Triumph’s New Game to be announced May 18th @ PDXCon!

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Triumph’s New Game to be announced May 18th @ PDXCon!

This topic contains 398 replies, has 64 voices, and was last updated by  JonParkis 1 year, 6 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 399 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #271713

    Taykor
    Member

    No worries. Our glorious leader will be doing the announcing. We’ll actually be at the Con with quite a number of devs. If you’re there, come find us at the booth.

    😀 So I was joking/fooling about and turned out to be right. Kind of. Well, at least they take your project seriously. 🙂
    Sadly, I won’t be there, I’m in a country far far away. Thanks for the invite though, it would have been interesting to meet you guys, I think.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Taykor.
    #271715

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    Sadly, I won’t be there, I’m in a country far far away.

    We need to go ask our physicists why we don’t have those teleporters yet. We already have tablets, communicators, the lot. I don’t get what’s so hard about warp drive, replicators, holodecks or a Heisenberg compensator.

    #271723

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Let me phrase it this way: Should the new game prove to be some kind of SF-themed game, then in hindsight we can consider this post a massive hint. Should the new game instead be not some kind of SF-themed game, then in hindsight we might consider this post a red herring, maybe even as taking the piss out of us in a good-natured, nerdy way. 🙂

    By the way, we have replicators alright. 3D printers seem to do the job. 😉

    #271724

    Taykor
    Member

    We need to go ask our physicists why we don’t have those teleporters yet.

    And they would say ‘only states of particles can be teleported, not particles themselves’. Ha! Who cares, right?
    Anyway, you also have your bureaucrats. Imagine what would it take to obtain a visa with a teleportation permit. A horror show of the year, I bet.

    #271725

    Taykor
    Member

    Let me phrase it this way

    Wow! You are good at conspiracies! And I thought it was just a conversation…

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Taykor. Reason: I forgot this forum doesn't glue posts together. =(
    #271730

    Kelmindal
    Member

    Hi Sikbok I will not be able to come sorry I live in Toulouse in the south of France.
    But I will watch you from a distance, do not worry.
    I can not wait to discover your playful creation.
    I’ll drink a beer to your health.
    See you soon Sikbok of Triumph and Paradox ^^

    #271731

    Nemesis_Zero
    Member

    Man, i feel like its a scifi-game. But i hope it will be a new fantasy world with a rich and deep story and ofc good game mechanics. On the other hand, i can imagine it could be boring to make always the same genre all the time because playerbase expect it to be that way. Thats why i think they could come up with some scifi stuff.

    How about a fantasy scifi game with orcs in space and halflings with lasercannons ^^.

    #271735

    Ericridge
    Member

    Just eleven more days guys until we get into fights and arguments over who is better at ass kicking.

    #271738

    Gloweye
    Member

    Hey, been a while since I’ve seen you, Eric.

    #271744

    Fenraellis
    Member

    I, too, am one of those who are eagerly awaiting the reveal, of course.

    #271748

    Mr.Lost
    Member

    I hope it deserve my wait.

    #271758

    Ericridge
    Member

    Hey, been a while since I’ve seen you, Eric.

    Hi Gloweye, 😀

    I disappeared because AOW3 maps managed to feel too small and cramped by Eternal Lords expansion and plus the AI somehow ceased to challenge me anymore.

    I didn’t buy Civ6 Game either because their maps was even more smaller than Civ5, and they chose to conceal this fact. I am clearly not part of the target audience for Firaxis anymore.

    I went into hibernation after that questionnaire survey from triumph studios because it felt like they plan to make AoW4 bigger than AoW3. Guessing it will have bigger maps + fights. Just a small hope of mine. I check the forums for anything good to read once in every few months. Nothing of interest showed up until this news announcement.

    Plus it got super tiresome of players whining about abusing the AI in manual battles and needs to be “fixed” when they’re the ones that is exploiting the AI on purpose. I noticed that they won’t stop exploiting because they can’t help it but exploit. Honestly its silly that they spend hours in a single battle grinding out every last bit of experience points off a single goblin. I don’t have that kind of time to spare lol.

    Forum Quality took a serious hit during that period. :/

    So I disappeared and decided to just play mobile games whatever.

    #271759

    Gloweye
    Member

    Yeah, I can imagine that. I agree there’s a bit to much of a focus of the wrong kind of balance there.

