NTJedi - you're missing the fundamental point of his (sarcastic) argument, and the point of this thread (as I see it). This is a contest in the loosest definition of the term, and I suspect its primary function is to give people like us, who are hopelessly addicted to these forums, something to do akin to twiddling our fingers while waiting in anticipation for the alpha to arrive.
[quote who="Kitkun" reply="6" id="2289173"]In GalCiv2 terms, it'd be the morally righteous do-gooder Altarians allying with the xenophobic nd genocidal Korath.[/quote] But that would only happen if a third party came a long that was hated by the Altarians and Korath even more than they hate each other, and only if the Altarians and Korath understood that their only chance of victory against this abomination is to join forces. Once that's over (assuming they win) they'd b
[quote who="KellenDunk" reply="10" id="2289140"] I'm all for becoming a more unified world, but why must we use a constructed language to do it? And if we are using constructed languages why not Elvish or Klingon? Yes Esperanto is equivalent to Klingon in my way of thinking.[/quote] I totally agree. Why use a constructed language when we have hundreds of languages already in use, some by significant portions of the world already (spanish, english, hindi and
I have to agree, they look extraordinarily out of place. The view Scoutdog mentioned makes me think they're shooting ranges, but I don't see why they need to be bright, glowing painted vistas.... In fact it doesn't make sense to me that they'd have a giant piece of cloth behind the targets - it'd just become riddled with holes and if someone happened to be walking behind it the people practicing wouldn't be able to see.
I'd love to see something like this. Temporary alliances with specific terms. Even though we hate each other, we join forces to thrash an even more hated 3rd party but that's it . No obligation to defend each other from new threats or other players, for example, and only limited sharing of intelligence. It would be neat if we could choose what kind of intelligence to share, like any intelligence regarding our mutual enemy, intelligence about our militaries (possibly limited to selecte
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="22" id="2287657"]Wikipedia article posted above says 1 in 500 have the polydactyl gene, which is pretty common if you think about it. (means like a billion people world wide, right?)[/quote] 1/500 of less than 7 billion is more like 14 million people, not 1 billion... Still, 14 million 6-fingered people is more than I'd have guessed even if most of them have had them removed.
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="14" id="2286739"]I agree that Robbies AI-assistant ideas are ambitious, but I wonder if they're not quite as ambitious as pigeon and Climber seem to think. I can't find it quickly, but some time ago, Brad made an OP that discussed just how 'smart' PCs could become as multiple cores and 64-bit BUS become the norm. He sounded very ambitious to me there, but he's a pro and I'm not. (He also avoided direct talk about timeframes, IIRC.)[/quote] I remember tha
[quote who="psychoak" reply="16" id="2287380"]There are two very old writings that have it as 616, they may have been right, and they may have been fudged to poke fun at the asshole in chief of the time, no one liked Nero much, his name added up to 616.[/quote] They wouldn't have needed to fudge the number to poke fun at Nero - there were two common ways to spell his name in hebrew: one of which adds up to 616 and the other adds up to 666. Still, someone might have fudged it anyway ju
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="18" id="2287322"]OK, I admit that I basically prefer the strict, precipitation-based definition of desert, but I also believe that science advances by questioning and revising its own fundamental categories, so I don't agree about your "no point" point.[/quote] I just meant that there is no point changing the scientific meaning of the word desert just to make it conform to popular misconception. If someone comes along with a new, more useful/informative
[quote who="Denryu" reply="10" id="2287281"]Yep tying content to achievements would suck. But making it so your channelers eyes glow and crap like that would be fun, and other ways to pimp out your chaneller's appearance, stuff like that would be very cool.[/quote] I'm opposed to even that. I hate going for achievements, but I want to be able to make my channelers eyes glow and crap like that. If I buy the game, I should have access to all of its content without having to actively pur
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="12" id="2287192"]anyway, I'm not argueing the point anymore. I feel that the name is missleading and I think the scientific community should reconsider same of the names we apply to some ecosystems. (I got pluto removed as a planet by having a similar opinion. The universe curves to my demands if I remain by them I say)[/quote] Scientists gave the current definition to "desert" long before people perverted it to the extent that most p
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="7" id="2287180"]I think the idea behind achievements is that they take the devs almost no time to add (compared to any other feature), and the people who like achievements like achievements. Peaplo who don't like achievements are not going to have their normal gameplay hurt, so there isn't really a sacrifice to add it. And failing to have achievements could get you knocked down a fraction of a point from some reviewers. For something so easy
[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="18" id="2286920"]So do I. I know people @ school with that sort of skill, but they all work on paper, and I know from practice that doing that sort of thing with a mouse, or even worse a laptop touch-pad, is waaaay harder.. Well, it is his job, after all............[/quote] I would be surprised if the art team at Stardock doesn't use graphics tablets... But then you never know. I do actually know some people who can do incredible things with things like <a
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="20" id="2286602"]that is exactly my point. It isn't unpopulated or abandoned. A "desert" able to support cactus has to be VERY populated, and in the case of the desert that holds saguaro, more populated than most temperate forests (going on a number of different species per area rather than pure density of seperate entities, 'cause you can't compete with grass). "desertification" turns areas into sandy-unpopulated areas, and happens no matter
[quote who="Denryu" reply="11" id="2286741"] Quoting ThreeKings, reply 10 Quoting Luckmann, reply 21 What's the meaning of life? 42 (or 00101010) or 2A [/quote] or 1120
July 14th, 6:00 pm GMT.
