truly, no i would stay. i would adapt and overcome.Originally Posted by Rassputtin
Its partially my fault for including the "shut up rass" option, so no offense taken there. My problem is not the time for ideas its the priority of them. There are things that are in my opinion straight broken and logically flawed. The turn processing code for example as far as paying for the loss before using the turns paradigm. The interaction of units and attacking system. I feel like things that are logically or legitametely broken should take precedence over things like adding missles or other little quirks.
This sampling is small but my point of this poll was to demonstrate that the military aspect of the game is the most important aspect. The most important aspect of something should be the most flawless and fine tuned portion of it. So IMO the types of units, how they interact and how they can be used should be the most important, complex and integral part of the game.
I feel like if the gameplay was shifted more towards military makeup, and which units to carry and use based on a drastically more complex method of interaction, and less options and time required in the lesser mechanics of the game it would be a better game and people would be more inclined to stay and play it.
The devil is in the details, and its the little things that add up that make a person think something is good or not.
I think there are too many options and quirks and gimmicks in the portions of the game that are deemed secondary, and the portion deemed primary (military) is simple and generic in its execution.
So if the game changed relatively drastically it would not matter to you?
But old timers are the first to protest against change.
Land is the commodity. So the question remains about that land.
If you had to choose one option which would it be. What would you find more fun to focus on. Building an army, economy or infrastructure.
Reply With Quote