    However….new reveals…delicious.

    #271761

    SikBok
    Keymaster

    By the way, we have replicators alright. 3D printers seem to do the job.

    Only in part. I can get the tea cup, but it still can’t get me my Earl Grey.

    Anyway, you also have your bureaucrats. Imagine what would it take to obtain a visa with a teleportation permit. A horror show of the year, I bet.

    Oh man. So we need world government too before we get those teleporters working.
    I wonder what the bigger challenge will be ; )>

    But I will watch you from a distance, do not worry.
    I can not wait to discover your playful creation.
    I’ll drink a beer to your health.
    See you soon Sikbok of Triumph and Paradox ^^

    Cheers!
    I’ll be our glorious leader on the announce.
    If you see a nerd with a goatie in one of the streamed panels, that’ll be me : D>

    Just eleven more days guys until we get into fights and arguments over who is better at ass kicking.

    I, too, am one of those who are eagerly awaiting the reveal, of course.

    However….new reveals…delicious.

    Hype!

    I hope it deserve my wait.

    Same here. Please let us know either way.

    #271765

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I don’t get what’s so hard about warp drive, replicators, holodecks or a Heisenberg compensator.

    Warp drive takes a LOT of energy to maintain the negative energy fields to maintain a warp bubble. Last I heard there was a theoretical configuration of the bubble (essentially almost forming a closed universe that is linked to the main universe through a wormhole, and then you only need to form a small bubble around the wormhole) that might actually take the energy requirement to somewhere below “all of the energy in the observable universe”. But it still takes a lot, and all these theories are still untested.

    Replicators are basically 3D printers – get one specialised enough, and you probably could get it to pour tea into the cup for you as well. Speaking of which, I hear we’re getting close to medical tricorders.

    Holodecks… haven’t heard much. The challenging part is probably making the holograms solid – I think I’ve seen work that can generate regular holograms that at least appear to be present in unoccupied space, though. Early days, though, and it might require very specific circumstances. I don’t recall the details.

    Teleporters are still at the “teleporting hydrogen atoms is challenging, let alone anything more complex” stage, last I heard. And there’s still the question of whether, should a teleporter actually exist, teleporting a human is actually transport, or killing them and creating a doppelganger at the other end.

    Plus it got super tiresome of players whining about abusing the AI in manual battles and needs to be “fixed” when they’re the ones that is exploiting the AI on purpose. I noticed that they won’t stop exploiting because they can’t help it but exploit. Honestly its silly that they spend hours in a single battle grinding out every last bit of experience points off a single goblin. I don’t have that kind of time to spare lol.

    Agreed.

    Honestly, it annoys me when people keep going “I exploited the AI, you should fix this!” where the answer could simply be… don’t exploit the AI?

    For instance, that whole thing about people complaining about how easy it is to exploit the AI into forming an alliance, leading to it being made so that nowadays it’s all but impossible to form alliances with the AI in a randomly-generated map? I liked being able to roleplay my games a bit and choose who to ally with and who to wipe out, or to reach that point where I know I’ve won and be able to bully remaining opponents into allying with me rather than having to mop everything up. Nope, now I have to build up my forces, station them close to their cities (which the AI still doesn’t see coming) declare war, and alphastrike them so hard that they surrender after a turn of fighting instead. Seriously, if exploiting the AI makes it less fun, show some restraint and don’t exploit it. If you want your game to be won by battles rather than diplomacy, you always have the choice of just fighting your way through everything.

    #271766

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Sorry, but I think that’s complete nonsense. When you play a computer game against the AI (as opposed to against other humans), you still play to win, not to give the AI a “fair battle”. Otherwise you could just, for example, not build T3 and T4 voluntarily.

    Secondly, exploiting THE AI is not the same thing as exploiting THE GAME. When you “exploit” the quirks of the tactical combat AI, that’s not a problem. If the AI makes positional errors and so on, well, their problem.
    However, if the game allows 20 XP contacts for a unit, it’s just GOOD PLAY, to make maximum use of those. It may be an exploit of the game, but you still have to devise tactics to maximize those; it’s not trivial.

    Technically, if you lower the XP contacts, you rebalance the game – there will be no difference for players who play a battle “naturally”, but there will be a new limit for the maximum of XP possible.

