LightofAbraxas

20 bucks? Yeah, you'll probably recoup most of that in savings on FE.

I'm in cognitive science. And you're probably right about the cost. Plus, I'd imagine that the temporal resolution you need for this sort of thing is quite a bit less than is used for research.

Looks good, let me know if you need any help (besides playtesting). I have a bunch of spell xml just gathering dust in my hard drive that you are welcome to look at for examples or just straight-up use.

I use a Tobii eye-tracker for research, and I have to say that their products are very high quality, but reeeeeeeally expensive. As in take out a second mortgage on your house expensive. Or sell your eye-tracker and buy a Lexus expensive. Nice find, though. Certainly less invasive than the interfaces they use now for people with complete paralysis.

[quote]Agree but multiplying by 10 and having the monsters and normal units reflect increased count, in my mind, adds to some epic feel. Totally agree it does nothing to change the pacing or other opportunities to improve the gameplay.[/quote] Previous comment aside, I might agree with you (I'd have to think about it a bit). Of course, this would entail much much smaller unit graphics to accomodate 120 men on a tile, which I'm not sure I'm a fan of. Honestly, I just want a little bit

Don't care. My friends aren't really into FTBS (or any computer game). If the world revolved around me, I'd say drop it altogether and focus your resources on single player. But, since I've been informed that it doesn't, I can accept the development of a decent multiplayer game on a philosophical level.

Umm, you probably know this already (or, I hope that you do), but multiplying prestige, population requirements, and housing by 10 gives the exact pacing that we have now.

[quote who="jeffalford" reply="5" id="2895158"]I so want Cam Newton for my Panthers, Hated him beating my Gamecocks but, Yes with the Panthers he could be effective!! [/quote] I used to wish that Roethlisberger would get traded for a first-round pick and that Cam would get picked up by the Steelers, but now I'm kind of glad that didn't happen. Say what you want about Ben, at least he doesn't run his damn mouth all the time. Cam Newton is certainly *not* an icon.

[quote]In general, the first type of passive abilities would have the same limiting factors as damage types/resistances where they would simply add a well defined set of mechanisms with which the player can simply min max in his tactical decision making. The second type could be used for any number of different purposes including the first, while allowing spells and active abilities to be create which can instantly alter the dynamics of combat depending on player choice.[/quote] You'r

Does Crusader Kings run on Vista? Wikipedia listed Win 98 as a requirement...

[quote]Someone who drains the life from the land will generally be considered to be evil. Any changes to the art style won't mitigate that impression.[/quote] As far as I know, there are no mechanics (besides the friendly territory bonus) or lore references to "draining the lands." So, when the art is removed, it doesn't really exist anymore, does it?

HUGS ALL AROUND!

[e digicons]:beer:[/e]

*Gasp* The Special Abilities Guy was pushing for more special abilities? Now, that's suprising. Seriously, though, while I do agree with most of this, I would imagine that for tactical combat to be deep and fun, this would have to be one change of several. Honestly, I think that you get to a point of diminishing returns and to where they no longer feel "special" pretty quickly.

[quote]Indeed. And pardon me, but I don´t need ideas of how I could interpret that what the game shows me to help with immersion. Either the Empire spoils the land or it doesn´t. If it doesn´t, just leave that aspect out of the game and replace it with a "guardian spell" that gives you the combat bonus that you get when fighting on your respective type of land. If it does, this really should reflect in gameterms. Don&acu

[quote]Agreed. I'm hoping the battle AI will be a little more up to snuff in this one as well. I have high hopes though as they're saying the battle AI in this version was somehow modeled after Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". I'm no AI programmer so I don't know how exactly the programming end of that would work, but, I have read "The Art of War" and many of it's founding principles are still viable and in use today by militaries around the world. If the battle AI is even half as good then I expe

[quote]Would making armor, weapons, and magic interact more complex add depth? With enough added complexity, can the game become "un-min-maxable" and thus more elegant?[/quote] I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think I like it. [quote] Would forcing players in elemental to play with some more variety - IE, a couple random Sovereign traits, a couple random starting units/buildings, help make elemental more interesting? [/quote] I don't care for this at a

Everytime I make a comment about skin, I get slapped. Err, wait, that's not what we're talking about here?

NP. Good luck, I know that I've enjoyed messing around with the game's code. Plus the community is really very helpful. I agree about the coding changes... hopefully Schafer is hard at work on some of this.

This game looks pretty fantastic. I'm skeptical that the AI is as great as they say, but hey!, the sys specs are low enough to run on my laptop! Edit: Granted, with a few mods, the M2TW AI (well, the tactical one, anyway- definitely NOT the strategic) was good enough to wipe the fields with me, so maybe that wouldn't be as much of a plus as I'd imagined.

[quote who="RogueCaptain" reply="14" id="2892523"]The two games are polar opposites although EWoM did try to include some of those features like the diplomacy tree units. [/quote] Yeah, they're quite different, but I wouldn't say polar opposites, exactly. The polar opposite of FfH2 would be me sitting in the real world, not fighting with anyone, and not having much fun. Sounds suspiciously like most of my Mondays.

[quote]You want the best of both. Awesome preset units and custom designed ones. Good story lore but the ability to create your own race and nation. Tiered gameplay but solid linear progression. Endless paradoxes, some people just are never satisfied.[/quote] Pretty much. I want compelling lore, massively different factions, strategic considerations, and fun mechanics like FfH2, with the tactical combat, better spell system, and unique weapons of Elemental. The fact that Kael is on th

Is there a way to set a useful casting time? I want to be able to cast more then one spell in a combat turn. Is there a way to get the random damage back? Do we need SD to fix this again? Is there a way to make certain spells "roll" to hit like weapons? Is there a way to make items (armour, weapons, mounts) granted via spell, have a cost per turn and then dispell when the enchantment is canceled? I have a spell now that grants an item, costs initial mana,

I would like to suggest that Stardock implements a strict Ice Cream Mondays policy. Recently collected data ( n =1) suggests that employee satisfaction increases by 15% when eating chocolate ice cream on Mondays. Just no vanilla. I hate vanilla!

So, I know that I just mentioned this, but allowing for passive special abilities that run persistant calculations would also allow for the implementation of a per combat Spell Points system that a handful of people seemed to want in addition to scaling Accuracy/Damage/Dodge with current HP levels without too much hassle.