Sign in to follow this  
riadsala

Elemental Fallen Enchantress

Recommended Posts

Huh?

The whole point of my post is to say that nobody actually knows what went on but so many are posting angry words as if they do know, hence "haters going to hate"....

Also you missed the point about sexual harassment being many different things, some are worthy of criminal action while others should be addressed by communication between the parties involved. My point on this is either way all some people are going to hear is "sexual harassment" and start dropping the c-word on forums like this. Is that sexual harassment, myself having to see the c-word? Its a word that refers to a part of the female anaotmy in a very negative light. Yes it is sexual harassment so should anyone who says the c-word receive the full hatred of the internet?

You see my point?

God I can't believe I'm posting this here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't really see your point. Arguing for restraint and impartiality is just arguing against the victim, whom the judicial process historically hasn't been very good at defending anyway. But I don't want to get into this on yet another internet forum.

And I'm begging you, get a better understanding of what sexual harassment is. For instance, any one of Brad Wardell's alleged actions are sexual harassment. Hearing someone else get called a "cunt" is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't really see your point. Arguing for restraint and impartiality is just arguing against the victim, whom the judicial process historically hasn't been very good at defending anyway. But I don't want to get into this on yet another internet forum.

And I'm begging you, get a better understanding of what sexual harassment is. For instance, any one of Brad Wardell's alleged actions are sexual harassment. Hearing someone else get called a "cunt" is not.

Just so I'm very clear I'm not arguing against a womans right to feel safe in the workplace, I'm arguing for my ability to go to forums without encountering hate-mongers who don't actually know anything talking crap because the anominity of the internet is an outlet. I don't want my kids encountering alot of what I see on forums and I will stand up for people actually standing back and thinking about what they do actually know about a situation and what they are posting.

I know plenty of people who feel the use of the c-word in any context is denigrating to women as a whole, if that aint sexual harassment I don't know what is. How would you describe to a female that in our culture call the lowest scum on this planet after a piece of their anatomy and expect that person to believe that is respect for women? If you think a person is a bit of a jerk you may call them a dick, but if they are really bad then you use the c-word. Think about it.

Its ok to have a blanket response of "sexual harassment is wrong" because that is true. But then should your online life be the subject of the internets rage because you feel the c-word is ok because you feel its ok to use? Isn't that exactly the defence Brad Wardell is using in describing his "relaxed workplace" that you feel is indefensible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so I'm very clear I'm not arguing against a womans right to feel safe in the workplace, I'm arguing for my ability to go to forums without encountering hate-mongers who don't actually know anything talking crap because the anominity of the internet is an outlet. I don't want my kids encountering alot of what I see on forums and I will stand up for people actually standing back and thinking about what they do actually know about a situation and what they are posting.

I know plenty of people who feel the use of the c-word in any context is denigrating to women as a whole, if that aint sexual harassment I don't know what is. How would you describe to a female that in our culture call the lowest scum on this planet after a piece of their anatomy and expect that person to believe that is respect for women? If you think a person is a bit of a jerk you may call them a dick, but if they are really bad then you use the c-word. Think about it.

Its ok to have a blanket response of "sexual harassment is wrong" because that is true. But then should your online life be the subject of the internets rage because you feel the c-word is ok because you feel its ok to use? Isn't that exactly the defence Brad Wardell is using in describing his "relaxed workplace" that you feel is indefensible?

I never use the word "cunt" under any circumstances. I've never called a person by that word in my life. And I'm done with this weird false equivalency between anonymous people talking on the internet and the actual harassment of a woman in real life. If I buy the game, which I probably won't, I'll make sure to check back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are zero posts on the internet trying to understand the woman and her feelings. Zero.

All the posts are about how we should hate Brad Wardell and that again touches upon my point.

Anyway if you do check this Gormongous, I'm over this too. I never meant to attribute the c-word to you so sorry if it came off that way, I will stand by my my opinion on it and we can agree to disagree. And if you do like TBS 4x strategy you should check the game out, it is good and we can probably conclude that some nice people contributed to it.

Take it easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree (I think?) that you shouldn't simply hate a guy because it's cool, are you saying we shouldn't find him reprehensible for what he did? Because that's what it sounds like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that we don't know what happened. The parties agree on some events but have different opinions on how they played out and on other things they disagree (for example she said he has touched her hair and persons, he says he never touched her anywhere).

I am also saying that from a lack of knowing what went on flaming him on forums really is not warranted. Until a Stardock employee, past or present, comes out and says "yes Brad did this to me too" or "I saw it happen and Alexandra is correct" then there is simply too much unknown to flame the guy and ruin a game on which not just him but a number of employees are banking on.