    The thing to keep in mind is, since it’s NOT trivial to exploit at least some of the systems, “fixing” these are balance changes which will make the game more challenging for those who found a way to “exploit” the system.

    Additionally, the longer you play a game, the easier it gets – without extensive modding I had long ago stopped playing because the game would be too easy.

    #271767

    Gloweye
    Member

    echnically, if you lower the XP contacts, you rebalance the game – there will be no difference for players who play a battle “naturally”, but there will be a new limit for the maximum of XP possible.

    The thing to keep in mind is, since it’s NOT trivial to exploit at least some of the systems, “fixing” these are balance changes which will make the game more challenging for those who found a way to “exploit” the system.

    Additionally, the longer you play a game, the easier it gets – without extensive modding I had long ago stopped playing because the game would be too easy.

    Lets be real here – a lot of things went beyond the “no difference for normal players”. For example, converted units losing all MP, Death March only castable once per turn per stack (it made the point you reached 6-stacks of warbreeds awesome. Now it’s meh.) Arbirtary Ghoul Curse immunity for Dragons and non-evil Angels. Seduce limited to 1 cast per battle instead of a CD equal to the duration. EXP loss on retreating from battles (Attack multiple stacks, kill one, flee, return with bigger army.) No Mind Control Unit retreat from combat. Healing only Once per battle now for most of them. No-damage abilities only yielding XP once (Throw Curse and the like, which are perfectly viable abilities to use multiple times now penalize it). 4 MP for UG movement instead of 6 for non-cavecrawling. (which now makes it 3 instead of 4)

    There’s plenty opportunities where the wrong argument won, and all of them were for “balance reasons.”

    #271768

    Rhaeg
    Member

    You know, I would be interested to see a strategy game like Age of Wonders in which the AI is actually moddable in some way and then see what mod creators can come up with. No need to tell me that programming a smart AI for a game like AOW is incredibly hard, but I’d still like to see what a smart, dedicated community would come up with.

    #271773

    9 days left :).

    #271774

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    The AI IS moddable (which is what I’ve been doing the last half year or so).

    Lets be real here – a lot of things went beyond the “no difference for normal players”. For example, converted units losing all MP, Death March only castable once per turn per stack (it made the point you reached 6-stacks of warbreeds awesome. Now it’s meh.) Arbirtary Ghoul Curse immunity for Dragons and non-evil Angels. Seduce limited to 1 cast per battle instead of a CD equal to the duration. EXP loss on retreating from battles (Attack multiple stacks, kill one, flee, return with bigger army.) No Mind Control Unit retreat from combat. Healing only Once per battle now for most of them. No-damage abilities only yielding XP once (Throw Curse and the like, which are perfectly viable abilities to use multiple times now penalize it). 4 MP for UG movement instead of 6 for non-cavecrawling. (which now makes it 3 instead of 4)

    There’s plenty opportunities where the wrong argument won, and all of them were for “balance reasons.”

    Sure, but there is te game and there are the settings. If you want to screw the AI over, you can play on easy difficulty. Using vanilla death march on a stack of warbreeds – or any stack after a visit at the guardian angel shrine -isn’t something to fall on your knees for, after using it. I mean, if I had been part of the beta testers, I’d done everything possible to reign that spell in, so you’d probably never got it in the version that made it into the game.

    #271775

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Sorry, but I think that’s complete nonsense. When you play a computer game against the AI (as opposed to against other humans), you still play to win, not to give the AI a “fair battle”. Otherwise you could just, for example, not build T3 and T4 voluntarily.

    See, I fundamentally disagree with this position.

    Ultimately, when playing against AI, you’re playing for the fun and challenge. Winning against a set challenge is fun, but the fun and the satisfaction of meeting the challenge is the intrinsic reward, not the win itself. AoW3 has a number of cheats intended for map testing that can make victory against any AI level trivial (or just HEIN your way straight to victory altogether), but is that fun? Of course not. I really don’t see refraining from exploiting the game as being any different to refraining from using cheats.

    Endlessly farming a particular unit for XP? I don’t see how that’s fun, so why do it? If you’re not having fun doing it, but you feel like you need to do it to win, then why not just turn the AI down a level and not do it? Bragging rights?

