Silver
-
Posts
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Silver
-
-
This looks a little interesting, something I'll definitely follow - especially with the concept of Guild vs. Guild.
I played GW1 a few years ago and it was an MMORPG but with a very low level cap. It was a very PvP oriented game (before expansions were release for the PvErs who demanded their content
) Obviously not the same as an MMORTS but at the same time similar in the sense that GvG in Guild Wars required tactics, team play and smart play - a lot of luck factors were taken out.
Edit - as an aside, will Xbox360 players and PC players ever come up against one another? Or are the two platforms separate?
-
I grew up in an atheist/agnostic home so I guess I'm an atheist or an agnostic depending on your definitions.
I consider myself to be an atheist.
-
I'm guessing this was sort of forced on Robot Entertainment. They had to work within certain parameters when making the game.
I mean we all have to work for a living and I'm sure Microsoft came to them with their vision of the future of GAMING not the Age Franchise.
Microsoft is trying to do what Facebook is half-assing - they want to connect everyone - Xbox, PC, TV, etc... - everything. They realize just how big these social things are becoming.
So they are taking the Age Franchise in a direction that suits their vision. You can download the game from their Windows Live Games (or whatever the thing is) - you can talk to people on Xbox Live from there, you can buy TV shows, movies, music and music videos.
I guess I've been dragging this on and on but the point is they look at successful stuff like Facebook, Farmville, World of Warcraft - they still see a market for RTS games especially now that SC2 was released (I know that wasn't the case when they were developing but I'm sure they followed other RTS games and their releases).
And after looking at that successful stuff - they try to incorporate it into a game - that can use the name of a franchise that has sold over 20 million copies world wide.
The cartoonish graphics are hard to get used to, but I'm sure I will. They butchered history but probably had to - because Microsoft wants mass appeal and I'm sure RE does too, to a certain extent.
All that being said, the new MMO-RTS approach better be only for campaigns/quests and co-op. PvP better not have a Home City like AoE3 because that was a disaster and many great players from the AoE1 and AoE2 didn't get the game or quit it soon after. -NEVER bring experience/grinding/RPG elements into an RTS as far as I'm concerned. Edit - but at this point, I'm not even sure they'll give me something that small - I mean who wants a fair, competitive environment where skill along with a tiny dose of luck determines the outcome and not who has put the most hours into making their home city look pretty.
-
A virtual reality of ancient Rome at a certain period would definitely be very cool - not only for an RTS but also for an MMORPG.
And by MMORPG I mean a more pvp oriented game where leveling and gear are either low or non-existent and where strategy/tactics are key.
Or maybe even a mix of RTS/MMORPG where say Rome and Carthage are populated with real players and barely any NPCs - any NPCs are grunts like farmers, etc... but say the Senate and higher positions within the world are held by real people.
Edit - but of course I'm not talking about this game, I'm talking about a bunch of rich people or a game studio where people can do this. Doing something like the above on free time is practically impossible.
-
So they renamed this thing Kinect or something and the release date is in the fall? I think.
Just look it up if you're interested.
It got me thinking about RTSes for consoles - you could use your hands to move around the map and focus on buildings and maybe even voice recognition as well so you could voice a command such as: 'Town Center - Build Villager' or even just 'Build Villager'
-
Arizona, or maybe Singapore.
What would I do? Nothing really, invite close family and just relax for a month.
I used to live in Europe and have visited several times since. Some very beautiful places but from what I have seen of Arizona and many places in China/Asia, my pick would have to go to them.
Oh but if I had to pick a European country it would be Spain or maybe Sweden in the summer time.
-
you dont like total war?
Total War is OK, but I don't like it as much as probably everyone else on this forum.
-
Maybe. As I said, it's a long time off - We need to finish the game first.
Will you release the finished game without the tutorial and create the tutorial at some point?
How will that work?
