new strategic spells …… I d much rather have 1 new unique unit/spell/upgrade for each existing class.

    4. Campaign
    No offense but I really don’t care about AOW3 s story and rather play random maps OR well-done scenarios that can be played with a race-class choice of my preference

    Stuff I really care about in AOW3:

    1. More racial diversity

    Don’t get me wrong. A LOT has happened in terms of racial diversity since vanilla AOW3 and it would be really, really unfair to claim racial diversity is a weakness …. but there can always be done even more ;). On the visual side I m no fan of class units all adhering to the same visuals – I d really prefer if class units would get more visual touches from their race. On the gameplay side I think especially dreadnought, arch druid and sorcerer could benefit from more racial diversity

    2. MOD TOOLS

    No comment necessary.

    3. More new awesome content

    Whether its new races, new dwellings, new spells, new cool mechanics …. new content is always good.

    Stuff I d really like to see in Age of Wonders 4:

    1. HUGE battles / “realistic” scale

    One of the best things of AOW3 for me was that finally you see small units fighting and not single guys. But my dream fantasy strategy game features turn based battles where units are HUNDREDs of soldiers and battles involve THOUSANDS of them. Unfortunately there s so far no game like this.

    …. and while total war: Warhammer is coming to change that (and I look very much forward to it) unfortunately its not gonna have turn based battles but real time.

    Stuff I d really like to see in a Triumph game that is not Age of Wonders:

    I d absolutely love a triumph turn-based strategy game set in space …. but no mere Master of Orion clone …. I d love to see the following:

    1. Focus on Warfare rather than diplomancy & Economy (just like in AOW3)

    There s enough economy-focused space 4x, but unfortunately most/all of the recent space 4x games suck in the combat department

    2. Focus on planetary invasions

    An afterthought in pretty much every space strategy game but something that could be soooo freaking cool if done well. Think Warhammer 40k battles with huge titans(mechs), legions of infantry, orbital bombardment etc.

    #212331

    con1k
    Member

    I think modtools will allow the community to create plenty of content itself (units, races, spells, maybe even classes or specialisations). Though it would enrich the game further if new mechanics would be added or existing ones were expanded. Triumph already came up with plenty of great ideas the community did not think of before. Some ideas for mechanics have been mentioned in this thread already. I would add:

    Considering Drax comment: making units and maybe even selected skills tradeable or giftable in diplomacy. Trading spells was an aspect i greatly enjoyed in AoW 2 (even if sometimes a bit overpowered). To keep the classes distinct those may be only a few selected skills in every class / specialisation. Skills/Units gained by trading should not tradeable any further.

    Unless future modtools allow for changing those oneself, i would enjoy more and distinct cosmic events and empire quests.

    A nice extra would be more content in general, i sure would buy another expansion of such. There are plenty ideas for that.

    #212333

    Zorrino
    Member

    CRAP! I didn’t completely fill out my survey I accidentally pressed the Enter button, =( is there a way I can retake the survey by any chance? =)

    #212335

    I will be happy as long as we got these 3 things:

    1) Better Diplomacy System: right now it is a bit confusing and unpredictable;

    2) One more Race and possible one more Class: maybe Syrons? Dark Elfs? Lizards? or even something entirely new! And for Class I think Alchemist (converting Mana into Gold, using gold for ‘summoning’ a mix of wizard and dreadnought with a hint of druid!!) would be a cool one to have.

    3) Extra Leader Customization (something like this: http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/leader-customization-specializations/ , but also more leader specializations);

    Things like Mods tools and better campaign are also interesting, but not as much as the other 3 I pointed out.

    #212342

    Ilaro
    Member

    The only things I really want to see improved are the underground and water/sea. The last updates and expansion were a very good step in de right direction.
    Most of the game does feel already complete, while of course diplomacy can be improved (little bit lackluster right now) and I won’t say no against new or more diversity races.

    Edit: Almost forgot to say… bridge concealment for trolls really need to be a thing and the return of Karaghs!

    #212352

    SaintTodd
    Member

    For me it would be much better if they just (greatly) expanded existing specializations. But they are very reluctant to do that, sadly. I don’t appreciate that much introducing more and more new specs…

    This would make me happy. If I were able to build a mod, one priority would be to combine class spells into specializations (while doing away with classes), so that each specialization would have around 15 spells or so (adept + mastery). Then, I’d add new specializations to replace the classes, if necessary. Technology, nature magic, etc.
    Even if we get mod tools, I probably don’t have the skills to make it though…

    #212355

    meeber
    Member

    The Editor is the one feature that really needs some improvement.
    1. The ability to use the same custom Leaders, Heroes, and Items on multiple is a must. The Previous AOW games had this.
    2. And a way to see what your custom hero and leader looks like while creating their appearance.
    3. It would be nice to include the custom leaders that you have created in the game to also show in the editor.

    Other features of the game after all the DLC’s and patches are pretty damn good, miles ahead of any other 4x game out there.

    #212363

    emky
    Member

    Regarding the survey…

    I wish AI were an option in there — because that would have been my top choice for focus to work on, and, reading the forums, a lot of others would seem to agree.

    And to clarify my “multiplayer” features reqeuest that I answered slightly agree: I don’t mean more modes of multiplayer. I mean the ability to play LAN, without triumph.net or any other online connectivity. I don’t, even in the slightest, care about triumph.net features (except the forums) or for online multiplayer in any way.

    #212377

    jennaiel
    Member

    A way to save during tactical combat could be useful for multiplayer games.A random dc can totally screw one of the players.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 127 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.