I'd say thus far that both interests have been applied and questions of content have the base material present to ask about. As such, without further detail of observation, I'd say in regards of the interest the general idea of direction is reasonable, but still seeming to maybe lack an interest in which I can respond to in detail without further observation of detail to say.

My take on maps tends to be different than others and as such the interest in which they could be handled at a time take a different priority. I understand that the quality of content is questionable for interests of interest and that the reasonability of the specific is usually only determined by the detail to say in which is covered. Assessing what is assigned than assigning the assigned still seems the reasonable over in which there is still to have, process as such is what question(s) there are for the interests.

If an accord can be agreed in which there is to elect without the lack of decree, then the efforts should say still retain their tenure, with or without any further chore.
If such, I hope to take the observed into greater detail and perhaps reply in due kind, but I wouldn't hold my breathe if I was you, but time may allow though of course, don't get me wrong.

If you can't understand what I said, that is o.k., for the time is all the same at the time really.

Thanks

Map Gen Tournament or say Gen Map Tournament sounds reasonable at a time.

I'm not a fan of the current format of tournaments but I'm sure there is some room to work with somewhere, but that is say another point.

But I would like to suggest just for the tournament for Map Generator that Map Thumbnails for optional to some point.

Thanks

Idk, doing some trial runs of say the further micro for eco does seem to yield a greater gain but seems marginal for the trade off but makes sense why can be a captivation.

Reclaim, Reclaim, Reclaim, Reclaim, Reclaim, Alt-RMB...etc. Makes a noticeable difference rather reasonable or not.

As long as it is a screenshot at this time, it should be a winner.

Not sure why the edit of my last post made a double post but still.

After reading some prior posts and a few I must of missed seemed reasonable to still post in.

Anyone have thoughts on say New Supcom being done and having FAF packaged with it as like an extra/bonus content??

I know there is alot of back and forth and 50/50 in such, given rather a new Supcom could be with/in FAF but given SC2, that should have a reasonable answer.

Or is that anything new would have to be different even to the point of abandoning the progress of SC2 for an undertaking to happen??

I'm sure this conversation comes up often and would be nice if the same conversations would still just end up to have the one of it for them all.

VR is whatever, to a point should be something not restricted in not being able to have but any further more is whatever. A PC at a time is a PC.
I mean, in some contrast of course, why not Mirror or Tonal FAF for some modern approach of interactivity standard??
Or watching replays of FAF on a mobile device??

Sometimes I agree, when things are brought up, costs and contrasts are really considered but presenting ideas should still be able to have without the difference of course, but outcomes probably still worth what has been considered to say.

To say of said still needed saying. ( 8 Character Limit to Post)

""

Its a habit, especially with forums. Still think there is a more formal basis on regards to forum posts other than fancy messengers or texts.

@Khada_Jhin Understood

Seems to be easier on other alternatives.

Thanks

@Khada_Jhin The reward part of the system in which we are trying to contribute works for, think is fairly limited, if not quite existent, for the purpose but an outcome at a time could still be taken all the same on recognition of course.

But if not mistaken, the avatar/icons are more for positions than ranking.
Hence Unit/Building Icons/Avatars seems reasonable.

Thanks

Is the programming/coding more for running with software systems or hardware systems, say for it to work?

A simulator or emulator more of??

More Layer on a Layer or a Layer on Base??

If any of that makes any sense.

Thanks

I'm a fair Tier vs Tech person. Tier going lower for higher and higher for lower does make sense.

But if you check, not sure still is. But T for T1, T2, etc is listed as Tech 1 etc in game, I noticed that after getting FA installed awhile back but not sure if was updated or not. But Supcom did start out with Tier and I'm certain FA did as well, just not sure if either stayed that way.
But in terms of Tiers for the work, is really Subdivisions within a tier also, which again on rankings at a time, lower being higher and higher being lower makes sense.

The idea for here is a change for me though also, despite that difference, and I have to relist my listing for division layouts also but only about 15% done of the initial concept and rather I try to keep the icon above to further work on, I don't know, I have no other works in progress either also, so.

Thanks

Is it me or greyscale that seems to put concept art into a better looking outlook than the finished works??

Thanks