-
The day we find the cure for cancer will be a good day indeed. It's coming though - there are many very very promising therapies in the pipeline that should become available for wide use within about 5 years or so. There might come a day where cancer can be endured like HIV can be endured (with heavy therapies). Hopefully the curing therapies for cancer won't be as expensive as those for AIDS.
You can't really endure cancer, it's not like HIV, cancer (serious kinds, because some are harmless.) is extremely aggressive and you might as well attempt to destroy all the cancerous cells instead of just suppressing what is already there.
HIV/AIDS destroys white bloods cells and treatments only slow the loss of white blood cells.
Cancer can be suppressed and endured for some time but the reality is these same treatments are killing your healthy cells along with the cancerous ones.
The side effects of medication for HIV/AIDS is pretty bad but it's nothing when compared with chemotherapy and other treatment for cancer. With HIV/AIDS you can increase doses and mix around with the drugs but with cancer for many people, they reach a point where accelerating or increasing treatment would kill them and the existing treatment isn't stopping the cancer from growing and spreading.
There are many promising treatments involving proteins, viruses, drugs and many other things.
The thing I'm hoping for is much greater access to things like MRIs. The advances I see will be in technology and early detection with that technology. The key to success is not a magic pill or therapy, it's in detection.
My dad is a scientist who researches cancer and tries to find ways to treat it so I know all about this.
-
I prefer the dawn of civilization kind of campaign to a guy telling me what to do.
My only complaint about a dawn of civilization type of game is that they often break it up into many games, when one game would make it more fun.
-
That doesn't really tie in with the fall of the republic - we'd have to start with a story of a dawn of a civilization, like Rome, Greece or Persia.
It reminds me of the AoE tutorial.
In Egypt at the dawn of civilization - build 5 houses.... you win!!
-
yeh...but this is free! FREE! plus the degree of complexity is probably far more than what RE can or will pull off. Personally, I'll probably get both lol
It obviously will be... no doubt about that, but I love ES and if I remember correctly, RE has many of the same people from ES.
Age of Empires was one of the very first games I bought with my money and played and really enjoyed.
If they are remaking it, I'm going to be extremely happy.
Although I'll definitely keep checking back here to see if the game is finished until I die of old age.
Just kidding, I hope to see the finished product in a few years and I'll definitely play and talk to my friends about it. -
So I watch BBC News World on occasion and I saw this show called Click.
And it introduced me to some cool technology:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/clic...ine/8226777.stm
It's hard to explain... there is a video that shows a few of the devices.
I can't find the full show online but it's longer and more detailed than what you will see in that clip, on top of that they also show contacts (yes, the ones you wear in your eye) that can receive signals and turn on tiny lights to create letters, words and objects.
Some cool stuff.
-
The job prospects for "Historian" are quite limited. Most "historians" make a living writing books and giving paid lectures. Others work in University History departments or as high school History teachers.
Hope that helps.This is pretty much it.
Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get a job at a Museum/Library that deals with historical information and artifacts.
I think all of the history majors I know went into Law School, Teacher's College or they went on to complete a Graduate/Master's in something else (Accounting, Economics, etc...)
If it's just something you want to study, I'd try to avoid making it your major. You could go with something else like Math, Sciences or Business as a major and then minor in History or do a double major.
If I had any advice for someone going into University if they want a job: avoid a major in History, Music or Psychology - the first two you will need connections or top marks and some luck to get an OK job and the third one has way too many people.
-
On topic - helmets are really amazing. My dad was biking to his Lab and a car ran a light and hit him, his bike was trashed, his helmet cracked into two pieces but he only had a few scrapes and bruises.
I couldn't believe his head was fine after I saw the helmet.... WOW.
For some reason in Canada, the cars and roads and police are very anti-bike. We had 5 cyclists get run over by a van and the police decided instead of patrolling the streets catching bad drivers, they'd send bike patrols to ticket people riding bikes on the sidewalk.
Plus government officials don't understand what needs to be done - bike paths have a low speed limit... they're not meant for traveling to work. I remember Europe having bike lanes and everything, in Canada if you're lucky, some of the major roads have painted bike lanes.