I'm saying I want better from the forums I go to. I avoid some forums I used to frequent because they are so negative, even before they touched upon this subject. I like listening to TMA and so come to these forums, I like Fallen Enchantress and would like to see it do well and it sucks that people are dissing the game because so far unsubstantiated allegations have been made against one person out of a team of many.

I don't like the c-word but am a realist and know its insomewhat everyday use. I have pointed out other perceptions of it. And as a realist I recognise that sexual harassment is a thing of opinion, so while Brad Wardell may have been a jerk, a dick and in my opinon frankly an exceedingly poor human resource focused CEO, he may never have intended to be sexually harassing somebody. Doesn't mean that he should not suffer consequences, but doesn't mean he should get the wrath of the internet trashing him and destroying a company he happens to head upon which many people get their income from either. We don't know enough to do this.

Lastly he could be exceeding guilty of a crime worthy of a huge payout, I aknowledge this and having been the victim of workplace bullying before I can somewhat understand what Alexandra may be feeling, for me its years later and I'm still angry. But at the date this post was written, I simply don't know and so can't realistically comment either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get this back on topic, as someone who never played the original but played FFH, how similar are the games? Also, how similar is the this to the original? I've seen people both ways on that and still am not sure. Was the original even that bad, or was it more that it was bad at launch and the game itself would have been decent if it worked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to get this back on topic, as someone who never played the original but played FFH, how similar are the games? Also, how similar is the this to the original? I've seen people both ways on that and still am not sure. Was the original even that bad, or was it more that it was bad at launch and the game itself would have been decent if it worked?

The original was dull, lifeless and unfun to play. FE is actually remarkably similar to FFH but lacks a few of the funner flavors of the mod. Which is odd considering that the FFH guy worked on it. I'm not sure it's worth $40, but if you're hurting for a fantasy TBS you can't go too wrong for $20 if you're the type that can weave your own narrative into a strategy game.

Probably don't read below this if you don't care about the argument about Wardell.

What I'm reading is that you're defending someone who has all but acknowledged the charges leveled against him through his interactions on Twitter and forums after the fact.

Like, are you just not aware what a piece of work this guy is?

"If I can't be a dick in the company I founded, I'll just shutter it."

zmy9s.jpg

"Get used to terrible 'humor' or work somewhere else."

http://draginol.joeu...t_to_you/page/1

He defended his sexual 'humor' as "Family Guy jokes".

Even if the allegation aren't true (highly unlikely) before those allegations he is still scum, and you're still defending him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a tough call how exactly to place FE.

Nations are built like in Master of Orion 2 and Sovereigns similarly. Some builds are just OP while others are very meh.

There is a unique way cities grow and level up that Civ IV, AoW and MoM don't have. The single tile you found the city on determines the basic food, production and number of magic spell cast on it a city can have. Greater buildings boost the level of food and production. Cities are specialised to basically troop production, mana/research boosting or money, but saying that there is a bit more to it. Each time a city levels up you choose a perk from a list of three.

Armies range from 4-9 units in a stack, you start with a maximum of 4 but can research more slots up to the maximum of 9. You design units and this is a big strength of the game. If you have access to metal you can make better weapons/armor. If you have access to crystal you can equip magic type items (flaming axes anyone?). If you have no access you have pretty basic troops. On top of this you can give a designed unit up to three perks but they add to production time. You can summon beasties but this part of the game is currently very limited compared to say AoW, or at least it feels that way. Fights are somewhat basic but not hugely more than say MoM or AoW. I've seen people go on about how bad FE's battles are and then talk about AoW as having brilliantly crafted battles but really they are not that different. It feels different perhaps because most troops and humanoid in different weapons/armors and visually look similar. It doesn't bother me. I think this part of the game will get some attention from the devs because everyone says its just not yet right.

Heroes (or in this case Champions) gain xp and level up allowing you to pick one perk from a list of five . At level 4 you choose the profession and your champions niche is in a particular area. Champions use the gold you have accumulated to buy anything you have researched (flaming axes?). Or you loot stuff and use that. Champions can do quests, go there and kill everything quests usually.

The world itself is done well. Cities can only be founded in certain spots. Different resources are dotted around the map to be encompassed in your domain and utilised. There are areas called wildlands where when you move into the first time in a game you get a little story about it and they look different to the basic terrains. One is a swamp, another an overrun forest, there is a desolate wasteland kinda one and more. These areas have things needed to be done to make the land viable for building on, exploring all the caves or killing everything. These are unique to this game and I particularly like them, I hope they get a further fleshing out.

Thats the basics of it but how does it play?

Comparing it with MoM, Civ IV and AoW I'd say its most like MoM and Civ. While your cities and producing things instead of just hitting "end turn" your champions are always doing something, at least for the early-mid game. Killing the equilavent of barbarian camps to stop spawning, doing quests for loot and xp, becoming elite warriors, mages or govenors (yeah but who wants a govenor as they currently play?). The AI I'm usually stomping on the max level before it gets bonuses, excluding terrible starts, but its still fun.

