4161

I like the artwork. I know some people dislike it, but I appreciate the pseudo-cel shaded look. I even like the spell effects, as primitive as they are.

None of my issues are with the art direction.

4162

I also like the artwork, quite a bit. There are a couple artwork relates issues that I don’t particularly care for though, with character portraits and particle effects at the top of that list.

I also like to zoom all the way down to my unit’s pov and just look around at distant area’s, like my own towns or an enemy fortress looming in the distance.

4163

I like the art direction just fine. It looks very boardgame-y.

What I don’t like is the blandness of the cloth map (just adding land & water colouring helped IMMENSELY) and the lack of… eh… outstandingness? of the cloth map terrain & PoI markers, and the 3D buildings. It’s difficult to identify/tell stuff apart at a glance in both view modes, though it’s fortunately mostly not the same stuff that’s hard to differentiate in both view modes.

Spell effects I only mind in so far as I want to be able to identify the spell by the vfx. Well that, and I want the vfx to be over before I fall asleep.

4164

In general, I like the semi-cell shaded look. The only problem with it is that the palette is a bit too muted so that the units don’t pop enough on screen to really look impressive.

And yes, the spell effects are god awful.

4165

If you haen’t done so already, try turning up cloth map intensity, this will make borders/special locations/resources all stand out much more clearly. I think it defaults at transparent, I keep mine at 100%

4166

Thanks, I tried already. Unfortunately I’m one of the lucky ones it doesn’t work for. Fortunately that means it’s stuck at 100% opacity. So uhm… My criticism stands.

4167

I kind of liked the cell shaded, soft artstyle. But sometimes it was too soft and muted, the close ups of the models are very bad, some of the textures (some of the wasteland, mounstain and snow textures) were also bad, and the same with most particle f/x.

4168

I have received a response from Stardock regarding my forum banning there. The essence is they will ban you for any reason they see fit, and will not lift it. This is a truly pathetic corporate display. I received no warnings, no notification of why I was banned, and as far as I can make out it is simply for referring to my previous prediction that the game would tank. :shame:

Hello,

Bans are set by forum moderators based on their discretion. Bans will not be lifted, nor can they be disputed.

name removed
Consumer QA Manager
Stardock Corporation
http://impulsedriven.com/

I have requested a full refund.

4169

Wowie.

4170

Bans are set by forum moderators based on their discretion. Bans will not be lifted, nor can they be disputed.

You can’t create an echo-chamber without breaking a few eggs.

4171

To be fair Dale they have to take that stance because otherwise they would be undermining their own moderators. I’m not saying what they did was right but the follow up action makes sense to me.

4172

They could put together a review process without undermining the moderators – there’s really some middle ground between “our moderators are infallible gods whom no man may question” and “our moderators? fuck 'em.”.

4173

Totally understand, and I support standing behind your mods (I’m an admin at a different forum). But most forums have some form of review in the event of a protest. To me the response read as “mods will ban where they see fit, and bad luck!” Mods get angry, have a bad day or simply make a mistake in interpretation or context. To not have some form of review process, specially on a corporate forum, is just bad form.

You’d expect this sort of response from the ‘My Little Pony Fan Club Forums’, not a business fighting to keep customers. :)

4174

That doesn’t make any sense at all. It requires a lot more training, experience and vetting to become a judge than a Stardock forum moderator, and yet there is an appeals process for judicial decisions. The real reason they don’t want to review bannings has nothing to do with “undermining their own moderators,” it’s that they just don’t care that much.

4175

Ouch. That was a pretty painful review to read. It was probably even more painful for Troy to gather the necessary experience so he could write it.

4176

To be doubly fair, there may be a review process, but that it wouldn’t be anything they’d share with John Q. Forummember.

4177

Sure, but then you could at least say “We’ve reviewed your ban and believe it was justified. Accordingly, it will not be lifted and this decision cannot be appealed.”

Then users feel like there’s a tiny bit of protection from the moderator-has-a-bad-day scenario.

4178

It’s really interesting, because “banned from forums” tends to translate into “lost as customer” quite often.

4179

Well sure, that’s what you and I would have said because we’re normally reasonable people, but when you’re dealing with evil dictators trying to subvert and destroy the strategy/crpg market* then you feel lucky just getting a “no” in response ;)

    • this statement said entirely tongue-in-cheek
4180

Well, most people take a forum ban to mean “please don’t buy our games” which… Oh. Yeah.