[quote who="Stant123" reply="4" id="2970979"] They actually do have the authority. The Chinese Government also has the authority to prevent their entry as does any other country. Other countries like the UK will allow it, though.[/quote] While semantically different it amounts to the same thing. They need the cooperation of the host government to operate and in general China has no reason to give it.
[quote who="ElanaAhova" reply="2" id="2970965"]And why aren't they (iCE) going after the very large number of 'people' doing outright pirating of intellectual property in China? Its this another example of , screw the small fry? [/quote] Because they have no enforcement authority in China? The host government has to be willing to cooperate, no? A not insignificant part of China's growth over the last two decades has been based on NOT enforcing pa
[quote who="Souls-Stream" reply="34" id="2970961"] I'm very disapointed to see those useless spells come again like Raise and lower land... Ok, they're fun to play with to modify the land but they're useless unless you have mana to waste. [/quote] I disagree. The straight terraforming spells are certainly useful. They allow you to shape the land around your cities, clear space for a new city/outpost (if you're trying to push back the fog of
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="30" id="2970954"] Fourth, some farcasting ability for your sovereign might be handy, like in AoW. Ie, your sovereign isn't in the combat but he can still cast spells into it, but at an increased cost the further away you are or something like that. [/quote] I'll second (or third or fourth) this question. I've always liked the general idea and thought it should be tied to a high level once per empire/kingdom building that
This looks great. My only question is regarding defensive strategic spells. Has there been any thought around implementing any? The ability to enchant an area to protect it for offensive spells (Curgen's Volcano, for example) or to enchant your land to make it harsher to invaders? Summoning haunted woods that make it harder for an enemy to travel through or force them to lose units/face the spirits of the woods (as an example)? If I design my
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="64" id="2957588"]A unit's look should represent its abilities, not simply be a sheet of numbers from afar. I sure hope there's some fresh 3d stuff going on in FE.[/quote] I agree with this. I hope that traits that should alter a characters appearance in some way do just that. [quote who="Sethai" reply="46" id="2956441"]Ultimately, whether a trait in considered meaningful or superfluous is a completely subjective decis
I bet Brad will say that he's not happy with the AI. [e digicons]O:)[/e]
Elemental Forums
[quote who="EternalRequiem" reply="17" id="2926598"]would be damn nice to have a fort type building to defend on the boarder of your ZOC which is smack dab next to another factions ZOC. Of course it's a special building that isn't part of a city therefore you have have a small army you've sent out build the building. This is nothing unusual because the Roman Legions would when they were deployed build forts when they dug in when invading or defending an area.[/quote] I'
[quote who="EternalRequiem" reply="9" id="2926599"]no comment... for congratulations... rather uncreative trait, anyone can come up with the idea to pay gold and hire bandits... I am disappointed [/quote] Submitted the exact same trait, did you? What?? No??? Well then I guess ANYONE can't come up with it... But I sure you would have if you thought it would win. Congrats xmorg. Wasn't the one I picked, but I like it. Besides, the
[quote who="SerinMaldy" reply="100" id="2925356"]Are we, the consumer, ever gonna see this game finished? Anytime soon maybe? It has been over half a year since you release it. What the hell, really! You should have dumped your time into this game immediately been done within a month and moved on to other endeavors; however, you have slowly putzed around with this game, while making an expansion and working on other projects. WOW! I wish you would have just waited til it was done to release i
[quote who="Lord Xia" reply="5" id="2922513"]Jesus, really? Brad's giving me two free games. You are really searching for a reason to bitch. Do you read what you write? Does it sound justified in your head? What the fuck do you think is fair? What should Brad do? You don't want to make FE a standalone? Well, I think most of us agreed, including Brad, Jon, and Kael, that WoM was too flawed in design and to really make a better game, they
How could I be expected to pass up $6 for Sword of the Stars Complete the other day. Damn you, Impulse sale popup! I was waiting for Shogun 2, but managed to grab a deal and get it for free when I bought a new cpu for my computer.
