A good many people were attracted to EQOM because it was sonbwhat billed as a "spiritual successor" to MoM.

While it should be entirely clear that it is not all that much like MoM, I still think it is completely right and expected that people express ideas on these boards and why they like or dislike them. Of course if someone is expressing an idea they like there is an unspoken "therefore it should be in EWOM." there is a logical point that I am getting to.

Not many people actually come out and say "x was in MoM so it should be in EWOM". But even if they did, I submit to you that what they are saying is. "I like x. I know that I like x because it was in MoM. Therefore, I would like to see it in EWOM."

In short, all opinions should be welcome, and the WHY of those opinions is really irrelevant. Some people want bear cavalry, and it really doesn't matter if they want it because they watched The Golden Compass too many times, they had a secret unrequited crush on their Teddy Bear, or they just think it is a cool idea. they are just expressing what they want, and again really the reason is irrelevant. They want what they want. So I think saying "This isn't MoM2." well first off it is a little condescending because really, that should be pretty obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60. Second, it really doesn't provide a good reason that X shouldn't be in the game. If there is an idea that someone likes, please come up with a better reason than "This isn't MoM2!" why it shouldn't be considered.

You're missing Denryu's main point. The "It was in MoM so it ought to be in Elemental" stuff is a red herring. I've mentioned MoM regularly and am one of those GC2 folks who waited a long while for the project formerly known as NotMoM to get its street name. But I never praised an idea or function simply because it was in MoM, and I don't see any reason to scoff something someone posts simply because they also mention MoM.

ChongLi's descriptions of how the MoM spell book system worked are a very good example. I don't expect (or even really want) Elemental to simply ape MoM's spell books, but I do want the magic system to provide an analgous level of flexibility (replayability). The info we've had so far about Elemental magic gives me an impression that we will have faction-specific spell trees that do not enable the sort of mix-and-match combinations that MoM spell books provide. Rather than repeat a good, longish explanation of a spell book system like ChongLi's every time the subject comes up, it is perfectly reasonable to make a short reference to MoM.

I'd preferably play a good game rather than one that is unique for the sake of being unique. That's how we got modern art, people!

I challenge you to find any post any where on this forum where anyone has promoted this idea. AFAIK no one has.

I think GW Swicord understands what I am saying - your argument for "something new" has some merit, but I don't think anyone (OK there are a few sickos out there that would) wants to eat a crap sandwich just for the sake of something different. I would have been just fine with a MoM with updated graphics. I have been fine with almost everything that has come out about how EWOM is going to be - even the things that I have qualms on I am happy to wait until beta and see how the ideas actually work before I become to emotionally committed to any ideas.

Again referring to GW's reponse #53 above:

ChongLi's descriptions of how the MoM spell book system worked are a very good example. I don't expect (or even really want) Elemental to simply ape MoM's spell books, but I do want the magic system to provide an analgous level of flexibility (replayability). The info we've had so far about Elemental magic gives me an impression that we will have faction-specific spell trees that do not enable the sort of mix-and-match combinations that MoM spell books provide.

This was a particularly good example. MoM had several things that kept bringing me back time and again - The huge variation available due to large spell variety, the different races and unique units only available to those races meant hundreds of games that you could try different things. And then add the aspect of the different abilities you could buy at game setup - now a strategy that might have sucked might be surprisingly powerful with a few new options.

Saying "it can be modded in" cannot be a catchall response to this kind of concern. There are certain things that need to be covered in the canonized release. and right now I am in the camp of I have concerns that this will not happen, but I am certainly willing to wait and see until we at least have beta and see how things develop towards release. I think the game could reach a point of being overly moddable. For instance in the canon game there will not be faction specific units - mostly because units are designed in the game, and there is nothing to indicate that any faction could design any unit that any other faction could. So whatever other differences factions may have (and I am sure there will be many and significant ones) units unique to a faction will not be one of those differences (at least AFAIK).

So, let's look at the "it can be modded" argument. Someone makes a mod that does have units that are faction specific - woot! Although they are not REALLY faction specific, because theoretically that same unit could be MODDED in for any other faction....

Anyway, I think I have beaten that idea into the ground, and I suspect you will either understand the concern (I suspect GW will see the point) or you are not going to see the concern.

