[quote who="PurrBall" reply="18" id="2487416"]Re: Loss of customization with the ribbon: You can customize the ribbon in Office 2010, just check the Options dialog [/quote] True true :)
I have an X-Fi ExtremeGamer and I have had 0 problems with it in Vista and W7 (except that the drivers are not installed by default, but you go to the Creative web site, get them and solved).
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="12" id="2486274"]Keep in mind that these are random grumbles and not a methodical critique-- Top keyboard grudge in ribbon-land is that the UI no longer helps you learn keyboard paths. Until this change, you could tell any Office app to put underscores on menu commands so you know how to hit them with the keyboard. Some unknown but large chunk of my former speed was not that I remembered exactly how to get to some less-used feature or even how to do a
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="10" id="2486205"] My problem with the ribbon hasn't been so much about being annoyed at having to re-find old things; it's that the Word keeps making wrong decisions about what I'm doing and taking away UI that I want to see. The keyboard support bites utterly, which slows a touch-typist like me down significantly. And I don't want to get started on the complete trainwreck that happened to named styles... [/quote] Care to elaborate about keyboa
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="2" id="2485853"]I've been a Word user since 1991, and it has been my central work app since '99 or so. The ribbon has turned out to be a complete hassle, trashing many years of experience that used to mean something on my resume. Is there any chance that 2010 has made some effort to step back from the Office team's aggressive disinterest in the investments made by countless individual users and organizations who learned and use and customize Word in 'the old wor
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="47" id="2484524"] Do the numerous cities in those novels you mention manage to maintain some individuality, even if it's mostly cosmetic like the detailing for the city-states in Jordan's Wheel of Time?[/quote] Well, in general both worlds have their really important cities which their own personality (building style, races, ocupations, leadership style,...), and then lots of "generic fantasy towns". This reminded me of Dark Sun, not many ci
[quote who="Mandelik" reply="18" id="2485140"] You're right! One solution would be not to make the tactical field a chessboard but a reflection of the strategic map. Thus, if your 300 500 men are between two mountain tiles, the tactical map would make them appear holding a mountain pass, and the 50'000 enemies should take turns to attack them, waiting till the first ranks have been killed before they can have their try. No flanking, no overwhelming! [/quote] That's not co
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="39" id="2483493"]I'm asking a sort of 'blind push poll' question here because I expect to learn that in most computer RPGs, cities are not numerous. That's true of every single fantasy novel or series I've read that includes maps in the books. But every epic-scale TBS map I've played has been prone to wall-to-wall cities, even if the map has the visual space provided by a sci-fi game like GC2. The problem almost seems analagous to finding the ideal size for a ro
[quote who="psychoak" reply="57" id="2480618"]A fireball. Simple, easy to grasp. What does a fireball do when it impacts a person? It burns, it hurts a lot. It needs to have some sort of accelerant with it to light you on fire though. If you just get torched, you're left a little charred. You don't continue combusting without help. The reason? People suck at burning. Wood doesn't, wood combusts without an accelerant. Water is incapab
[quote who="psychoak" reply="51" id="2480207"] It's also semantics that we have units with weapons and armor, we could just have numbered entities of generic composition. Semantics are the foundation of language. If you do not have fire, then you cannot have fire resistance. You are arguing against diversity, not for it.[/quote] Of course I'm arguing against useless diversity. Let's say it again: the diversity added by damage types is not worth the complexi
[quote who="vieuxchat" reply="12" id="2479850"]Sigil in planescape torment ! No city can beat it.[/quote] Agreed, amazing setting and atmosphere.