[quote who="alborrelli" reply="82" id="2919617"] +10 seeing as Froggy keeps saying that money's not an issue and they they want(ed) to get WOM right, I still fail to see why the hurry to do FE when WOM is still in the state it is in. I'm putting my money on 1.3 being the last thing officially worked on/released. Also, what does " The second reason is that War of Magic has a lot of potential to continue into the future on its own track." mean? Does "own
[quote who="Azzazell" reply="4" id="2919578"]Is it worth to install this patch?? Game is better? or 1.11 is better?[/quote] The 1.2 beta patches are mostly stability and performance. Most of the patch notes have looked just like this one. You won't find overly many feature changes (there are a few) but quite a bit more stability (if you've had stability problems with 1.1).
You're post is based on a giant pile of assumptions. The release date of E:FE has been pushed back* repeatedly? (*When it's done is what I've always seen, with devs guessing that "when it's done" will be later this year sometime). Why can't updates be released into a core game? So you complain about stability problems and then want to alpha test new features? They are going to have a public beta of E:FE as soon as its playable. So... yeah.
[quote who="Heavenfall" reply="54" id="2918461"] Firstly, I think they have placed significant emphasis on modding. They hired Jon Shafer specifically for that role. In a relatively small studio hiring someone (who surely isn't working for peanuts) specifically to focus on an area IS placing emphasis on it. Besides that, if you hang around the modding forums you'll see devs discussing what features would improve modability and implementing those features. <
[quote who="mqpiffle" reply="39" id="2918392"] Quoting Heavenfall, reply 36I sincerely hope this doesn't mean you'll waste time on modding additions to make building campaigns easier, and will focus on what us modders have requested instead. Yes, it is my opinion that building a better campaign editor should be the lowest of your priorities at this point (as far as modding goes). From what I can tell Stardock is not the least bit concerned with the modding community, d
[quote who="Derek Paxton" reply="114" id="2918207"] Quoting LightofAbraxas, reply 113You know what I'd love to see? I'd love to see a Dev Journal that outlines how you get from Point A to Point B from here, where Point A is: having the code for a large handful of combat-related variables implemented, and Point B is: having a fun, deep combat system implemented. Not that I actually expect you all to do one just because I asked. Just curious, is all.<br /
[quote who="razor436" reply="111" id="2918051"] Come on now. All strategy game are like that, or to put it more generally, matching up my army with theirs such that I inflict the most casualties while sustaining the fewest losses. Whether you have RPS systems or units with abilities, there will always be a best choice which will determine how you will play it out. [/quote] I think he was expressing the hope that the armor vs. damage type effects weren't so powerful
[quote who="Kadrium" reply="108" id="2917845"]I'm just more interested in a system where the point isn't to create favorable weapon vs armor matchups, but to utilize special abilities and traits along with maneuvering and terrain in such a way as to gain an advantage while your opponent does the same. I just don't want it to come down to "sweet, he has hammers and I have plate mail so I'm gonna win." I understand that Derek has said that's not the case, and I
[quote who="Kadrium" reply="103" id="2917805"] No, I'm just expressing my hopes that such a damage-type mechanic is not such a major factor to combat that playing to favorable armor/weapon match-ups supersedes actual strategy.[/quote] The differences in units, whether it's weapon types, damage types, traits, etc, is a PART of strategy. It's not some fake way to claim the game is strategic. If you don't think the differences between Americ
[quote who="Kadrium" reply="95" id="2917758"] If I have two units in a combat, one who does piercing damage, and one who does slashing damage... and you have two units, one who is strong against piercing damage and one who is strong against slashing damage... The decision of who fights who is made up for me. That's not poor play, that's a game mechanic giving me the illusion of strategy.[/quote] You're example is arbitrarily removing the actual strategy to prove your
First crash I've had in a few beta versions. I've actually been enjoying the 1.19x betas quite a bit, so I don't mind. The sooner we help get 1.2 locked in the sooner we get to 1.3. [e digicons]B)[/e]
A fair bit of hopping back and forth between Elemental and the web browser. Elemental is running in windowed mode. Crash Zip Debug.Err
[quote who="DrJBHL" reply="32" id="2914181"]Which brings me to the next question: The ethics of what they're doing/not doing. No argument that XP belongs to MS and in all truth is theirs to support or not, but I do feel it's unethical to force XP users to go and buy something else if only because their money helped position MS to conduct the R&D to come up with Vista and 7. There's really nothing 'wrong' with XP that WB doesn't fix. [/quote] <