    Finding it too easy to just bribe the AI into alliance with tons of gold and winning the game that way? If that’s not giving you the game you want, show some self-control and choose to play the game the way you want by not doing that. Pick some fights instead so you do get the battles you want. Don’t pressure the devs into arbitrarily making it so that forming alliances with the AI in sandbox games is virtually impossible.

    You scoff at people increasing the challenge by limiting themselves to only using certain units. I say that if that’s what they find fun, more power to them! Playing against the AI allows players to choose their own level of challenge, both in the settings they put in place at the start of the map, and in the restrictions they choose to set upon themselves. Which can be as general in choosing not to make use of unfun exploits like spending outs farming a single unit for experience, or as specific as setting limits on what they can do. People who can’t help themselves but to use such exploits, and then complain to the devs until that exploit gets “fixed” despite the harm it does to the rest of the game, just end up hurting everybody else because they want the devs to exercise the self-control that they can’t exercise themselves.

    Now, if something is impacting competitive play, then it becomes a genuine problem that needs to be fixed. But if we’re just talking about playing against the AI, and it’s an exploit that you can choose not to, well, exploit…

    Then, you know, you can just choose not to use that exploit, and enjoy the additional challenge that comes from showing restraint.

    #271776

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I have a couple of serious problems with your post.

    EVERY imbalance has consequences for “competitive” play, because competitive play isn’t just human vs. human, without any AI player, competitive play is also any number of humans PLUS any number of AIs in a game. Which means, your main point is simply invalid. Imbalances and exploits are always a problem.
    So your post simply doesn’t stand.

    As it is, there are other problems with your post. You say:

    You scoff at people increasing the challenge by limiting themselves to only using certain units. I say that if that’s what they find fun, more power to them! Playing against the AI allows players to choose their own level of challenge, both in the settings they put in place at the start of the map, and in the restrictions they choose to set upon themselves. Which can be as general in choosing not to make use of unfun exploits like spending outs farming a single unit for experience, or as specific as setting limits on what they can do.

    You see, IF people “increase the challenge”, by limiting themselves to certain units (and still have a chance to win), then this simply means the game is badly balanced and or the AI is godawfully weak. Which in turn means, the game isn’t fun. It’s like racing with a Ferrari against a Porsche, but when you shift into 3rd gear the Porsche can’t follow, because the driver can use only the first two gears – so, if you do want a race, you have to limit yourself to the first two gears as well. Ultimately that is not a race anymore.

    But most revealing is the use of the phrase unfun exploits which implies that there are fun exploits as well. The example you chose, farming experience out of units, is one I actually find fun (which goes to show that fun and unfun are pretty subjective) – however, it’s also a very central part of the game, because XP is a game resource that makes your units better. In fact, you could make a point of showing that it’s the decisive game resource: when you LOSE a unit, what you actually use is not only the production value, but also the XP the unit has gained and used to increase its performance for the same basic cost.
    So ACTUALLY, no matter how many XP contacts you allow, GOOD play (as opposed to just play) will ALWAYS try to maximize the “resource gain”, because this is a fundamental part of what battling in the game is all about.
    Or – in other words: BALANCING the maximum possible XP gain is NOT stopping “XP farming”, on the contrary.
    Essentially, that is one of the reasons of why the AI feels weak in specific situations – they miss the really cool units; high-level heroes and champion X units (I fixed that problem; you wouldn’t believe how much of a problem it can be to beat a stack led by a competitively leveled AI hero that consists of a champion 4 shock trooper, 3 Champion 1 Black Knights and an Elite Priest.)

    The same is true for everything else. Healing only once per battle? In SM we could heal only once PER TURN, so what is the actual problem here? If you still COULD heal more than once, with a cooldown on it, if a unit of yours was down to only a few HPs, why on EARTH wouldn’t you prolong a battle in order to squeeze another heal in – if you COULD do it? Because it’s unfun? Losing a unit is certainly more unfun.
    Then Diplomacy. Alliances are definitely still possible, within certain rules. It may have become more difficult – but if you want it easy, play easy.

