jpw
Master
Posts: 159 
Pledge level: Patron+Acorn+Poster
I like: Populus
What I thought Godus was going to be...
I don't like: Waiting
Collecting belief
Stickers
Sculpting
Voyages
Managing settlements
Not being a god in a god game
Chests
|
Post by jpw on Aug 16, 2014 23:42:21 GMT
Seriously, I mean really, on what planet is it acceptable to require 50 sticker icons to be showing to unlock a card. I mean even with 3 stickers on a card that still would require 33.3' stickers. Assuming I only used two sticker cards I would need 25 stickers to unlock this card. WTF?
Can someone from 22 cans please tell me what is going on? Peter did say no more than 4 or 5 stickers would ever be needed.
Read my other posts I am positive, often, but this really really takes the piss; I mean you're essentially telling me to F! off. And this is the first time I have used offensive language in over 100 posts.
SORT IT OUT. Edit: for those of you who have not seen this card, or can't make out the image, there are two icons on the card, and the card tells me it's 4% unlocked, i.e. 1 icon = 2% |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 16, 2014 23:48:34 GMT
And I know for a fact, that as the timeline has been developed. The later cards just get more and more expensive.
Surely there are better ways than this to monetize your game on mobile?
And even if there are not, leave this kind of BS out of the PC version. Don't say: We'll do it later. We've been told that for the past year.
Do it now... You have the means to do it, its NOT that hard... So fix it.
Drop whatever silly graphical modification or other gimmick it is you're working on for one week.
And roll out a patch that fixes this kind of stuff.
Stop putting things off - its fixable within less than a week. Odds are if you put your team on it, you could've had it fixed in a few day ages ago.
Instead you insist on this 'iterative design' and 'sprint' excuse. You don't wait untill after something goes horribly wrong to fix it.
You fix it as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by muumipeikko on Aug 17, 2014 0:49:04 GMT
But hang on, Huston, we have a problem... Lets say they "resolve" this sticker issue on the PC, that's just going to cause massive issues when all the worlds get linked with Jupiter/Hubworld (or whatever its called today). Who is going to spend £70 on Gems on the iOS version to buy the iron age sticker pack shown on your screen to unlock the card when they know on PC they can unlock it much cheaper with free resources? Similarly I'm guessing the dream is to have a league like DK were people spend a lot of Gems/money to make the top 100 then spend far more to stay their. Again, if all 100 of the top 100 are PC users your not going to "invest" in the iOS game if your serious about making the top 100 (How many to seeded tennis pros did you see at Wimbledon this year sporting a wooden racket?).
This is actually a major issue which does not have a simple answer and to the best of my knowledge has never been solved. How you combine a F2P game with upfront payment game and give them a level playing field? you simply can't as the one model advancement if a function of good gameplay and number of hours played where as the other aggressively tries to restrict the number of minutes a user can play in a given time period and advancement is more a function of how quick you can overcome the inbuilt roadblocks which is a function of how much real moneny you "invest" in the game...
So HubWorld leaves PC users is a bad place as you can bet the farm that if their is a choice to upset the mobile or PV market... the PC will take the shitty end of the stick..
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 17, 2014 1:04:36 GMT
It won't cause problems, because the cans have already mentioned that the hubworlds will be ENTIRELY seperate affairs from the homeworld.
Each hubworld will have its own little persistance (somehow?) while effectively being its own little pocked dimension and serving its own little purpose.
The few glimpses we've been given so far:
- Hubworld #01 will be the trading world, what exactly we will do there is as of yet unknown. But you will somehow passively trade with the other 'gods' present in that world and provide your homeworld with trade goods which will subsequently be used to unlock cards or other things.
- Hubworld #02 reportedly will be gladiatorial combat, in other words, hubworld #02 will effectively be the PvP version of Godus v1.3's PvE story campaign.
Very little else has been made known about these hubworlds, even though (according to our inside contacts) the hubworld mechanic has been played within the office for over 6 months now.
Whether the abovementioned examples still hold true is unknown, but what we can be pretty certain about is that Hubworlds will be entirely self-sufficient and likely instanced minigames.
Very much akin to the voyages, or for those that have played Age of Empires Online before it got taken down be very similar to that. (It also had a persistent homeworld in which you developed your nation while doing instanced games against the other players.)