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="14" id="2286478"]they are misnamed "deserts" because the term suggests that it is "desert" and the term "desertification" describes when land is being converted into the stereotypical sandy-dune type places. So like the Arizona deserts suffer from "desertification". Yes there is a definition of "desert" that fits Arizona... that is why its called a desert, but the word itself is missleading. There is more than one definition to it.[/quot
[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="10" id="2286152"]Actually, this sort of thing looks feasible, especially since this sort of thing will be included in the opponent AI anyway. The "parser" for the objectives might take a little work, but that should be fairly simple as well.[/quote] I disagree. If it were easy or simple in any way to make an AI able to converse meaningfully with a human, then AI governors - not to mention diplomacy with AIs - and the like would be so much better than they
[quote who="Rhadagast" reply="9" id="2286329"]Uhh Yeah, I don't care if they put some cacti in, I expect there to be dragons and dudes that can shoot fire from their hands, so a few extra bits of fauna isn't going to hurt my feeling. What would be nice is if the cacti was not bigger then the giant destroyed castle that is closer to the point of view then the cacti. I mean, that cacti must be growing on a elemental shard or something, its epic![/quote] When I looked at the
[quote who="Robbie.Price" reply="8" id="2283736"]The only differeance is that My suggestion has ALL The AI's you want working for you all in one meta AI including the AI town governer, and none of them will disapoint, because none of them will surprise you, if you set the AI govner on a town, it showes you what it thinks your town needs, why, what goals it's setting for itself, and what it's going to build to meet those goals. and if you don't like it, you change them. no mo
[quote who="Denryu" reply="3" id="2285569"]I mostly wondered because in the first screen shot from the most recent Dev journal, there is a heavy black line that separates the high ground of the hill from the lowlands below. To me that art style seemed to represent a set camera angle...I can see how they could get it to work with a rotating camera as well, but right or wrong, it gave me the impression of a fixed camera angle.[/quote] That thick line reminds me more of cel-shading than
[quote who="Vandenburg" reply="25" id="2284529"]Looks pretty pretty. The first picture makes me wonder though, is the map 3d or are mountains and hills just bumbs in the landscape like in CivIV?[/quote] The maps are fully 3D. We've known that for some time already! And that screenshot, among other earlier ones, make it pretty clear.
Best post ever! :P [quote]Players can zoom in and out as they see fit. Players design roads ala Simcity but they are built automatically by workers (similar to Civ IV).[/quote] That sounds like an awesome way of doing it. I'm surprised it hasn't really been done before... Also, I'm surprised that you put up that zoomed out combat picture with the dragon and catapults and squares again. Back at release you (or BoogieBac?) told us that that screensho
[quote who="Robbie.Price" reply="20" id="2283160"] Yes/no questions should only ever be asked regarding problems with binary solutions - of which there are not that many. I'm not sure how much i agree. two options will often be enough, and beyond 3 i can't think of many situations where you'll have more then 3 things you'd want to choose to do with the span of 1 turns walking for ONE unit, that changes during that turn. you run up to a town, Attack, seige, retreat.
[quote who="landisaurus" reply="18" id="2282849"]the quote button hasn't worked for me in a while either, but I assumed it was some update conflicting with google chrome. I have not complained about it much because I just take it to be the price for using chrome rather than firefox. (I've tried to switch back, but I'm addicted to the address bar functions of chrome, not to mention the quality tab functions. I miss not-chrome's bookmark management though)[/quote] Th