[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="33" id="2906735"]Ideology is not technically the same as a conflict of interest. You can be biased or unbiased with or without a conflict of interest. COI just means that you have a personal connection to the issue that would potentially influence their ideology. You can get civilian analysts biased left, right, and center, but (retired) generals are, by virtue of being generals and thus personally connected, more likely to side with the military.[/quote]
Gwenio1
There is a button to toggle it somewhere to the left of the menu containing the icons for the buildings. It is small and easy to not notice.
[quote who="Scoutdog" reply="26" id="2906713"]I suppose if he's retired that eliminates some of the massive conflict-of-interest, but I'd still take the advice of an actual policy analyst over his any day. [/quote] And policy analysts do not have a conflict of intrest? If it is like with economist then they are to support a position and were indoctrinated in what ever the prevaling ideology was when they were being educated (and it was based on politics rather than what is proven
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="23" id="2906700"]At least Clark is consistent. But you know what they say about a broken clock. [/quote] Aristotle. If a goverment does not work, then the people it rules will change it on its own. In this case, the clock is not broken; rather some people cannot tell time.
[quote who="tazgecko" reply="17" id="2906685"] The ruling was about creating a fair market, not dominance. Browsers in the EU If no one upgrades then IE9 has no chance [/quote] You are thinking of this as a market, which it is not as no purchases are made. The only thing that will really impact what gets used is what webpages support, and what is currently being shipped with the OS people are buying. And IE was dominant, otherwise the fa
Considering it is free, that you get anything at all means you are getting more than you paid for.
[quote who="kenata" reply="145" id="2906665"]One of the problems of this thread is that it does not ask set of questions. While it is easy to imagine that SP-like co-op would be a fun experience, it is much harder to imagine that this type of game mode would make up a significant amount of the overall games played. I wonder how many of those who have said yes to this poll would actually play this game mode primarily and how many would even play this game mode for 25% of their total play time
This is why political parties suck; they lead to an us versus them mentality. When one party takes a position the other will oppose it as a matter of course. Benjamin Franklin was right.
[quote who="tazgecko" reply="15" id="2906624"]The problem is the other browsers do support XP. As users upgrade their computers they will select a browser that they are familiar with. Microsoft will find it hard to bring people back if they are unwilling to support users of the web.[/quote] And what does it matter? It is not like the people that use browsers pay for them. And last I here IE (of various versions) was so dominate there was a ruling by the EU that MS had to ship other br
[quote who="KingHobbit" reply="142" id="2906601"]My vote would be no. Multiplayer games worry to much about balance. I could care less if it is balanced and would actually prefer it not be.[/quote] That is competitive MP, we are discussing friendly MP where the balance of an SP centric game is a plus.
[quote quoting="post"] Operating system incompatibilities: XP is ignored. Whether it’s a dinosaur or not, it’s one of MS’s OS’s and this, to me at least, just isn’t playing fair.[/quote] And so is DOS, but I do not see anyone complaning that it is not supported. It is part of the OS lifecycle, eventually the API for the old versions is so lacking in features compared to the new ones that it no longer makes sense to target it. If they had suppor
[quote who="marionesi" reply="140" id="2906523"]I think collecting the answers can give a false impression. I personally don't dislike the idea of having MP, ceteris paribus. But having it requires A LOT of effort from the development team, and given a fixed amount of resources (money, time..) this implies that other things in the game will be given less importance, or eliminated. I'd rather ask people how much they deem MP important on a scale from 1 to 10. For me, the answer is 3
[quote who="rossanderson48" reply="33" id="2905920"] Yeah Age of Wonders:Shadow Magic ai really suked. I played with max ai all on highest difficulty and I could take everyone of them out so easily. For the love of god(s) please make difficulties taht say hard, hardest an impossible live up to those titles. I am so sic and tired of higher level difficulties being braindead easy. [/quote] Not happening unless there is a setting for how long the AI can "think" about its moves
[quote who="mastroego" reply="11" id="2906243"]I don't know, who else? [/quote] Larian Studios.
Making the [quote who="Darvin3" reply="15" id="2904190"] Uh... 56% is a very bad number. You're talking about throwing away half your potential market by developing for DX10 exclusively. You'd have to double your sales with the remaining market in order for this to pay off, which is highly unlikely. This is really straightforward: in order for it to be worthwhile developing a DX10 game, the increase in sales from the higher-quality product must exceed the los
Giving something up forever makes interesting choices, if there is something interesting to be gained. Giving up essense to have more total essense in the long run is not interesting. Hence one of the reasons Divinity II did so well, you could sacrifice XP to read people's minds. And people had interesting things in there heads to read. I even found some of the reads that were text only (no gameplay effect) to be worth the 10k XP they cost.
[quote who="Aeon221" reply="28" id="2902956"]Essence was a great concept, I wouldn't mind having it back. Mana pool needs to go. Having a pool rewards passivity -- if you do nothing now, you're stronger later. That is _bad_ design. Mana should use a flow system. You generate X amount of mana per turn, and whether you use it or not you have the same amount of mana next turn (unless you lose or gain the ability to produce mana). In other words, the same s
What version of Internet Explore do you have?
[quote who="Aeon221" reply="29" id="2902514"]You know how some people play SP and not MP? The reverse is true. And those players can be attracted with a low cost well built MP mode. Stardock already has experience building MP for this engine; with the netcode and infrastructure there, it shouldn't take as much time or expense to add in the game mode. A low cost high quality mp option in the tbs and rts genres could rake in some dough and raise the profile of the game around the web. There mig
[quote who="Black-Knight" reply="24" id="2902553"]IMO Essence was one of the many original things this game concept had that the devs never managed to balance into a functional gameplay. Global mana pool and mana manteinance work great... Not original at all, no intellectual effort to create a system around it AT ALL, since it'sthe system used in Age of Wonders and other games of this kind. Apparently the new politics is not to make the original concepts work, but to drop anything
[quote who="Tridus" reply="16" id="2902398"] That was the game breaking thing about essence: channelers could boost it at level up. So you imbue a couple of people, then once they gain some levels you're WAY ahead of where you were if you didn't imbue them. So for reviving land, you just wanted more channelers. There also never was anything else to spend it on, so you couldn't do things like imbue an item at creation to make a crazy good magic sword. I miss it as a concept. I
[quote who="ShotmanMaslo" reply="102" id="2902354"]The Vasari should get a ship with attack tentacles [/quote] Been watching the Sword of the Stars: Lords of Winter trailer?
[quote who="Aeon221" reply="26" id="2902339"]I'm of the opinion that if the game is to be split into single and multiplayer elements with a combined price of $30, the correct distribution is $25 for the single player game and $10 for the multiplayer game. [/quote] The pricing is about how many people are expected buy it versus to cost of creating it. The less % of people that are expected to buy the DLC that bought the base game, the worse the deal for the people
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="14" id="2902338"] Yes, please. To me, the mana upkeep thing is not at all like Essence was. You can lose and reclaim shards, but Essence spent was Essence spent and restored lands felt really precious, nothing like the spreadable spam that we have now. [/quote] They are loosely the same, in terms of design. Both make you choose between casting and have magical potenial. However, they are nothing a like thematically and do not work out the same.
The problem with essense being used to Imbue was then each hero could increase it normally on level up, so the more you imbued the more casting power you would have. The fix would be to only let natural casters increase it (possibly making it just increase each level, as it would likely be the optimal choice otherwise and that is bad), and allow repeated imbues so that it can be distributed as needed. Then have major spells that actually use it up, creating a big decision for players.