And there is another obstacle, it has already been made known that the initial release of hubworlds (that has been delayed many times over so far and according to our latest messages will go live 'a few weeks from now') will have mobile and PC completely seperate.
I can only surmise that the actual interaction between the mobile and PC platforms is proving to be quite obnoxious and that they instead are forced to put that little bit of interconnectivity off.
Whether they are able to get mobile vs mobile to work at all is also a question I'm quite curious to know the answer for. Especially when you consider that not everyone that has a mobile device that could support Godus also has a reliable enough internet connection and a data package that could support the games online demands.
Which in turn leaves the PC version of hubworlds... And as always, the priority has never been with the PC release. Which in turn leads me to believe that even if its NOT the difficulty of getting hubworlds to function. It is likely the effectiveness that the online oriented hubworlds will have on the mobile platform that put its release off.
Afterall, why release something to the mobile platform if you can't be sure that most of your players will be able to make use of it.
If they can't use it, then clearly they can't provide you with money through it either...
Regardless, I wouldn't worry about homeworld and hubworld affecting eachother. This seems to be highly unlikely to be the case given the information provided to us so far.
Lastly - I wonder what the response will be from our friendly cans that we again point out their responsibilities and promises...
Cause every time this has happened before they seem to brush it off and call us out for being childish.
As if its our fault that we insist on them keeping promises and should instead just ignore it all and let them just kinda muck about as they wish.
I mean, its not like we paid for their product or anythi... oh wait...
|
|
|
|
Post by muumipeikko on Aug 17, 2014 2:06:00 GMT
It won't cause problems, because the cans have already mentioned that the hubworlds will be ENTIRELY seperate affairs from the homeworld. Each hubworld will have its own little persistance (somehow?) while effectively being its own little pocked dimension and serving its own little purpose. The few glimpses we've been given so far: - Hubworld #01 will be the trading world, what exactly we will do there is as of yet unknown. But you will somehow passively trade with the other 'gods' present in that world and provide your homeworld with trade goods which will subsequently be used to unlock cards or other things. - Hubworld #02 reportedly will be gladiatorial combat, in other words, hubworld #02 will effectively be the PvP version of Godus v1.3's PvE story campaign. Very little else has been made known about these hubworlds, even though (according to our inside contacts) the hubworld mechanic has been played within the office for over 6 months now. Whether the abovementioned examples still hold true is unknown, but what we can be pretty certain about is that Hubworlds will be entirely self-sufficient and likely instanced minigames. Very much akin to the voyages, or for those that have played Age of Empires Online before it got taken down be very similar to that. (It also had a persistent homeworld in which you developed your nation while doing instanced games against the other players.) And there is another obstacle, it has already been made known that the initial release of hubworlds (that has been delayed many times over so far and according to our latest messages will go live 'a few weeks from now') will have mobile and PC completely seperate. I can only surmise that the actual interaction between the mobile and PC platforms is proving to be quite obnoxious and that they instead are forced to put that little bit of interconnectivity off. Whether they are able to get mobile vs mobile to work at all is also a question I'm quite curious to know the answer for. Especially when you consider that not everyone that has a mobile device that could support Godus also has a reliable enough internet connection and a data package that could support the games online demands. Which in turn leaves the PC version of hubworlds... And as always, the priority has never been with the PC release. Which in turn leads me to believe that even if its NOT the difficulty of getting hubworlds to function. It is likely the effectiveness that the online oriented hubworlds will have on the mobile platform that put its release off. Afterall, why release something to the mobile platform if you can't be sure that most of your players will be able to make use of it. If they can't use it, then clearly they can't provide you with money through it either... Regardless, I wouldn't worry about homeworld and hubworld affecting eachother. This seems to be highly unlikely to be the case given the information provided to us so far. Lastly - I wonder what the response will be from our friendly cans that we again point out their responsibilities and promises... Cause every time this has happened before they seem to brush it off and call us out for being childish. As if its our fault that we insist on them keeping promises and should instead just ignore it all and let them just kinda muck about as they wish. I mean, its not like we paid for their product or anythi... oh wait... But the very first paragraph you have said it won't cause problems but then contradicted yourself with your 2 known facts:
Hubworld #01 will be the trading world Hmm, OK so if I'm playing on the PC with no roadblocks then it would make sense that I would have more resources to trade in this would than someone playing on a IPhone who does not want to spend money removing road blocks? They want to sell sticker packs to the iOS guy so they can't give him the level of stickers we are asking for in the PC version as no one will buy them if they are abundant.