[quote who="psychoak" reply="40" id="2479204"]This thread is funny. You zap a yeti, he says ooh, spring breeze, nice snow storm! You zap him with a fireball instead, and his hair catches on fire. You zap a bleach blonde with a fireball, she turns over to tan the other side. Stick her in a snow storm and she'll have to invent practical clothing.[/quote] What is nice is this whole argument is tied to semantics. Fire elementals have to resist fireballs just because
[quote who="Mandelik" reply="26" id="2478520"]That's right! And multiple types of mana are more complicated than one type too. But don't worry, they just decided to dumb it down use only one.[/quote] And that's a good thing. [quote who="Mandelik" reply="26" id="2478520"] I'm waiting for someone to carry this reflexion to his logical term: if there's only one type of mana, why have 4 types of shards?[/quote] Because maybe the mana they produce is tied to your
[quote who="Mandelik" reply="21" id="2477956"] An excel spreadsheet?!? So complicated?!? We just want that an ice-sword does less damage to a yeti (exemple) than a firesword does. Or that a wraith doesn't take magic damage from a deathsword but takes from a lifesword. If THAT is too complicated then they should add the option to buy a new brain with the game...[/quote] Multiple damage types are more complicated than one damage type, there's no way to argue that. A
[quote who="SolarBall" reply="17" id="2476895"]I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I've gotten really annoyed with the way many of ther "pro lots of magic damage types" people have approached the issues, with the over the top wailing about how "No strategic options", "The game must have this", "I'm regretting my preorder", "The world is getting dumbed down", etc. over a single combat mechanic, that in a lot of ways is quite uninteresting compared
[quote who="Lord Cobol" reply="42" id="2477196"]All this sounds nice, but won't it run slower than a more old-fashioned, hard-wired approach? PLEASE tell me that no part of this game will run as slowly as the "next-turn" in HOMM5 with max-size maps and max # of AI players. [/quote] Flexibility and performance are trade offs. But is hard to prove that if you have a speed problem, hard-wiring things is the best approach to solve it instead of refactoring code, improving
MoM stockpiles gold and mana (makes sense for gold, who cares about mana) and doesn't stockpile food (it rots, whatever). You can have both ideas together.
Btw, they already posted the units stats in the Data-Driven post.
[quote who="Rishkith" reply="143" id="2474871"]He isn't the only one who would like it to work like that. If Elemental is as simple as a board game, I'd just assume play a board game with my friends. I love Arkham Horror, Runebound, look forward to Runewars, etc (and some of those aren't super simple like Arkham). I want the computer to make playing a complex game fun! [/quote] In Arkham Horror you manage 1 investigator with some equipment and some spells, n
[quote who="Raven X" reply="140" id="2474812"] Hearts of Iron 3 is probably The Most Complicated Game on the Market currently. Go check out reviews for it. Even Gamespot, which is notoriously biased against "Hard Core" strategy games gives HOI3 High Marks and a Great review. Anyone who knows the HOI series knows that it doesn't have fancy battle graphics, they know you don't need a supercomputer to run it, they don't get to point and shoot at stuff either, and yet the game has out-s
I don't think they mean "Arcane HP" and "Physical HP" :S They mean "HP", "Defense" (against physical attacks) and "Arcane Defense" (against magical effects). But it's surprising how the same thing can be read in lots of ways...
[quote who="Raven X" reply="128" id="2474492"] In most cases if they don't specify something then that means it either doesn't exist or they have no plans for it. If spells had effects you'd think he would have said so when he talked about going to one damage type. [/quote] I think in this case they haven't said anything because spells with effects is a given. If you are going to have a "slow" spell, having a damage spell that also slows comes for free.
[quote who="Raven X" reply="128" id="2474492"] The casual players will buy Elemental. [/quote] Don't understimate that: I don't have a clue of the objectives they have set for Elemental, but probably selling is one of them. I don't think hardcore gamers can produce enough sales for a game like this.
[quote who="Tormy-" reply="119" id="2474156"] So what? You guys have missed the point. What about melee oriented magical damage? Sword of Fire, Sword of Ice etc. All of these weapons would do the SAME dmg type: arcane in the vanilla game...am I correct?[/quote] This is the same as the fireball and iceball example.
[quote who="Darkodinplus" reply="115" id="2474089"] Just out of curiosity Raven why do you think there is a possibility of there not being numerous effects for specific categories of spells? I mean Brad said there would only be two types of damage not there will be only two types of effects.[/quote] This. No one said so far we are only going to have damage spells or that a spell can't have several effects (ongoing damage, modify unit attributes, create or modify terrain, and a lo