omega_zeta

[quote who="Lord Reliant" reply="6" id="1943462"]How do you search by post author? And can you specify between a reply and a post? Great job![/quote] Well, the engine displays posts by the searched user first then it will display times when the users name is used in the post as well. I have tweeked the engine but it, unfortunatly, wont find every single reply by a user. Also, the SD forum has a built in feature to find all posts created

On this forum I think "sticky" is refered to as "pinned". If SD doesn't want to pin this that is fine. The search engine will still be availible for use by anyone.

[quote who="StoweMobile" reply="2" id="1942018"]...it will become very useful around the time when beta starts! [/quote] My thoughts exactly. Its always a pain to scroll though the bug report fourm to see if you are the first person or not to report a bug.

Btw, this custom search engine allows you to search for posts/replies by author... (i.e. frogboy)

I have not had any luck with the search bar for this forums so I created this custom Google search engine for the Elemental forum for use by anyone. Enjoy... Note: This search attempts to exclude off-topic threads.

[quote who="keithLamothe" reply="10" id="1935904"]-- Pick a tech category, and the computer randomly selects an eligible tech in the category; this will be, maybe, 90% efficient[/quote] Are you thinking only one category at a time or would multiple be possible? i.e. focus on 2 out of the four possible catigories

Excellent ideas everyone. [e digicons]:grin:[/e] [quote who="Spartan" reply="6" id="1935579"]Great. So it looks like we have a consensus. Now for some feedback from SD...[/quote] I agree...

After some more reading I too have to say that I would be more in favor of of 'blind/focused/specific' model as well. As delad mentioned I think it would give a good balance between those that want to specialize and those that what more replayability.

The past dozen posts are great. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] I never wanted to implement an exact copy of the SMAC technology system and I apologize coming across that way. I was trying to expose the idea of a non-standard tech system to the rest of the forum and SMAC was the best example i could think of. I was also trying to stay away from specifics b/c we are operating in near total ignorance of what the developers are thinking about technology at the moment. I think a situati

[quote who="keithLamothe" reply="4" id="1934411"](remember, this proposal is just for "blind research" to be an _option_, not mandatory, not even defaulted to "on") Sounds cool as an option, and I would probably play some games with it on. The tricky thing development-time-budget wise is balancing the number of semi-niche options to implement versus time spent on core features and whatnot. <br

[quote who="Cuddlelump" reply="2" id="1934293"]Focused research could be interesting. It'd be great if it could be done in such a way that the game did so based on your needs, since that is how most techs are discovered through necessity and happenstance. [/quote] The beauty of this system is that these tech trees are not linear and in essence simulate this. If you are focusing only on military and run out of military techs that you meet the prer

You could always just give scout units the ability to immediately see a challenge rating for a specific group of troops/mobs but take time to see how many and of what type they are depending on skill level of the scout. That way you wont go into a fight entirley blind.

[quote who="landisaurus" reply="19" id="1933929"]well, thats just it. Min-maxing is what a lot of players WANT to do. It makes them feel special. If everybody is a mix, then nothing really stands out. However, if they min-max, it lets them focus on something. It lets them say "yeah, I'm a fire guy" or "yeah, I a sword guy. I know nothing about clubs, but thats ok because I'm awesome with the sword". People WANT to say that. the

[quote who="McFungos" reply="6" id="1933628"] Next Intel socket 1336 offers triple channel ram possibility (3x1 gigs or 3x2 gigs). So it would be very likely to see 3 gig & 6 gigs in 2010 future PCs. [/quote] In that case I would opt for 12 GB. It will be great for 64-bit native games and even better for large structural optimization problems [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

[quote who="the Gorgon" reply="11" id="1933589"]I don' like this approach at all (acknowledging I'm not familiar with the SMACK me system)[/quote] Btw, SMAC => Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri When you say you dont like it at all are you saying that the option for this style shouldn't be included or that you would use the option for the more standard tech system instead?

I have just updated the explanation of the concept to better convey the ideas involved to those unfamiliar with SMAC.

[quote who="McFungos" reply="2" id="1933057"]Elemental should be available in bundle with 4 gigs & 6 gigs rams packs. [/quote] Agreed, but if you are going to do 6 GB ram might as well make it 8 GB. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

Just pre-ordered... This game sounds great. Keep up the good work Stardock.

[quote who="Spartan" reply="5" id="1932634"]I really like the SMAC research system personally. To me it added much to the games replay value.[/quote] I agree, in Civ 4 I constantly find myself repeating the same research track regardless of which nation I am playing.

[quote who="Akashir" reply="10" id="1930262"]I would like a game where sheer size and population don't govern strength, much less another empire's likelyhood to attack you. One of the main reasons for a land rush is fear that somebody else will get those super useful reources, and the more land you have, the stronger you are.[/quote] With 64-bit support the maps can be so huge that this wouldnt be a major factor IMO.

[quote who="NorsemanViking" reply="1" id="1932453"]I don't like the luck factor in it, and the way it replaces strategical choices with.... yah, luck.......[/quote] I agree with Wahngrok that it would do more to alleviate micromanagement and change the stratigic choices but that is why I said option. I do not want the game to have only one style of research locked in b/c not everyone is going to agree with me. I would like the option for focused research to be included as a new game s

I agree that a game supporting a 64-bit OS is a huge step in the right direction and I am also a fan of nvidia b/c of their superb 64-bit support.

From most of the screen shots it can be seen that the player would be researching specific technological/magical goals. I would argue for the option of focused technology/magical progression. By focused technology progression I mean a research system akin to that found in SMAC, where you set your prefer research direction(s) but have no control over exactly what is researched. <span style="font-size: small

[quote who="McFungos" reply="3" id="1931433"]Player should start with a rough map of the world & a better one of its immediate vicinity. The game universe has a past, so it's not uncommun to start with some minimal geography knowledge. It could be nice to have maps as purchasable items that would give you more precise information about certain area : dongeons, ruins, mines,.... [/quote] Thats an excellent point. I do agree that there should b

LOL, I wouldn't put it past them. If they did something like that I would think it would be with the names of the dragons. The other stuff is too obvious...