Hubworld #02 reportedly will be gladiatorial combat,
Hmm, again if I'm playing on the PC version with no roadblocks it makes sense that I will get the "Stronger follower" and "Faster follower" cards filled much quicker than the iOS guy who has to somehow find 100 cards unless he is willing to buy the sticker pack.. So by virtue of the fact I have these stickers my people I have a significant advantage in this world.
Obviously we are speculating on something which may not even really exist, but unless the homeworld and hubworld are 2 totally separate games, we're screwed and even if they are we're screwed as it's going to be totally pointless achieving things in your homeworld and not following through in the hubworld. I.e. I may chose to invest my time and stickers in building a homeworld where my people have great stamina but are not very good at giving belief, you may have invested in people who generate great belief so you can fight the battles for them but are weak. We have each made out bed and now it's time to see who was right. If the PvP battle is you both have 15 people the same powers in a mirror image world, frankly that's a little shite and totally pointless... It's also unlikely as Godless if about selling gems and people aren't going to pay for Gems to do stuff in a world which has no effect or advantage in the world they probably want to play in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 17, 2014 3:20:20 GMT
Its not a contradiction because the gems and the homeworld resources will have NO impact on the hubworlds.
The two platforms will reportedly be entirely on equal footing because they will be designed in such a way that any micro-transactions will ONLY affect the homeworld.
Yes, the trade goods supposedly acquired though hub #01 will flow to your homeworld. But this is a single direction transfer that is entirely unaffected by microtransactions. Your homeworld will (as far as we've been told) not affect this.
As for Gladiatorial combat - an instanced skirmish style battle that is entirely stand-alone will also not affect the homeworld.
You are making the assumption that anything you do on homeworld through stickers will affect your abilities on the hubworld. It is specifically stated that this will NOT be the case. Which leads me to believe that hubworlds will be entirely minigame oriented and likely instanced with a restricted amount of persistance within them.
Granted, I've been forced to put pieces together as they have been revealed and there's no assurance that my conclusions are correct or that the information is even still relevant.
HOWEVER, even when keeping that in mind. A very strong line has remained the same throughout all that time. Which is the very fact that homeworld and hubworld will NOT be connected.
Your homeworld will be a thing that stands on its own. Your dealings in Hubworld will stand on their own. The movement of resources (such as trade) from hub- to homeworld is something that is equal to both versions and therefor not affected by any monetization (or so we've been repeatedly been told).
Simple conclusion - 'stronger follower' and 'faster follower' will have no affect in hubworlds.
You might notice that in the most recent version of the game, Voyages are also NOT affected by any of the card unlocks you've obtained.
Previously, any cards unlocked on homeworld did affect voyages (notably dig and sculpt multiple layers), this is no longer the case in v2.1/v2.2
Ultimately, because of the claim that hubworlds will be entirely unrelated to homeworld and will likely be a ranking/ladder driven tournament serving the 'god of gods' contest. I've concluded that its likely a minigame driven slugfest to obtain some form of ranking or points and work your way up from there.
Given the "only one player will advance", I suspect there's some form of knockout tournament style concept at work there.
|
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Aug 17, 2014 3:34:21 GMT
Seriously, I mean really, on what planet is it acceptable to require 50 sticker icons to be showing to unlock a card. I mean even with 3 stickers on a card that still would require 33.3' stickers. Assuming I only used two sticker cards I would need 25 stickers to unlock this card. WTF?
Can someone from 22 cans please tell me what is going on? Peter did say no more than 4 or 5 stickers would ever be needed.
Read my other posts I am positive, often, but this really really takes the piss; I mean you're essentially telling me to F! off. And this is the first time I have used offensive language in over 100 posts.