I had the original but basically gave up on it after launch, it sucked. It was so bad I never tried it again despite the patches. This game doesn't suck. If you don't get it now then definitely get it after a few patches and the modding has matured, its getting around an 8 out of 10 now and it will only get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically I'm not so much defending him rather the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Fair enough to you, he does say some things that make him look pretty bad, but if you read my posts I have basically said he appears to have bad interpersonal skills needed to be a good CEO. I still don't see anything you have posted to show to me that he knowingly initiated sexual harassment with Alexandra. And the knowingly part is important because it really defines if he truely deserves the flaming he's getting (it should be a wake up call) and either way it shouldn't reflect on the rest of his staff hence the success or otherwise of the game. But I know it will. Note I have never said he should not receive consequences for his actions but rather questioned their severity.

Another side of it is that he does come off as a rich, "do whatever I want" type which will not endear him to anyone. Comes off as a spoilt child. I'm not going to let that cloud my judgement over the sexual harassment allegations, which is ultimately what people are raging about, I'll wait to see what happens in the courts and possibly online from current or past employees.

I kinda feel like I am being made to pick a side, attack or defend him. I feel like the internet loves to rage and the internet loves a villian. All I've been saying is we don't know whats going on and so judgement should be reserved.

*sry double post*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current verdict on the game: meh.

I don't understand how/why the podcast was so favourable. I'm running my sov around, killing some monsters, and it just feels like filler. The tactical battles are utterly utterly pointless at this stage of the game as so few units are involved.

Empire building is a bit dull. I get that specialising your cities is meant to be fun, but it also takes away a lot of player choice: once you've decided that town x is going to be a research heavy enclave, the you might as well switch on an ai governor and let him run the city.

On my games, the monsters never attack me. I don't understand why. but it really kills the impression that the world is a dark and dangerous. Sure, I come across some "epic difficulty armies" now and then, but they don't do anything. They just sit on a tile waiting for me to, presumably, grow in strength and then eventually kill them.

I'll maybe play a bit more once the game has been patched a bit, but for now, I think I'm going to stop wasting my time on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a 4x-type game, I have three key metrics. The first is how frequently an awesome battle happens. For example, I've been playing MOO2 recently. Last night I took on a huge Darlok invasion fleet of battleships and titans with my smaller (but more advanced) fleet of cruisers. I did not expect to win the fight, but I did. That was awesome. Awesome things frequently happen in MOO2, which is why it is a Classic.

Another key metric is how satisfying it is to build stuff. In Civ, for example, it is fun to build cities and expand.

The final key metric is how clearly my strategic decisions mattered down the road. In MOO2, my earlier decisions to research Zortrium armor, Graviton beams, and to quickly build heavily armored but affordable cruisers (instead of waiting to build battleships) put me in a position to crush the Darlok fleet.

In FE, it is satisfying to build stuff, and your strategic decisions seem to matter down the road. I can't say that many awesome battles have happened, though there have been some. If anything, it seems like I either get absolutely crushed, or I absolutely crush the enemy. There needs to be a bit of parity to satisfy the awesome battle factor, and that seems to be missing. That seems to be a pretty fixable problem, though. And the game is still a lot of fun, in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked FE up a while back on the back of Tom Chick's enthusiasm for the game and, while I'm liking it, I find that I am doing pretty poorly at it. The AI players appear to outstrip me very quickly and it doesn't take long for them to show up with much stronger heroes and units. Looking at the stats for player performance, I'm always lagging quite a way back.

Is there supposed to be a distinction between Kingdom and Empire players? E.g. Kingdom always starts small and Empire large? Or am I just terrible at FE?

Haven't touched the game in a few weeks so I can't really be more specific than that unfortunately. I have tried a couple of different maps, and also tried fast expansion and one-city strategies, and both approaches tend to hit their limits pretty quickly. The only thing I've not tried is churning disposable units quickly rather than constructing more buildings in my capital, but that didn't feel appropriate for FE.

Re. the comment above about the monster armies standing back - I've had them destroy cities and passing armies before, and seen them do the same to the AI. I've also seen weaker monster armies assault my (stronger) heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked FE up a while back on the back of Tom Chick's enthusiasm for the game and, while I'm liking it, I find that I am doing pretty poorly at it. The AI players appear to outstrip me very quickly and it doesn't take long for them to show up with much stronger heroes and units. Looking at the stats for player performance, I'm always lagging quite a way back.

I also am playing it based on Tom's recommendation. I've played a couple of hours and really enjoy it.

I've learned that since I'm not a great advanced level strategic 4X player, I tend to not see the flaws in games. Maybe in a couple of years when I'm a Troy, Rob or Tom level player I'll have a different opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this