 

I doubt anyone has come out and said it that brazenly, though I recall a post along the lines of "We need Myrror like MoM!"

It's a general attitude where MoM is up on a pedastil and anything that makes Elemental more like it is inherently good.

That's more than a few posts from landisaurus and more than a few sympathetic replies from other MoM lovers. And it's another good example of how "Elemental must be like MoM" talk is a red herring. landi is very involved in discussions about *lots* of ideas that MoM didn't (and couldn't have) included.

It is not MoM's fault that it is the only good example of a fantasy TBS game with a strong sandbox mode. If it had managed to spawn a true 'spiritual successor' before now, I'm sure the game would be mentioned as often or more on these boards. I don't believe I'm putting the game on any pedestal here. I'd be very happy to learn of a game other than MoM that could meet that basic need for highly replayble TBS in a fantasy setting. (Age of Wonders doesn't count for me because it cannot generate its own maps.)

Not to disparage Landi or his contributions (after all, he's one of the biggest contributor to these forums), but I agree with Scoutdog and Tridus here. He has on many occasions said things like "It doesn't look like we're going to have multiple plains. I can't imagine why, considering they were one of the fundamental features of MoM."

And those arguments aren't productive. Yeah, I understand that it's implied that he really liked multiple plains (if he didn't like it, he wouldn't be asking for their return). But in general, I think everyone is better off if people say what they like about a feature and why they want it. The reason I say this is that giving your reasoning can go a long way towards starting a great discussion on advantages, disadvantages and tweaks that might improve it. Yelling "I want multiple plains!" won't really accomplish that, at least not to the same extent.

But even better would be to say why they liked it in MoM. For one, features from one game don't always translate well to others - by writing out your reasons for liking it in MoM you force yourself to think about how it might work in Elemental.

What's really a problem IMO are comments along the line of "That's not at all like MoM, oh no!" That is the best way to stifle creativity that I can think of.

For sure. But I think it should go both ways. Rather than saying, "This should be in the game, because it was a good feature in MoM" I'd much rather see people say, "This should be in the game, I liked it in MoM because of ______." I'd prefer it even more if they'd go a whole step farther and add, "It'd be cool if they changed this aspect of it" either simply to improve it or to make it work better with what we already know about Elemental. Sometimes extra discussion like this isn't really applicable, but it almost always is with just a little bit of thought.

Saying, "X should be in the game!" with no clarification or other information is not particularly conducive to constructive discussion. 

I should be (a character) in the game!

Man, I really miss the days when Games Domain was really By Gamers, For Gamers. Even the current wikipedia page doesn't make it clear that Age of Wonders eventually attempted to do sandbox maps. And even though I have no real idea what you really like in a TBS game, your preference for the map editor over the random map generator leaves me still thinking that no game since MoM has done that particular job well.

Woah. This discussion really took off. For those of you that may be skeptical about all the comparisons I make to MoM and the claims I make that things should be "like MoM", I hope this explanation satisfies you:

It has been stated many times that this game is intended to be a spiritual successor to MoM though not exactly like MoM. Knowing this, I approached the discussion with my extensive experience in MoM and its many pluses and minuses. In my opinion, if you are making a successor to a game (especially a really good one) you must examine these pluses and minuses carefully and find a way to turn the minuses into pluses.

From what I see going on here, I worry that some of the minuses of MoM are being overlooked and many of the pluses are being changed simply for the sake of being different. To me, that carries a big risk of turning pluses into minuses and totally messing up the game in the process.

Whenever I argue that something should be more like MoM, it is because I believe that such a feature is extremely beneficial to the game and that the game would suffer without it. A proper successor uses the original as a starting point and seeks to improve upon it. A great deal of what was in MoM was extremely well thought out and it would be a shame to see those things discarded for the sake of being different.

I'm not taking anything for granted. If EWoM is too different from MoM, it may not be possible to do everything I want in a mod. The closer the game is to MoM, the easier it will be to do the mod.

I'm a big fan of Dwarf Fortress as well.  However, I do not believe that EWoM should draw much inspiration from that game, as it is on a totally different scale - a few dozen to a hundred dwarves in a small fortress vs. a vast empire of millions of people.

It's sort of like comparing SimCity to The Sims.  You aren't going to be buying new wallpaper and redecorating the houses of millions.