SORT IT OUT. Edit: for those of you who have not seen this card, or can't make out the image, there are two icons on the card, and the card tells me it's 4% unlocked, i.e. 1 icon = 2% You're 100% correct. It's abysmal. And of course we have to wonder; if the sticker per card cost increases that drastically in the early game - which quickly becomes difficult to attain even with repeating voyages and storms dropping sticker chests - how many stickers will cards cost by the time we hit " Space Age" epoch? According to those numbers, we're talking hundreds of stickers. That you have drag onto cards. Individually.  Are we going to have more and more multi-icon stickers - eventually with 10+ icons on them? Stickers that have icons on the icons? How did they not think all of that thoroughly through? Is this one of the major problems with iterative design? The cards are not 100% bad in concept, it's the stickers that quickly become obscenely contentious and blatantly ill-conceived (not to mention thematically contrasting). It's an absurdly inefficient, poorly constructed system - despite early feedback and suggestions. Unless they have some 'as yet unannounced feature' that will supersede the stickers later in the game, at some point they'll have to be stripped out, or redesigned, or re-purposed. Somehow I have a feeling they didn't think that far ahead in the concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 17, 2014 4:22:39 GMT
The cards are not 100% bad in concept, it's the stickers that quickly become obscenely contentious and blatantly ill-conceived (not to mention thematically contrasting). It's an absurdly inefficient, poorly conceived system - despite early feedback and suggestions. Unless they have some 'as yet unannounced feature' that will supersede the stickers later in the game, at some point they'll have to be stripped out, or redesigned, or re-purposed. Somehow I have a feeling they didn't think that far ahead in the concept.And particularly with that last line, I think you hit the nail on the head. I suspect that the current mechanic is heavily influenced by the 'advice' given through their DeNA deal. Being pressured into some pretty shady mobile mechanics and design concepts. And given the 'iterative design' plan, they have yet to show any concept of planning ahead regarding upcoming features (having had to overhaul and redesign many features already and likely many more to come.) Not particularly a cost-effective way of developing a game if you're going to have to scrap and redesign everything multiple times over. |
|
|
|
Post by muumipeikko on Aug 17, 2014 8:52:10 GMT
I think we are stuck with stickers as in the world of F2P, the higher order of separation from the cash transaction the better. I.e. say it costs me 24 Gems to speed up the building something, that's simple Math, I go to the gem shop see 240 gems is say $10 and think I'm not paying $1 for that. But cards are better in that most will find it difficult to work out the true cost of unlocking one. It looks like I need 50 stickers and a pack contains 10 random ones some multiple and costs 20 Gems... 240 gems is $10... So how much Wonga does it cost to unlock that sticker? why knows! And as sticker packs are random I may get 99% I don't need, but once I have started the cash transaction I'm committed to following it through, I.e. buying more and more sticker packs until I hit m goal...
|
|
jpw
Master
Posts: 159
Pledge level: Patron+Acorn+Poster
I like: Populus
What I thought Godus was going to be...
I don't like: Waiting
Collecting belief
Stickers
Sculpting
Voyages
Managing settlements
Not being a god in a god game
Chests
|
Post by jpw on Aug 17, 2014 12:31:38 GMT
It seems from all of this that PM is aiming too high. Trying to create a f2p game, that works on mobile, and PC is clearly proving impossible. It would seem that they really should be two different games, as has been suggested elsewhere. As a PC gamer I have never understood the f2p in app purchase model, why would someone spend so much when full games retail for £30-50 depending on the platform. Can PM admit that the cross platform approach will not work, that f2p gamers have a different product? I would call it Goduslite, but since a f2p gamer might have spent a lot in purchases it hardly seems fair.
As for stickers - could 22cans include the ability to edit costs of cards in the promised future release?
Alternative: One of the other irritating aspects of stickers is the need to manually transfer them. In the above example I am looking at 50-33 sticker transfers. Now even in Peter's simile to a sticker collection book, I seem to recall from my youth that a complete album would need 100 stickers with maybe 10 foils? So this 30+ stickers per card model doesn't work on that analogy.
As a minor improvement: why not have a model that converts the stickers into the appropriate "resource"? Then rather than having allsorts of sticker combinations at the bottom of the screen there is an icon to represent each of the five resource types, so the above screen shot would have:
Social 10, Industry 10, Discovery 8, Belief 6, Technical 15
First this would look much smarter. Second a simple drag action would then apply all the resources in that category to the card, so I am still sticking, and being tablet friendly. I am also working on the bases that in this model a sticker with two different resources would apply both to your pool. Perhaps the foils could count as 100, or have a separate counter?
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 17, 2014 13:37:56 GMT
I've proposed that kind of resource conversion ages ago. It doesn't seem to be getting much interest from the cans. I suspect that it is because "Social, Industry, Discovery, Belief and Technical" are too confusing, whereas having 2000 different stickers is much more distinct because they are visually different.
As for altering the costs of cards - another bandaid solution. Might work short-term, but wouldn't solve the problem long-term.