    However, there is more to it. Let’s look at another example. Vanilla game rules for settling are, because the AI, if left to their own devices, would settle like hell, AI town/fortress (fortress is something the AI doesn’t use anyway) have to be at least 11 hexes apart. With humans it’s 5. Obviously, this difference is something humans can use to massively curb their economy. Essentially, the idea behind this is to allow Fortresses in the vicinity of a town to make use of outlying resources, while if it’s settlements they will inhibit each other and grow slower, if at all.
    If you accept the rules as such, you’ll have to balance them, because you don’t want to allow simple economic superiority by just building towns in minimum distance, without regard of what is actually in their radius, simply because you don’t want such an easy strategy to work.
    This, however, is fairly difficult, when the AI plays a different game: it gets economic advantages by basically cheating, and if humans use their advantage in minimum distance it’s basically “cheating back” on the AI.

    Now, YOUR position would probably be, it’s ok as it is, if you don’t want this heavy settling you can simply restrain from founding in minimum distance – but the problem is that the casual player doesn’t even know about this. The casual player HAS FUN finding out they CAN do this and enjoy it. If the rules were different from the start, they wouldn’t know differently and wouldn’t have less fun.

    So the conclusion is, that ALL these things SHOULD be part of DIFFICULTY SETTINGS. I imagine advanced difficulty settings, where you can set all parameters that influence the difficulty level, not only based on WHAT THE AI is capable of or gets in addition, but also based on what THE HUMANS can or cannot do.

    Which means, diplomacy settings would be part of that; minimum settling distance would be part of that; XP contacts would be part of it; gold/mana/research loot for exploring would be part of it. And so on.
    Maybe even “using T4s or not”.

    #271782

    the AI, if left to their own devices, would settle like hell

    Err, not true?

    It is, iirc, human player + 2 cities.

    #271784

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Before I get started, I just want to clarify that using the term “unfun exploits” was not intended to imply anything about the presence or absence of exploits that are not unfun. That said, I would ask that if an “exploit” isn’t harming the multiplayer environment and enhances the overall experience rather than detracting from it, is it really an exploit, or is it an unplanned feature?

    EVERY imbalance has consequences for “competitive” play, because competitive play isn’t just human vs. human, without any AI player, competitive play is also any number of humans PLUS any number of AIs in a game. Which means, your main point is simply invalid. Imbalances and exploits are always a problem.
    So your post simply doesn’t stand.

    I disagree here.

    The ‘farming XP’ thing is actually something I consider to be a good example of something that didn’t matter until it did. Unless you were in one of the rare realtime multiplayer games which allowed manual battles against AI, it just wasn’t something you got the opportunity to do very often – until PBEM became a thing and split things around so that you played manual battles against the AI (in your turn, anyway) and autoresolved against other players, making XP farming practical in multiplayer games. At that point, and only at that point, it became a problem, rather than the devs being asked to nanny players who couldn’t help themselves.

    When it comes to AI alliances:

    First, I think this is the first time I’ve seen someone attempt to justify that as a multiplayer balance concern.

    Personally, I’d say that as soon as you introduce AI players into the game, it’s no longer truly competitive multiplayer, even if the players are going head-to-head. You’ve immediately introduced new factors into the gaming environment that make it less of a match between the skill of the human players, and makes it depend more on random factors – not exactly tournament conditions. Now, the multiplayer community may disagree on that, but if you’ve got AI players in a multiplayer game, I’d consider that a game that’s being played for fun, not to decide who’s best.

    Furthermore, if anything, the “fix” actually makes it more of a balance problem. In the circumstances where you can get an alliance just by buying off the AI, then at least both players can have more-or-less equal opportunities to spend resources to do so (potentially informed by the alignment of the AI player as to how successful they’re likely to be). The “fix”, however, includes arbitrarily designating, without any indication to the player short of fulfilling all the normal requirements and still failing, certain AI opponents as ones that will never accept an alliance, regardless of alignment or other conditions. If you’ve got two players who’ve both sunk resources into cozying up to an AI player, and one happens to be one that’s willing to ally and the other isn’t… then you’ve got one player who’s been put at a significant disadvantage because of the resources that they poured down the drain trying to get an alliance that was never going to happen. All because people couldn’t help themselves from buying their way to victory and then complained because they didn’t get the battles they wanted.

    On the topic of voluntary restrictions:

    I don’t think someone deciding to take voluntary restrictions for a change of pace is necessarily a sign of a failing of the AI (although it certainly does have restrictions, as shown by higher levels of the AI representing higher levels of cheating more than better skilled AI) as you claim. If someone normally plays against, say, Emperor, and they choose to impose restrictions upon themselves and compensate by playing on a lower setting, then what, pray tell, is wrong with that? It’s an opportunity to play a different game, try things they might not normally do, and possibly become a better player through developing a better familiarity with what units they don’t normally use are actually capable of. If they’re able to take those restrictions and still win against Emperor AI… then maybe they’re just that good? Aren’t many AIs in any strategy game that can reliably win against the best players.

