Sorry for the delayed response! To clarify, I've uploaded some screenshots (link below). Basically, when you run in Windows 10 Style, you get a minimal right click context menu, while in Modern or W7 Style you get the full right click context menu options. I'm wondering if for W10 style there are plans to add an advanced option to enable full right click context menu options. http://imgur.com/a/EiDb6
I noticed that the new w10 start menu lacks most of the right click dialog options, and that start10's Windows 10 Style does not appear to restore the full right click options (though other styles still give you these options). Are there plans to add this as a new feature or style variant down the road?
Sins Forums
Personally, I tend to agree with the OP. However, I'm also feeling a need to play devil's advocate, so allow me to point out that while controlling what children see is a generally a good thing, as it leads to established social norms and conventions, at the same time too much control can be just as bad as too little. Without any exposure to the various "evils" propogated by violent or sexual movies, games, etc, it would be difficult for us to fit those concepts into our beliefs and outlooks.
Yes but the argument here is that people think you HAVE too. As a programmer i can tell you out of experience that programming can make or break how the game runs even crysis could probably run smoother if they had a smarter programmer. The problem is everyone just assumes Good graphics=monster pc needed=most can't run it. You can have good graphics without a super computer its all about the programming it
Your point is mismade. When HL2 came out it had the most technically advanced graphics of the time and for some time to come. It was the Crysis of the day and its still maintbained those reasonable system specs. Not true. The steam engine was fairly new, but hardly designed to be overaweingly impressive. That said, system reqs were relatively higher. However, they have remained consistent, and even at launch you could run it smoothly on a subpar
I've always though sins had good graphics that intentionally fit with the game. Close up, yeah, its not going to be staggeringly amazing (though it is pretty good). But no-one plays the game constantly zoomed in on a ship, so it doesnt matter. What's nice is that the interface looks good and the graphics are very well done for upper level zooms. No, they aren't as detailed, but it still looks pretty freaking cool when you view the game like a general ordering troops around. Bleeding edge
BOTF was an amazing game. Sadly unbalanced, with some very annoying problems (who builds a colony with lvl 1 buildings when you've maxed research and have lvl 9 everywhere else?), it was nevertheless an amazingly fun game. There's a fan created sequel being worked on with an open beta, though I dont remember the link off the top of my head.
Sins Forums
I wont claim to be an expert, but from what i know of the practice, sites with ads displayed are payed by the number of times the ad is clicked. So, I get 1 cent for every click. As a result, you get a whole host of scams meant to defraud the system, which is generally pretty easy to do, even if it's done by something like "per unique ip address in a 24 hour window" (ie, every day only 1 click per ip address counts towards what you earn). The theory is that you when you click on an ad, its be
Picking what to build where can really depend. I play TEC mostly, and when I run into desert world my usual inclination is either to turn them into an econ giant or a forge world with as many shipyards as i can cram into it. Of course, it varies based on your situation and map. If there's only one desert planet but it's at a great spot for attacking or defending, you might want lots of shipyards. If it's farther back, trade ports are probably better. I suppose you could put a ton of research
I was under the impression that starbase prices at the moment were more placeholders while they see how much people think they should cost than final values. Can't remember where I saw it though.
True. I don't know much about shipyards, so I'm not going to argue the point much, but even if they ships they make are initially little more than merchant designed converted to more of a military design, quantity, as they say, has a quality all of its own. Again, the TEC early on is buying time by trading space. They'll take horrendous casualties, but all they need is a few years to convert over to a wartime economy and they'll probably be able to at least be able to force a draw. And that's
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that the Vasari defeat was inevitable, merely that with the sheer amount of space the TEC could lose before even beginning to feel the losses affect them, the Vasari would have to move very quickly indeed to secure a good chance at total victory. While it would indeed take years for the TEC to build up (from what i recall, the war had been going on for long enough for the first generation of recruits to have retired by the time things had stabilized, according to
Good point. The Allies weren't that far behind the Axis powers at the start of the war, though in some cases there were glaring exeptions where one side or the other would have a definite advantage over the other (german U-Boats, Russian T-34s, etc). As you said, the big difference was that the Axis powers were already in a war time economy, but the Allies were not. In this case, there are substantial differences in certain areas of the TEC and Vasari technology. The Vasari seem to ha
True, but many of those advancements took place after the war had started. The Japanese Zero, although very underarmored, was far superior to anything the US fielded for a good chunck of the war. Likewise, the german U-Boats did incredible damage to Allied shipping, which was ultimately defeated more by sheer numbers of ships and goods than anything else (though in the last year or so the germans were losing a ton of subs thanks to new tactics and technology). The allies were woefully ill pre
I hate to say it, but while Iraq may not have had a world class military, it was considered a major regional power and possessed one of the stronger armies in that region of the world. Additionally, while not the best trained, Saddam's army was battle tested, and were by no means cowards or complete morons (though the quality of their units and their weapons/training varied widely, as is common in armies from that region for reasons completely unre
"Wars are not that often"? What type of a rock have you been living under for the past few decades? Now, if you're refering to all out wars between major powers, which does tend to lead to innovation in different areas of research, then perhaps. But on the whole, there's always a war going on somewhere. That said, plenty of innovation occurs outside of war (the internet, the space race, genetic breakthroughs, etc) although military and government funding is critical for opening up new fi
Looks good! Can't wait to see the next update.
Yeah, if it was important enough to push the date back a month or two, they probably should have warned us sooner. They had to have know sooner than a week before launch that they needed or wanted a beta. Oh well. As long as the beta leads to improvements, its all good.
The other thing to remember is that with the whole "Gamer's Bill of Rights" thing that StarDock is pushing, it would be kinda embarrassing to have to release patches that fix stuff right after launch. Beta lets them test the software on a wide range of machines under real usage conditions, which is difficult even for the largest companies (Google and Microsoft literally have entire warehouses of computers so they can do lots of automated testing all at once, but that's the kind of thing that'
Check out the demo if you haven't already. I've easily got 5-6 hours out of the two levels available in it, and will certainly get a good deal more out of it when I'm not stuck playing the same two areas from a campaign over and over again. There is a great deal of replayability as well. Better still, while we'll have to wait a few more days to see how long the game maps take to play through in each campaign, they are planning on having the level editor and mod tools out around the
There should be a ton of replayability. I've spent several hours on the 2 levels available playing with my buddies, and it hasn't gotten old yet. It sounds like there are 4 campaigns with 5 scenarios, for a total of about 20 maps on launch. I can see a lot of potential for user generated content, especially considering the amount of dynamic sounds automatically used when certain events trigger, like reloading or spotting a boss zombie. I'm loo
They really need to add a scenario/campaign mode to the game. Even if it's only singleplayer at first, it would add a great deal of depth to the game, in a different way than mods do. Hopefully it wouldn't be too much work to be practical. Still, I think it might fit well with the 3rd expansion, which from what i've heard is focused on adding more content rather than improving any specific aspect of the game (defense, diplomacy, etc).
As a suggestion to check if one is available in the event you hadn't already done so, perhaps? It's a minor bug, and not something to throw a temper tantrum about.
If you have the cap ship with the colonize ability, it shouldnt be an issue. I haven't played the scenario, though, so I can't really say. It's nice to see some scenarios popping up, even if there isnt much support for them in Sins. Maybe something for the second or third expansion, or (maybe) a future patch?
Stardock Forums