Just looking at my own game. I've gone through the current content in less than a week by making use of the Pit of Doom, one could argue that this is unbalanced and that I've gone through it far too quickly.
But my counterargument is this - I've gone through it because there literally is that LITTLE content. There just isn't anything to do which is why the game is padded with timers and paywall barriers.
The Pit of Doom simply revealed how little content and game they've actually made over the course of their development cycle.
They made a couple loosely connected pieces that are being held together with spit, bubble gum and baling wire (or ducttape, whichever holds your fancy)
And that apparently is 51% of their game. One obviously starts wondering when their box of toys becomes a unified game.
|
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 17, 2014 16:28:50 GMT
Seriously, I mean really, on what planet is it acceptable to require 50 sticker icons to be showing to unlock a card. I mean even with 3 stickers on a card that still would require 33.3' stickers. Assuming I only used two sticker cards I would need 25 stickers to unlock this card. WTF?
Can someone from 22 cans please tell me what is going on? Peter did say no more than 4 or 5 stickers would ever be needed.
Read my other posts I am positive, often, but this really really takes the piss; I mean you're essentially telling me to F! off. And this is the first time I have used offensive language in over 100 posts.
SORT IT OUT. Edit: for those of you who have not seen this card, or can't make out the image, there are two icons on the card, and the card tells me it's 4% unlocked, i.e. 1 icon = 2% welcome to my pit of "22cans sux" despair. I fear there is no ladder out. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Aug 17, 2014 17:44:24 GMT
Well, the PC game is not supposed to be F2p in any way, shape or form, rigth 22cans? So, get rid if this crap that reeks of F2p. I swear I will scream if anyone trys to tell me it, it just "plays like a F2p" game, umm...........what the fuck. What else is game's damn purpose but to "play" so if your game plays like a F2p, then it's a damn F2p.
I have been "playing" your game for over 24 hours now, and trust me as an experienced F2p game player, this is a damn F2p game.
FIX IT! and don't try to insult my intelligence by telling me you don't already know this. Godus is a F2p right now, whether I have access to a shop or not. This is not a non F2p and call it "trash talk" but even if you do like some F2p games like I have, this would never be one of them.
This is pretty ridiculous. This is not subtle, this is hard-core money grab. The main gameplay is not even that fun because now you have made it harder to even sculpt. I have no cool complex follower back story and the whole game still feels very much like it did when I did the first Alpha build if not WORSE. This is your finished release for mobile? The same thing you called 40 percent for the last year? The same game you called Alpha a few months ago?
I adore George and Jack and really like Fabs and Feanix and Matthew, but really the GAME sucks to PLAY right now.
This is not a "hater" post, this is a fix it post. This game is needs to be started from the foundation if not more, this game is frustrating and painful to play at times. I want this game to really be great and right now, it just pales in comparison to great. It really still is 40 percent, but yet you released it.
In my business, I would never release something to public so inferior, I think it is a sad thing that the gaming industry thinks it is okay to release something so lacking and once again I will warn, LET THE BUYER BEWARE, this game is not done. Playing Godus as it stands today, makes me miss Farmville.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 18, 2014 11:35:04 GMT
Well, the PC game is not supposed to be F2p in any way, shape or form, rigth 22cans? So, get rid if this crap that reeks of F2p. I swear I will scream if anyone trys to tell me it, it just "plays like a F2p" game, umm...........what the fuck. What else is game's damn purpose but to "play" so if your game plays like a F2p, then it's a damn F2p. (mind the avatar) |
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Aug 21, 2014 3:23:09 GMT
Yes, the trade goods supposedly acquired though hub #01 will flow to your homeworld. But this is a single direction transfer that is entirely unaffected by microtransactions. Your homeworld will (as far as we've been told) not affect this. Actually, trade happens in hub #01 but 22Cans have publicly stated that they don't want trading. Essentially, in hub#1, you are herding traders around as the goal for the game. They're not talking about persistent trades. From that July Q&A fiasco: |
|
|
|
Post by nikink on Aug 21, 2014 8:29:13 GMT
That sounds to me like "Trading" will be another "Voyages" type of minigame. Only with multiple gods who have to work together because neither will have enough belief to sculpt the path alone and avoid the nasty giants/enemies/swamps of death etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Aug 21, 2014 9:42:30 GMT
If hubworld is just mini games that is going to be shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 21, 2014 12:44:42 GMT
Yes, the trade goods supposedly acquired though hub #01 will flow to your homeworld. But this is a single direction transfer that is entirely unaffected by microtransactions. Your homeworld will (as far as we've been told) not affect this. Actually, trade happens in hub #01 but 22Cans have publicly stated that they don't want trading. Essentially, in hub#1, you are herding traders around as the goal for the game. They're not talking about persistent trades. From that July Q&A fiasco: Hmm, I've missed that Q&A, must've happened during the period that I avoided the steam boards like the plague. That sounds horrid though, sounds like its a constant voyages mechanic with traders coming in from random area's. Unless they constantly have the map changing there's going to need to be some form of random spawning on the map - unless they make this instanced... Though according to the rooting through files, there will be a settlement in relation to the traders... So there is that. That sounds to me like "Trading" will be another "Voyages" type of minigame. Only with multiple gods who have to work together because neither will have enough belief to sculpt the path alone and avoid the nasty giants/enemies/swamps of death etc. If hubworld is just mini games that is going to be shit. Thats exactly what hubworld is. Based on the information available we know this: - Hubworld will function by putting 4 players together into a single 'hub'.
