Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My Colony 0.29.0 Release Notes
#21
Thanks for the clarification. Fixed.
If this post was helpful, click rate and give a +1.
Join SOC today to fast track your independence!
Use Charter code DOOb6Emc for goodies!
Reply
#22
ah yes much cleared now Vyryn. Actually FFF does let sub colonies have a vote. But it depends on the established hierarchy inside the FFF.
We currently have structure for this and are in the proces of updating it. But either way, more perspectives are always welcome.
[Image: 0HNanx1.png]
Reply
#23
Well this is hardly important but for some reason I care enough to say:

I think there wasn't actually any need to edit the post (not that one option doesn't avoid confusion more) since there's certainly nothing wrong grammatically with a double negative. The "don't" contradicted the "no" (or reversed polarity as the english ppls apparently say for this), but that wasn't in any way self-contradictory, just really generally more of a stylistic choice that comes off as a little more understated (the weather's not bad VS the weather's nice). Ofc everyone might be well aware of that and the need for clarification may just be an offshoot of other's persistence in using double negatives like they are in fact reinforcing the negative, but I wanted to randomly pontificate on the issue for a moment.
Join the Commonwealth of Martium! Starter pack - 100k ore, food, water, steel, gold, money, chips.  PM when joining for more or to make requests!

Charter code: SG8D9qi7
Join today and PM!
Reply
#24
Double negatives are indeed a stylistic choice, and not outright wrong, but in this case it was clearly confusing multiple people, so I changed it.
If this post was helpful, click rate and give a +1.
Join SOC today to fast track your independence!
Use Charter code DOOb6Emc for goodies!
Reply
#25
I made a suggestion long time ago about what you can call "federation" now, its about having the choice of which kind of federation you want to make,
in the post example - anarchy/democracy.
I'll link to the post, you can also see the other posts of the same trade for some ideas.
http://forum.ape-apps.com/showthread.php...53#pid3953
No support via private message here or DM on Discord | TD9TwTF7 | Take a look at my new suggestion and give some feedback please
Reply
#26
I like that idea Hayenn. It's definitely a bit different than the current direction since it employs more MP or online functionality, and given the current game state would realistically be a ways off since it'd definitely mandate a steady (non beta) foundation long term, but if possible would definitely add a fun subsection of game play type.

Since it's now kinda on topic: I think one really good case for extended online functions like federations and their full implementation is that it's a strong player magnet. Some players (and naturally 99.9% of those playing now) are totally happy with an a single-player experience where the only validation for their "work" is their own satisfaction at its completion. That is, however, a more limiting model: Some players really need the validation by way of in-game comparison to others to make it worthwhile to them, and even to the rest of us, those happy to play now, things inevitably do get older quicker, as you can only make so many new maps or try out so many new strategies before becoming bored. Even to these players extended online functionality can keep people around, whereas otherwise a game really hits a wall where it has to keep creating content just to stem the tide of lost users, and that's by nature a losing battle anyway.

That's mainly based just off a business-based analysis assuming a desire to grow IP value, but even as a player only I do think there's a much stronger pro- argument to going further into online functionality, since it generally won't have an effect on dedicated single-players if so designed. I can't pretend I know the stresses various aspects can put on server bandwidth and subsequently pricing to bast, but in any case, even if that was an issue it could be managed if the game has a cost or subscription fee (for online use) post-beta.
Join the Commonwealth of Martium! Starter pack - 100k ore, food, water, steel, gold, money, chips.  PM when joining for more or to make requests!

Charter code: SG8D9qi7
Join today and PM!
Reply
#27
(03-21-2017, 07:42 AM)bageling Wrote: Since it's now kinda on topic: I think one really good case for extended online functions like federations and their full implementation is that it's a strong player magnet.   Some players (and naturally 99.9% of those playing now) are totally happy with an a single-player experience where the only validation for their "work" is their own satisfaction at its completion.  That is, however, a more limiting model: Some players really need the validation by way of in-game comparison to others to make it worthwhile to them, and even to the rest of us, those happy to play now, things inevitably do get older quicker, as you can only make so many new maps or try out so many new strategies before becoming bored.  Even to these players extended online functionality can keep people around, whereas otherwise a game really hits a wall where it has to keep creating content just to stem the tide of lost users, and that's by nature a losing battle anyway.

Which is perfect? for this suggestion : Civilization Engineering
  1. Basically for the CE techs,
    - Online mode : players of the same commonwealth share the buffs, and upgrade them together
    - Offline mode : solo players has their progression +233% faster.
  2. Missions with limited resource rewards via player action, and not idle production from buildings
  3. Online Ladder : weekly/monthly/all time tabs, with a weekly reward/achievement for top rankings. Also monthly rewards can be received for colonies with at least a certain amount of completed missions, limited decorations for example - which can lead to a monthly player-designed decoration contests.
No support via private message here or DM on Discord | TD9TwTF7 | Take a look at my new suggestion and give some feedback please
Reply
#28
There are some strange 3D issues going on in the game. Some behind buildings are appearing in front of other structures.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#29
(03-21-2017, 10:25 PM)Guilherme Lenfers Wrote: There are some strange 3D issues going on in the game. Some behind buildings are appearing in front of other structures.

This is already listed on the Bug Tracker:   http://forum.ape-apps.com/showthread.php?tid=1990
FAQ  -  Suggestion Index

First Future Federation Member.  Click HERE to join.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Shoutbox

« archive

avatar
Patchdaddy please direct becklastein torward my thread in "technical support" when he comes online. I'd prefer a direct response from him instead of a staff member. Thank you.
avatar
bwilson got busted! lol not sure for what, but busted!
avatar
walks in smoking a fat one .... cigar that is
avatar
Thank you.
avatar
it is done
avatar
@BWILSON13087 Will you update your thread with the info I requested, please?
avatar
macros kinda defeat the purpose of the game
avatar
You don't have macro's for that in the game (yet). You will have to do it by hand.
avatar
how to set up a macro for building multiple mines an other buildings ?
avatar
k
avatar
Patchdaddys got a pink name! Big Grin Nice pink as hell is my favorite paint color in TF2
avatar
BOOM! PATCH! BAM! WHOOSH!
avatar
Smoke! Mirrors!
avatar
How did Patchey get a colour? Sad I want that too!
avatar
looks like they finally fixed the thing that will let you not pay taxes lol
avatar
Dodgy Patch...
avatar
Heh.. just sat down for a few minutes before dinner. Didn't want to get into something on discord and then have to bail.
avatar
oi patch active here and not on discord tsssss Tongue
avatar
Level 6 capitals are a PAIN on time!
avatar
Rufus here, anyone else have a habit of deleteing their capital after using the Alt-S shortcut? This is about the third time I done did that