Fistalis

[quote who="ShideKnight" reply="67" id="2867441"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 54 What it is with language and action, is that it really should be reasonable to try to not be offensive to people, unless the situation requires it.A valid statement. However the mere use of a taboo word doesn't necessarily denote an intent to offend. That's true, but the person hearing can be offended regardless of what the intent is. And in general, that's the important part when it comes

[quote who="BlackRainZ" reply="64" id="2867411"] Again, I said that some may or may not be based on religion but I think that it is more a matter of what are the important things to people that cause profanities to have power over us and the meanings behind the words. It isn't just the words themselves as you are right in the sense that "GRAB" could have been the word which was associated with a particular notion. That is irrelevant though. Ancestors, religion,

[quote who="brycex99" reply="60" id="2867389"]@Fistalis, I only say this because I think you would want to know, but I think you were looking for the word "etymology" which is the study of the history of words, whereas "entomology" is generally reserved for the study of insects I don't say it to be rude, but it just seems like you would want to know that! That being said, I don't think words like that are considered "taboo" in the sense that you mean, because our language is fairl

[quote who="BlackRainZ" reply="55" id="2867373"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 49 Quoting BlackRainZ, reply 47 Quoting Fistalis, reply 43 I also disagree that "cursing" are just words. It is true that they are words but our minds ascribe meanings to those words which have a negative affect on our minds. Which words you choose to ascribe a negative connotation to shouldn't alter everyone's vocabulary or lack there of. You ascribe meaning to the words and as such may b

[quote]What it is with language and action, is that it really should be reasonable to try to not be offensive to people, unless the situation requires it.[/quote] A valid statement. However the mere use of a taboo word doesn't necessarily denote an intent to offend.

[quote who="BlackRainZ" reply="47" id="2867339"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 43 I also disagree that "cursing" are just words. It is true that they are words but our minds ascribe meanings to those words which have a negative affect on our minds. Which words you choose to ascribe a negative connotation to shouldn't alter everyone's vocabulary or lack there of. You ascribe meaning to the words and as such may become offended at a word others do not ascribe the same meaning to

[quote] I also disagree that "cursing" are just words. It is true that they are words but our minds ascribe meanings to those words which have a negative affect on our minds.[/quote] Which words you choose to ascribe a negative connotation to shouldn't alter everyone's vocabulary or lack there of. You ascribe meaning to the words and as such may become offended at a word others do not ascribe the same meaning to. If i decide to get offended at the word "that" should you quit using it

The worst is me. An self important egotistical critic who holds no allegiance and expects far more than is possible in practicality. /endthread

[quote who="Cruxador" reply="41" id="2866787"] Quoting AlLanMandragoran, reply 38Derek - unsure what coding is required but is it possible, if a SOV dies, that the remaining cities and associated resources pass to the monster and ruffian faction instead of just poofing out of existence? This is something that should take advantage of dynasties - rather than falling to chaos, this faction should merely take on a new leader - the one next in line for the throne.[/quote]

[quote who="Panda_Power" reply="116" id="2866860"]It makes me wonder if Kael and Jon Shafer maybe just can't see doing anything with EWOM and want to start from scratch. It also seems a bit early to be talking about heading up a new team for a completely new project/game when there still seems so much to be done to EWOM. I just don't really buy the whole, "we don't need expansion packs in this day and age" story. Who is going to keep an older, more inferior game installe

[quote]They avoided what you describe, though, of a massive empire with more and more reliance on subordinates.[/quote]Pssh thats one of the best parts. Not only does it limit empire size by the amount of risk your willing to take with any particular subordinate but History is full of fallen rulers due to disloyal or incompetent subordinates. Et tu brute? Incompetent rulers who succeeded due to their subordinates. I'm looking at you Ming Dynasty. New kingdoms started by disloy

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="43" id="2866838"]Actually, the only stat that I don't think is totally underpowered is Charisma. All other stats have been given unimpressive flat rate bonuses at best, instead of magnifying and scaling with equipment (or spells). Charisma, on the other hand, does something that no piece of equipment can do: boost prestige on its own. It's still probably better to have a combat-monster sov than a sov sitting in your capital, but at least Charism