I edited because biker sounds too much like biker gangs (motorcycles).
Well, also there are two instances of celebrities recently that have died due to "minor" bumps to the head. They felt fine, refused to see a doctor, then died the next day.
Just to be clear, they didn't really feel 'fine'. They complained that they had headaches, dizziness, etc...
Not severe enough for most people to consider a hospital, but it wasn't like it came right out of the blue.
Just thought I'd comment on that because I snowboard at Mont Tremblant, where that actress died.
And also, these are fairly rare cases - though I would suggest to everyone here and anyone I meet that wearing a helmet for bikes/snowboards/skis/motorcycles is a good idea.
But at the same time, people can take safety too far, especially some parents. I understand it, but let your kid live a little.
-
By best cavalry we're talking about more cavalry technologies available and things like that. With better cavalry will also come extra cost, don't forget. Things are balanced in many ways. Archers that shoot farther also have fewer hitpoints (Persian Infantry have fewer HPs). So things balance. Persians will have a good econ because of trade, which is a vulnerable way to get resources.
I know. I just think that eventually we'll find out that 1 civilization is much more powerful than the rest.
I guess it's the archers + extra population that really bother me. I'm a very big fan of ranged units and a ranged bonus to me means EVERYTHING, regardless of HP.
I can't tell you how many games and skirmishes I have won just because I upgraded my Chariot Archers in AoE 1 online play. Range bonus is HUGE.
Is the Persian economy a boom economy? Or is it fast early on, slowing down in late game?
-
In 0 A.D. they will have the farthest shooting archers and best cavalry in the game. Infantry (two-legged) units will generally have lower HPs and consequently will train faster than other infantry. They will get a +10% (-ish) pop cap bonus, so they can train a lot more soldiers than other factions. They will have an excellent economy as well. Overall they will be a very strong faction that has the capability to overwhelm enemies if used skillfully.
So how does anyone else compete?
-
My dream is a holographical strategy game! then is my pc life complete!!
It's probably not going to happen in my life time but I'd love some type of system/computer where your field of vision is the game, almost like you're really there. That would be my dream. Like you're on a virtual earth of a certain time period. Or you're on a fantasy world.
I'd even be happy with an RTS that uses voice as part of the controls.
-
but where do people get the idea that the average persian soldier was less capable than the greeks?, the greeks never really won a open war against the persians, they just get lucky.
Because it's a game and when one civilization has numbers, you have to compensate by making the soldiers weaker or else they will run you over.
Maybe someday that will change when RTS and computer games become whole virtual worlds where luck plays more of a part and location/terrain play a part because of the massive maps and physics combined with computer power.
Right now - if you give a civilization numbers and equality it's going to be unfair and unfun.
I mean numbers still dominates most RTS games even with weaker soldiers.
It's a fine line between balanced and unbalanced. In AoE 1 Persia was perfectly fine - on par with all other civs. If you look at Assyria - they were the superpower in online play. If you didn't use them for Random Map, you lost the game.
-
Well, as far as I understand some Republicans in America are calling the public health system Obama is trying to make happen as a huge step towards communism, and that's not even close to what we have in Norway and Sweden, so I guess we're communists by that standard.
Free-marketeers until their friends on Wall-Street need a government take over because they messed up real bad.
Reality is Asia is going to lead the world out of this recession. Almost every economy in the world is recovering at a faster rate than the US. China - by the way - is one of the most capitalist countries in the world, the US is probably close to dead last these days...
Honestly, you can't get more communist than owning the car companies, the banks, the biggest insurance company ... all they need to do now is own healthcare and super stores/markets.
Obama's plan is affordable health insurance - so regulation on private industry and a public insurance program for the poor (they have to pay money to get it.) - It's a far cry from communist or socialized medicine but 'grass roots' (they aren't grass roots either, they're just the radical Christian Republicans) Republicans aren't too big on facts and truth. They're more interested in proving to Obama that Medicare is not run by the government (even though it is.).
