[quote who="Einlanzerous" reply="8" id="2227329"] The nice part about this, is that even if the enemy is much weaker, they can try to level the playing field by sending troops to harrass my trade routes, disrupting my ability to field powerful troops. Adding a level to the game not generally seen in most 4x/RTS games.[/quote] There is a logical error here. In a resource-driven game, a much bigger empire will hold more resources and it will have a much bigger production. So, even
[quote who="Climber" reply="7" id="2227316"] When a new order A and the previous order B uses the same MR(s), the time delay for the older order B is the turns needed to produce & caravan the MR(s) needed by the new order A (or less in some situation). I don’t see why the game cannot re-calculate this difference nor display this to the gamer, even when gamer makes a new order or build a new factory. On top of that, Camp#3 has the same issue, when local MR
[quote who="psychoak" reply="2" id="2226713"] Stealthy units using the terrain to hide their movements intercept a trade route, capturing convoys and disrupting production, forcing the opponent to send troops to find and disperse them. Also known as convoy raiding. Must be faked or left out in a system that doesn't have actual resources being shipped from creation point to usage point. [/quote] Fine, but what's wrong with a "fake" implementation? Desire for realism
[quote who="Szadowsz" reply="25" id="2226626"] Saruman != Gandalf. Saruman owns a tower and minions and an evil plan, Gandalf has what? a hat, a staff, a pipe? They are not really comparable. that being said Saruman does steal his staff and possibly his hat too in one of the movies. So your point is moot.[/quote] O RLY? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_(Middle-earth) Also, we talked about Elemental
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="10" id="2225988"] You're more or less ducking my question about where you saw evidence that the Elemental plan is based on closed economies. But at least you ended up with what I take to be your real point, which is that you want a deeply combat-centered game and not what I (and probably others) would consider a 'real' TBS.[/quote] Your "question" was spelled as a rhetoric one as the answer was too obvious. Sorry, i'm not your parrot so to say exact
[quote who="Tiefling" reply="3" id="2225782"] That's debatable since when I set my workers to auto in CivIV they usually whizz off to the other end of the continent [/quote] I talked about micro. That implies that i'm controlling it, not the AI. So, my workers in Civ 4 usually don't "whizz off to the other end of the continent". That also means that i'm trying to minimize unnesesary movement of workers. So, my workers tend to work in the same small area and most of
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="6" id="2225945"] Quoting Ellestar, reply 1... Because you can't bankrupt a closed economy from outside. What gives you the impression that all faction economies are 'closed?' I'd be interested to see options for a closed economy and/or a barter-only economy during faction setup, but my impression of the GC2 model and the possible Elemental models seems to assume that open economies are the norm. How else can you explain tourism income in GC2 or automat
[quote who="pigeonpigeon" reply="2" id="2225768"] Saying, "it can't be done" simply indicates a lack of imagination. It would be difficult, for sure, but Stardock's specialty is UI creation. To display all of the information about all the distribution and management of every type of resource all at once would be foolish - it would be overwhelming and convoluted and downright unhelpful. So break it down into subsections, display the most important aspects of it on the overland map (maybe
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="20" id="2224091"] Anyways, why cannot I kill my opponents economically? Why military should be the only way?[/quote] Because you can't bankrupt a closed economy from outside.
[quote who="Cuddlelump" reply="19" id="2225583"] Simple is indeed good, in a game where you have to react instantly to whats going on, like a Real time game such as Sins and Demigod requires. Being a Turn based game, Elemental has the luxury of allowing the player time to consider what they are doing. In this case, simplicity isnt necessarily the best choice, because a deeper economic system can really add to the game. What it comes down to more then anything is how comple
[quote who="Tiefling" reply="21" id="2225589"]The beauty of CivIV though is that you can take control of your workers and you can give them direct orders when they do something stupid.Here's a question: Would you blindly let CivIV workers handle all your resource management in Elemental? Option #3 as described doesn't allow for direct control over what goes where. All resource management is handled by the AI.I would rather have a system like CivIV workers that can be set to auto-pilot but at
[quote who="Climber" reply="2" id="2224388"] This is a discussion with Ellestar on the discussion of “Pull Economy” (PE) at Post #336. It is good that Ellestar try making a meaningful criticism on it. Use the ‘how to create a Solider with sword+2’ as an example, I am showing how to predict when a new unit arrives. (Crystal+Alchemy->Potion+2) + (Ore+Blacksmith->Sword) + (Creature/NR+Barrack->Soldier) = Soldier with Sword+2 Becaus