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="41" id="2866829"]Considering that the effects of stats are pretty much another set of abilities, no, I'm not neglecting that. Furthermore, you've just listed another restriction: int required to cast certain spells. Wouldn't that limit options too? Well, yes, it very much would - you can't make a dumb spellcasting sov then. *I* have no problem with that as a way to increase the viability of other options, but you suggesting it seems comple

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="39" id="2866819"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 38 If you never use the "exploit", why would it's solution be limiting you? Suggested solutions being what? Increase the point costs of X trait Y and Z trait? Now if i choose X i get l less points to use on stats bonuses etc limiting me. limit the number of traits that can be used? Now instead of taking 3 traits unrelated to the exploit i'm limited to 2 traits. <b

[quote]If you never use the "exploit", why would it's solution be limiting you?[/quote] Suggested solutions being what? Increase the point costs of X trait Y and Z trait? Now if i choose X i get l less points to use on stats bonuses etc limiting me. limit the number of traits that can be used? Now instead of taking 3 traits unrelated to the exploit i'm limited to 2 traits. every change in the name of balance has implications for options outside of simpl

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="34" id="2866794"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 32your the one who goes out of his way to exploit the rules.. not I. Then say i'm the one who wants unrestricted play? lol You can restrict yourself.. you know.. don't use the exploit in your custom sov build.. Yes, you are arguing against restrictions. You've been busily saying that there's nothing wrong with an overpowered strategy being permitted by the game rules. Cre

Not to mention the inevitable conflicting opinions of fans. If you try to please everyone somebodies not gonna like it.. ROFLMAO

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="30" id="2866772"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 26But try balancing a trait.. vs a stat... Speaking from experience, it's no different from balancing a piece of equipment that does damage vs a piece of equipment with a rule-changing ability. It's the effect that matters - not what you call the category. Oh, and while you're busy complaining about customization options, why don't you complain that you can't just fireball the

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="30" id="2866772"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 26But try balancing a trait.. vs a stat... Speaking from experience, it's no different from balancing a piece of equipment that does damage vs a piece of equipment with a rule-changing ability. It's the effect that matters - not what you call the category.[/quote]Yes its the gameplay effect.. however as a general rule.. different catagories are going to have different effects on gameplay mechanics an

[quote who="Austinvn" reply="28" id="2866768"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 23 t's about ensuring that there are different and roughly balanced ways to min/max, not just one stat to end all stats, not just one successful strategy that trumps all others. See this is what I don't get. You can't use custom sovs in multiplayer so why does it matter if there is ONE silly min max that you can walk over the AI with? Just cause it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. The balance pr

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="24" id="2866764"] Quoting Fistalis, reply 23 t's about ensuring that there are different and roughly balanced ways to min/max, not just one stat to end all stats, not just one successful strategy that trumps all others. See this is what I don't get. You can't use custom sovs in multiplayer so why does it matter if there is ONE silly min max that you can walk over the AI with? Just cause it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. If you

[quote who="Corbeaubm" reply="22" id="2866761"]As much as I'm on the balance side of the argument, I don't think that a D&D 3.5 vs 4e analogy is a particularly good one for Elemental. 4e dramatically reduced D&D's scope and options, in terms of actual roleplaying, relative to earlier editions. Going back though, if you think that Elemental has more customization than GSB, I really don't believe that you've ever played GSB at a high level. I hav

[quote]t's about ensuring that there are different and roughly balanced ways to min/max, not just one stat to end all stats, not just one successful strategy that trumps all others.[/quote] See this is what I don't get. You can't use custom sovs in multiplayer so why does it matter if there is ONE silly min max that you can walk over the AI with? Just cause it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.

[quote who="Cruxador" reply="18" id="2866750"] Nobody was proposing that. A drastic adjustment of points costs and some game systems is what's in order.[/quote] Bah double post intstead of edit. No one proposed that but thats the only way your going to see real balance is removing all or reducing in part the customizations options.

[quote]The fact that a goal is not ultimately attainable does not mean that we should act as though the entire concept is an impossibility. Consider, if you will, the latest two iterations of D&D. Both can do just about all of the same things (although 3.5 is bad for more than a few types of games, and some systems have not yet been ported to 4e). Now, consider the balance. In 3.5, you can play a Wizard, or you can suck. In 4e, some feats and powers may be slightly better than others, but