psychoak

If memory serves correctly, and that's by no means a sure thing for something pulled from such odd context, they appologized to the RA3 player base for the treatment they recieved. Someone claimed that EA was turning around on the Spore forum, mentioning the apology. Of course, then Spore came out, so... This may have just been because an expansion was coming out, I stopped purchasing the series after Generals pissed me off with the homo terrorism crap.&nbsp

Don't stop, I find you equally amusing. If you stop taking the bait, I wont have anything to read.

Ok, so you would have been implicated in my views. The stupid part still works though, right?

Yeah, if it was EA they would have come out with an appology six months from now saying you really deserved a patch. :)

[quote]It's still true, however. If you add tactical combat, people that don't like it will complain. If you add auto-resolve on top of that, it will invariably suck in comparison, forcing the usage of tactical combat regardless. Make it horribly convoluted and you're actually just digging a deeper pit to be heckled in. Remove tactical combat and those who dislike it will be happy, because the issue of auto-resolve as the lesser option is moot as everything settles into a unison equilibrium.[

KISS can be turned around. Simple, being a mimicry of life. Complicated, being an attempt to make life simple by abstracting things in an unrealistic manner, leading to balance problems and artificial limitations. Custom formations using multiple troop types for synergistic combat were common place in war. The end result of such a simplication is more complicated tactical combat requirements. Instead of formation

[quote]I've never even heard of a TBS game where two players were evenly matched with troops, terrain, resources, etc., etc., and then both players ran out of resources evenly matched causing a stalemate.[/quote] That's probably because they're all RTS games. :) It happens all the time. You get two asshats that are too closely matched, and they wipe each other out in the middle of the map, rarely getting forces into the enemy stronghold.&nbs

Even just copying shit from the board gets you bold text that can't be reset. I wouldn't blame MS for everything. :) I think I don't want to need a quad core just to run the physics engine. I'd rather the cycles were put to something more useful, like AI. Destructible terrain, yeah. Sword swings using actual physics to determine damage is over kill. If I can set off a nuke from my channeler and wipe out half a city, leaving

Tactical combat complaints tend to center around how long the game will take to play, or how unfair it is against the AI. My guess is that the latter is single player types, and the former is multi-player types. As single player gamers vastly outnumber multi-player gamers, in the hundreds and thousands to one range, the relatively minuscule level of complaint leads me to think it's mostly multi-player types that get bent over it. Assuming th

Being the internet, I could provide video evidence and the claim still wouldn't be taken as serious. Thus the incident to forget would be someone bullshitting, I'd hope something everyone is assuming occurs with regularity.

[quote] Edit: Get yourself an avatar already, psychoak. I keep having to think when seeing your posts. Liek, wth? [/quote] Why should I have to think just so you can pretend you live in a pictogram based society? Finding some dumb avatar to add meaningless data to my posts is a waste of effort. I reserve my wasted efforts for things that amuse me. Or piss me off. Masochism is terrible. &nb

Hell, I don't have any idea what they were thinking. I just pretend they don't exist while watching TWOK.

[quote]Wow, this post is so full of fail. Starting with the use of gay like a drunk 19 year old douchey frat boy, continuing with the rant about how doomed tactical combat is, then saying at least it's not gay shit like auto-resolve. Then backs up his stellar arguments with "think about it", which is again the drunk frat boy equivalent of "Am I right? Am I right? Yea, damn right I'm right."[/quote] Denryu wins. My response is thus; Moo. Seri

If hording essence means you're an army raping god of war, that is a feasible strategy. Guy with 20 cities goes oh shit, it's the enemy channeler, ahh! Poof, city dissappears. You'd have an overwhelming advantage where ever the blighter was at. My guess is that you'd have to play more offensively if you really went small, but you'd still have a titanic force at your disposal that your opponent had to match with overwhelming numbers.

I'm hurt, really! :( I may not give a shit about being politically correct, but I don't go out of my way to avoid it either. When something seems like I should probably have left it out, I get rid of it. It comes without thinking, and then I get rid of some of it after thinking about it. Of course, this also means that, aside from the rare thing that gets through, I consider all my posts to be appropriate and deserved. :)

Note, on the first question, lower number is better score for those of you that only read the end result.

Shields and hulls are both massively more powerful in Star Trek. Plasma torpedo and standard photon torpedo have been stated to be relatively close in power aside from the massive speed difference. Plasma torpedo hit shields, shields go poof. Plasma torpedo hit hull, ship go boom. Photon torpedo hit shields, shields go down 20%. Sixth or seventh photon torpepo hit hull, hull have hole several meters in diameter. Conclusion, comparable shitl

[quote] ≠ is the correct symbol.[/quote] Incorrect. ≠ is for math, != is for code monkey. I'm sure someone out there uses it, but most sane people like to avoid three and four digit alt codes when typing.

This is why auto-resolve is gay. In a game with tactical combat, people whine about how auto-resolve will suck. To make it not suck, you make it complicated. Then the people, that don't want tactical combat to begin, with complain about how it's too complicated to use the auto resolve. Then you make it simple by taking all the complicated stuff out, and they bitch about how it uses a spell, or doesn't use a spell, or loses too many troops. Basica

I imagine most of the people that are bored by 4X games like Civ would be more entertained if they had tactical combat. The lame combat empire builder market is already saturated. Master of Magic was the definition of a buggy shit release. Master of magic had tactical combat. Master of magic is still a big name in the 4X world. Just because no one seems to give a shit about the market doesn't mean it isn't there. Even if the Civ market is b

You're welcome. I'm confident my suggestion was accurate, since you've reinforced the view. You'll have loads of fun with DoW. :) Micro != thinking.

I'd rather the AI doesn't suck so that tactical combat is interesting and people don't want to skip it.

Yeah, even Civ games can be over inside an hour. All you do is play offensively on a small map.

Odd questions in that one...

That's because I moderate my own posts before submittal...