[quote who="Climber" reply="11" id="2223828"]New changes are in italic. Unit Upgrade mechanics is now included. Pros: There is minimal increase in micromanagement, even if EWOM has 110+ MR. MR can be re-processed to make even higher end MR. NR is not wasted, compared to Camp#3. No AI or governor involved, except the game need to determine the quickest path of production The rate of producing unit depends on 3 factors only: a. Distances from the N
[quote quoting="post"] The Argument Camp 1 argues that a lot of fun can be had in putting together ever more sophisticated and specialized items. If natural resources can be processed into new resources that can in turn be processed again and again and again, you can reward players who might be able to equip elite crack soldiers with very rare but very powerful weapons and armor. [/quote] I think Camp #1 is fine as long as resources are transferred automatically. As i
[quote who="pseudomelon" reply="23" id="2200910"] Ping is the amount of miliseconds between your computer sending a packet of information and the other computer recieving it. It's mainly based on distance.[/quote] You can't know when your packet arrived to another computer so it's actually a round-trip time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping
Then again, who cares about speed if you don't use it? Try to beat my 3.4 Tb upload in one month :) http://img31.imageshack.us/my.php?image=trafficf.gif And by the way, this test is somewhat misleading, i do have a 30/30 Mbit connection and i have no trouble uploading that fast to torrents/DC++, to multiple peers
[quote who="Jonnan001" reply="16" id="2206061"] Did you serously type LOLN00B, and then bring up a Wikipedia page in which the list of Linux Malware is only about twice the size of the list of Linux anti-virus software?[/quote] I think it's obvious from b0rsuk's post that he's a clueless fanboi who didn't know that malware for Linux exists at all. So yeah. [quote who="Jonnan001" reply="16" id="2206061"]New Rule: If (List of viruses on Wikipedia/List of anti-virus so
[quote who="b0rsuk" reply="19" id="2162409"] Linux doesn't have viruses thanks to a couple of factors. [/quote] LOLN00B Linux malware This statement is even more fun than another one of yours "Starcraft is not a strategy game"
[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="6" id="2191747"]You don't need a combo to be a game-winning combo all by itself to be a viable strategy. Dom3 cannot be won using a single trick, which makes it more strategic than MtG, not the opposite. I used Mtg in the beginning to point out that a game with complexity could be popular, and pointed out why Dom3 is complex too but not as easy to grasp. Point remains that Mtg has complexity but doesn't have a steep learning curve. Arguing that both games have di
[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="4" id="2191603"] Like Dom3 Darkness spell which affects both you and your enemies and only happens to be useful if you have night-seeing units (or units with auras which cause damage without having to see anything)? Or Communion Master which is useless if noone casts Communion Slave AND noone casts other spells afterwards? Like combining spell effects? Come on![/quote] Wow, obvious pairs are somehow equal to combo decks. Don't make me laugh. Say, in
[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="2" id="2191408"] Generic magical effects???? I think you didn't play Dom3 enough. There are astral only spells like antimagic or Master Enslave (take control ofevery enemy unit that fails an easy saving throw). There is a death enchantment that causes all units in the world to age 12 times faster (which usually amounts to "Everyone Attack me" in MP), another death spell that causes darkness on the battlefield, a magic item that blinds everyone on the battlef
[quote who="b0rsuk" reply="18" id="2187750"] My point: Learning curve is once, having to replay dumbed down design is forever.[/quote] Continuing about complex games. The most complex board game is Go , and it has what? A board and stones, that's all. Still, "Go is noted for being rich in strategic complexity despite its simpl
[quote who="b0rsuk" reply="18" id="2187750"]Can you support that ? "Build order" is a phrase extremely common in RTS communities, and it's something often hotly debated. Perhaps because a game like starcraft leaves little else to master except build orders and finger dexterity ?[/quote] By the way, didn't i already said in that thread that you're wrong when you think it's finger dexterity that matters? APM of 200 is more than enough
[quote who="b0rsuk" reply="18" id="2187750"] Strong opinions without any support, use of derogatory terms, a lot of assumptions(probably, I suppose...), belittle.[/quote] What you call "strong opinions" are not really opinions, that's knowledge. You may ask for specifics if you want. I'm making assumptions when i don't know for sure. N00bs just say "Starcraft is not a strategy game" without any assumptions because they're not knowledgeable enough so to doubt their premise
[quote who="LDiCesare" reply="17" id="2187618"]I don't think Civ IV offers a fast multiplayer mode. It's just slow. First rounds include lots of hitting next turn or moving a single warrior. I never managed to end a 4 or 5 player MP Civ IV game in one evening (which I did in Dom3). I agree that having fast mode is cool, but that should last about 2-3 hours, 4 at most.[/quote] Yes and no. Overall, Civ 4 MP support was lacking. However, there is a turn timer and a city elimination limit