-
I really think you were noob bashing...I mean seriously...never losing a game? In AOE3 if someone had a winning percentage above 70% it's usually because they were noob bashing, or they just started and won 3 out of 4 games of something like that.
It's no wonder that you lost interest, I would too if I won every single time without effort. I respect your opinion, but I think the experiences you opinions are based on are off...our at least outdated.
I only played 16 games, right at the release. So yes, most players were 'noobs' myself included.
I lost interested because the game sucked. (In my opinion and in the opinion of my friends.) Edit - I had some really good fights and no, we didn't have cookie cutter strategies that get the maximum potential of all units in the shortest time possible. We made them up as we went along. Russian was my favorite Civilization because of numbers. A friend played British and used that cannon rush that was very effective at the time.
As for the rest of your post. I was speaking in general terms when it comes to shipments. I don't remember them but a villager shipment or a food shipment is not as big a deal as 13 strelets, or 3-5 raiding cavalry or whatever the offensive shipments are.
-
Ok...shipments weren' that powerful. Plus, everyone gets them. Also, I wonder if you ever played online, if so, what rank? Because that's what basically everyone does with British. You can't win all the time by doing something that everyone else can do. Plus, the British are pretty average in early game...so chances are you were playing against people who are worst than you, or computers, or in some weird mode like starting in colonial age or something
I played online right after the release of the original AoE III, I stopped playing in early March of '06.
Early on in the game some civilizations get shipments of up to 13 troops. That is powerful. I don't care about 1 villager shipments or 500 food shipments.
The British have a rush strategy that is very effective. It involves a small army with cannon shipments. If used correctly you can out rush any Russian player.
You're right, maybe I was playing against people worse than me because I never lost a game. I lost interest pretty quickly though - along with all of my friends.
Single player is no fun and I never play anything but supremacy or random map or whatever the name is these days - start in the first age with a handful of villagers and 200 or so food.
Edit - this post comes off as arrogant but I'm not. I try to be brutally honest. I didn't come up with a strategy, I borrowed from players I knew and friends in real life. We played in computer labs on the original AoE and were big fans of the game. We'd play each other all the time and it was great. This was not an all me thing, I was one of many. And we try not to use the same strategy over and over but in some cases (Original Age of Empires) one civilization is just way too strong (In the case of the original it was Assyrian.).
At the end of the day some like it and some don't. I'm not a fan of HC. It could have worked but in my opinion the above is why I think it has failed. Most internet reviewers thought it was positive but a minority was against it. I just happen to be in that minority.
I'm just voicing an opinion. I did it on the Age of Empires forums and left instead of complaining over and over. Unfortunately soon after leaving Age of Empires III. Microsoft and MSN The Zone stopped supporting multiplayer for the two earlier Age of Empires games and their expansions. To be fair to them - there weren't many people still playing those games (on The Zone at least.).
-
Personally, I don't like them. I like improving them, but I didn't like their involvement in gameplay. For me, it made the game seem more like a "who has the most/best cards" and "who can build the most settlements(?) for experience" game, rather than a traditional RTS. But that is just me...
Totally agree with that.
I don't have a problem with the idea. The problem is I didn't like how it was implemented.
Games became a little too focused on shipments because of their power and how you get the levels for a shipment. Another problem I had was leveling up the HC. Third problem was the power of some cards.
With the help of some friends, we literally found a way to end the game in a few minutes exploiting the British house creating a villager and HC shipments.
-
Homecity was amazing. It added a whole new dimension to the game. It provided so much more strategy, so much more options for the players. It was revolutionary.
And it rewarded those who could play more often.
Is there going to be treaty?
What's your Religion?
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted · Edited by Silver
I'd wait for him to start killing or threatening to kill before saying he's that extreme.
It's also easy to say 'be tolerant' when you're a majority looking down at a minority. Edit: Especially when 'being tolerant' to some religious people means don't ever dare question anything, even if it doesn't make any sense.