Right, I just meant that the program itself is designed to use the same amount of memory regardless on what OS it is run, it's just the OS itself that adds onto it. So we mean the same thing
Annatar11
[quote]but this is the first I've heard of programs actually taking up more RAM (in and of themselves) to run, as opposed to the OS eating it up for them. [/quote] Granted my computer engineering background didn't take me too extensively into programming, but isn't that impossible? I mean, unless you code the game differently for each OS, the game code itself should take the same amount of memory regardless or where you run it. If the OS decides to allocate more memory for it, that
[quote]well i personally send everyone in to fight not to sit on the butts and wait. [/quote] That doesn't change the fact that a lot of people would 'exploit' it the way Kryo described, though.
Do you think there's enough room on the box to do it sideways? Yarlen said on IRC yesterday that it's an in-game shot completely (well, minus the Volcanic planet and the Kol shadow).. Ships would have to be a lot closer to fit on the front cover for a side shot.. still doable, it'd just have to be a different shot
[quote]I dont think it will be too big an issue really[/quote] Nor do I I'm just a firm believer in everyone understanding what they're getting into before they commit. Avoids any unnecessary drama/arguments/what have you if something ends up happening
[quote]Have that building/antennae thing and the SINS name merge into a tec fleet facing the blue of the Advent... [/quote] The funny thing is, it does already. The 'building/antennae' thing is the front of a Kol, so it's as if the Kol is flying over the rest of the fleet, and in perspective it looks larger than the rest because it's closer
So what you mean is, we start Areolian Sector (or whatever it's called ), see how we're placed, and then ally up based on that to make the teams fair in whatever systems we end up in? Sounds fine by me, I think by now we can trust each other enough not to backstab when we agree not to. And if we can't, well, no reason to include the backstabbers in the next game If w
[quote]Ooo, here's an idea. You could even expand it so that ships at lower levels gain more XP than ones at higher levels. Sure, you could still send in a Lv1 Kol with a couple Lv5s, but the Kol would get a lot more XP in the long run, but not 100%. Think of it as RPG style play - weaker ships get more XP for destroying higher-level ones (if this is already in the game, it should be emphasized a bit more). This would essentially solve the problem as the low level ships would get a good (but red
[quote]As opposed to..a double? Float? A linked list? A binary tree? "I'm making all game constants have up to seven significant digits!"[/quote] I laughed
[quote]And anyways, I think the game isn't too repetitive thanks to random maps and circumstances.[/quote] The phase lanes in random maps where planets are added sure make it 'interesting'
Nice looking fox cover. Any chance of seeing the back? Also as far as the CE goes, is there going to be any in-game bonus for it? I'm getting the CE anyway, just curious
I hereby change my vote. I now vote we proceed with sacrificing Eet first, with the goat sacrifice held as a last resort if we (somehow, through extraordinaringly bad luck) fail to sacrifice Eet.
[quote]how about 1pm est Saturday guys? It would help me; but im still good for 2 [/quote] I'm fine with that
[quote]You get a dented box , and a scratched disk, with no manual. [/quote] I was thinking a mint condition box, nicely printed and mint condition manual, but no disk at all
[quote]I do hope they allow multiplayer 'observers' to message each other. [/quote] If they allow people to just join as observers Otherwise, most people probably wouldn't stick around much after being wiped out to wait for the next guy before being able to talk. But I seem to remember reading that they weren't going to allow 'join as observer' stuff, though I could well be wrong <img src="smiles/Smile.gif" border=0 a
I vote we sacrifice a goat to appease whichever diety the followers of Prime Magnetism worship. Failing that, I vote we sacrifice Eet.
[quote]I feel that for default gameplay they shouldn't be playable but in certain scenarios they would be. [/quote] One trick that's common enough to see to create the feel for technologically superior races is to just limit the number of ships you can produce. In the case of Sins, it could either be greatly increased resource costs, fleet point cost, or both. Then if their fewer ships would be able to take out a larger force, you'd get the feeling that they are indeed quite a bit s
[quote]Sometimes, if the invading force is large, the system defenses will serve only to slow the assault. However, three or four gauss cannons and a couple of hangars will usually survive long enough for me to bring in a fleet. [/quote] Throw in two repair stations, and you'll at least double the lifespan of your defenses The AI currently is very stupid And yes,
*passes out cattle prods to everyone already signed up* Go forth, and prod more people until they show up!
The Sova isn't meant to stay on the front lines for very long. But the AI doesn't know this.. I usually bring it in, drop some missile batteries, and when it starts getting shot up I retreat it very early. A level 10 Sova can field I believe 7, or 8 squadrons with a 30% damage bonus to each. So just that alone makes it a very formidable ship. Toss in a well placed Embargo and you can shut down planetary income/production and be able to attack anywhere in the grav well all from the safety of sitt
*pokes people with a cattle prod to show up*
I can do that
I'm up for a Saturday game. 8 am eastern is a little earlier than I'd like, even though I'm an early waker Same time as last one would be fine, though.
Yes, but how many 100 planet games with 4 colonized stars do you realistically expect to play? In the example you give, sure, then I'd like to have someone to control half my stuff while I control the other. But those kinds of games would be very rare. It's like Blair wrote in his dev journal, they have to weigh features.. this particular one would take quite a lot to implement I imagine, and it just wouldn't be used much at all. We're a pretty small crowd of active multiplayer testers,