(Imagine the organization needed, if you've ever played online you'll know that 'pugs' rarely meet up a second time, the odds of your matched players having the same schedule as you are next to none.)
- Hubworlds will have a single 'goal' per hub, which the players will work together (or against eachother?) to achieve depending on the goal.
(I.E. instanced skirmish matches or other forms of minigames are very likely.)
- 1 of the players will "win" or be elected to represent the hub in a higher hub.
(it is not known what the other players will do but somehow they should be content to obtain the 'benefits' that the elected player garners for them through higher hubs as they will flow down the line.)
- Hubworlds will have some functionalities similar to homeworld. Likely all 4 players will get the ability to sculpt there etc.
(They're afraid chatting will result in problems, so they give players the ability to sculpt? Ever seen 4 kids play in the sandpit? Sooner or later they're going to wreck eachothers sandcastles... This will be no different.) - Hubworld #01 - Trading will apparently not require the player to 'click' or 'harvest', the trading will happen automatically - which is confirmed by what earl posted above.
|
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 22, 2014 3:05:03 GMT
If hubworld is just mini games that is going to be shit. oh ,wait, You thought there remained any hope of actual game in their plan? Wow, um, that is so beyond what they deserve. You are a great person. Please don't let their actual behavior damage you. And I really mean that. Hate them, not yourself for their abuse of you. |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Aug 22, 2014 3:55:18 GMT
That sounds to me like "Trading" will be another "Voyages" type of minigame. Only with multiple gods who have to work together because neither will have enough belief to sculpt the path alone and avoid the nasty giants/enemies/swamps of death etc. If hubworld is just mini games that is going to be shit. Thats exactly what hubworld is. Based on the information available we know this: - Hubworld will function by putting 4 players together into a single 'hub'.
(Imagine the organization needed, if you've ever played online you'll know that 'pugs' rarely meet up a second time, the odds of your matched players having the same schedule as you are next to none.)
- Hubworlds will have a single 'goal' per hub, which the players will work together (or against eachother?) to achieve depending on the goal.
(I.E. instanced skirmish matches or other forms of minigames are very likely.)
- 1 of the players will "win" or be elected to represent the hub in a higher hub.
(it is not known what the other players will do but somehow they should be content to obtain the 'benefits' that the elected player garners for them through higher hubs as they will flow down the line.)
- Hubworlds will have some functionalities similar to homeworld. Likely all 4 players will get the ability to sculpt there etc.
(They're afraid chatting will result in problems, so they give players the ability to sculpt? Ever seen 4 kids play in the sandpit? Sooner or later they're going to wreck eachothers sandcastles... This will be no different.) - Hubworld #01 - Trading will apparently not require the player to 'click' or 'harvest', the trading will happen automatically - which is confirmed by what earl posted above.
Homeworld=single-player hubworld. It's all an endless spiraling out of consequential content in only thematically connected mini-games. Nothing of consequence can happen in our homeworld lobby for mildly interesting mini-games. That's what I came to the conclusion of awhile ago, and little has emerged to prove me wrong, unfortunately. Closest we've come is the Astari, but look at how that goes, no warfare, just a happiness tug of war. |
|