    As for the example about city building distances…

    I don’t really see what point you’re trying to make there. Should players be handheld into not being able to place cities too close together? Part of the game is learning what works and what doesn’t… and part of any good strategy game is having situations where what you’d normally do is not necessarily what you want to do right now (this is, after all, what stops every game from simply following through the same steps as every other game). The AI has its restrictions because it’s not good at judging when to change its strategy and can easily disadvantage itself if not prevented, but a human is smart enough to know when the benefits of placing cities close together outweigh the costs.

    At the bottom line: You seem to be trying to argue that even against the AI, a player just isn’t playing properly unless they use every resource at their disposal to win.

    I say… well, HEIN is a resource at the player’s disposal to win. It’s not very satisfying, but I could win a game against 7 emperor AIs in less time than it takes to set up the map.

    If an exploit is only relevant in playing against the AI, and it hampers a player’s ability to enjoy the game, they can just choose not to use it. Just like they can choose not to use the cheats. If you need to exploits to compete against the AI at a particular setting, then just lower the setting until you don’t need them, and work your way back up.

    If your use of exploits is ruining your experience in single-player games, you only have yourself to blame. Same as if you use cheats.

    #271792

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    the AI, if left to their own devices, would settle like hell

    Err, not true?

    It is, iirc, human player + 2 cities.

    In numbers, yes, that depends on diff level. What I mean is, that the AI used to squeeze towns in every possible nook and cranny, playing under the same rules as humans; it would often squeeze a town between two towns of a (human) player, given half a chance, leaving no option than to attack and raze it.

    (lots of text)
    If your use of exploits is ruining your experience in single-player games, you only have yourself to blame. Same as if you use cheats.

    Your point seems to be that “exploits” and “cheats” are more or less the same thing, but that isn’t true. A cheat will simply do something with no regard to game rules. If you use a cheat you do something you cannot do within the rules of the game – instant win of a battle, for example. You don’t play the game anymore, but instead the game does what you tell it. Keel over and die.
    An EXPLOIT, however, is WITHIN the game rules. Strictly spoken, the distinction between exploit and good play is rather vague at times, and some “exploits” can be quite clever, while a cheat is never clever.

    If the battle AI would be abysmal (which it isn’t), would it be the right thing to tell people who complained to forget manual battles and instead accept autobattles and leave people their fun to clobber the AI – or would it be better to try and improve the battle AI?

    #271795

    I heard that they are remaking the Desperate Housewives game from 2006. Housewives of Wonder. Housewives that wonder and wander and search for men lost to Age of Wonders3.

    Comedy relief is underrated.

    #271805

    SeeR
    Member

    What its not the ultimate modern day VR version of Leisure Suit Larry ?

    dammit spock , we beamed u out a jib slow , ur ears got toasted by that damn exlopding Klingon fireball……

    #271808

    Taykor
    Member

    Oh man. So we need world government too before we get those teleporters working.
    I wonder what the bigger challenge will be ; )>

    Well… If I started establishing world government (and who else would do it?) I would not be understood correctly, I’m afraid. ‘I’m only taking all power to make teleportation accessible’ doesn’t sound like a very compelling justification for some reason. Though on the scale of comic overlords this is quite reasonable, of course.

    Besides I won’t have enough time anyway. So the internet to the rescue, I guess.

    I’ll be our glorious leader on the announce.
    If you see a nerd with a goatie in one of the streamed panels, that’ll be me : D>

    Nice. =) But you still aren’t on the speakers list, as far as I see.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Taykor.
    #271815

    What its not the ultimate modern day VR version of Leisure Suit Larry ?

    I got my VR gear for Eva Longoria. Im breaking in the gloves for the 18th. So even if my ears are permanently ringing from losing battles to Dreadreaper. Im ready for Eva or to play Larry. They said it was designed for fans of AoW3. So bring on the girls the Discord group is ready.

    #271841

    Ultimatum
    Member

    Hype!

    Also,hi,I’ve not been year in years!

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 399 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.