Pnakotus

Ban him all you like, it doesn't make the game less unbalanced.

I think the fleet costs things are daft, but from a different perspective. I think the idea of a percentage cost to cover your ships is stupid, but I can live with it - but it needs two things. It needs a ceiling and a floor: ie if you have an income of zero and 500 supply points of ships, it shouldn't be FREE because 19% of zero is zero. This would also help the nomad-fleet issue. Similarly, 500 supply points shouldn't eventually cost an order of magnitude more because your empire got bigge

Brilliant counter argument there. While I'm not one of the hardcore number-crunching APM RTS players (which makes me totally uncompetitive in MP, but I don't mind), the game undeniably has balance problems. The trick is working out where the problem is: separating cause from effect. LRMs are powerful, but depending on your perspective this is due to a number of factors, any of which could be changed separately. An early-game ship that's cheap, has huge range and very high DPS? That'

[quote] rotating turrets on the capital ships... [/quote] Sadly, there doesn't seem to be any animation at all in the game. Some ships like the Dunov really need it, but it'd make all the ships look better. The TEC flak in particular looks ridiculous. :)

I'd like longer capital ship names. The current limit is only long enough for single words (and not long ones). It's a shame to not be able to use the name you want because the allowable characters is too few. For instance, 'Invincible' doesn't seem to fit, nor does anything longer like 'That Ship From Homeworld' or 'Hilarious Name From 40k'. Naming capital ships prentious names is fun, but the length allowed is too short.

[quote] lets look at this objectively and not with these stupid comparisons. you cant state that the 30 bombers in their whole lifetime only kill one cap or in that battle kill one cap, theres many other factors that have to be included, how much time/supply/tech you spent on 30 bombers what they killed (will be more than one cap across a whole game) what the opponent spent on his fleets/structures/tech, how big the penalty there was on your/his income due to supply differences..etc, th

[quote]did I ever say to nerf bombers?[/quote] Sorry. When people start saying 'zomg imba', that usually means people want nerfs. The nerf-cycle is bad for games. :) Germany and Japan lost because they had nowhere near the industrial capacity to win. If you can't compete in resources or manufacturing (say, the enemy has 30+ carriers and you have nothing to effectively oppose them), then you're boned regardless.

[quote] The simplest fix is to cap the maximum number of each ship type you're allowed to have, forcing players to have multiple ship types in their fleet. Another good fix is to take Rise of Nation's idea of "raising the cost of the same unit type" allowing people to diversify their fleets to save resources, while the rushers will be penalized by paying more for spamming the same unit. [/quote] This is the worst idea ever. Unit caps are

[quote]bombers can damage other things not just caps, its just that they do extremely well vs caps, thats why its being discussed. Please dont do cost comparisons, because the bombers also kill other ships and structures, Im just stating what can happen before any of the bombers start dissapearing, not the carriers. [/quote] Oh sorry, here I was thinking any discussion of 'unbalanced' elements might want to actually look at if it's actually a problem or not. If you've got such a mas

For hit and run, I have occasionally wished for some heavy flak structure as quick raids are somewhat effective (particularly killing factories or research structures). Flaks are great in fleets, but their range is poor. Sorry, 8 caps = 24k, 30 carriers = ~35k. So... how is this unbalanced? You have a 30% advantage! Of course you're going to win! If they were unbalanced, you could defeat more than their value. You're really surprised an interdictor dies to THIRTY bomber fleets? H

Frankly, the cost of huge 30+ carrier fleets exposes why this is daft: you're spending 50k+ to kill a 3k ship. Wazoo: if there are local frigates or jump inhibitors you'll lose far more than 3k in carriers before you can escape, and their remaining forces will just pursue you anyway. Unless the strategy only works with yet more money spent on backup fleets or defences... :) So if a far more expensive fleet kills a cheaper one, how is this unbalanced again?

If you want security on pirate stuff (god knows why, they're barely a threat) just drop heaps of money. Making the pirate raids a 'sure thing' and predicatble would be an absolutely TERRIBLE idea. Just let me jump anywhere outside the gravity well dammit. :)

I've noticed that the gravity well doesn't just prevent jumping within it's area, but that ships will move back to the edge even if they're further out. I had a battle far out into the edge of the tactical grid, assuming this would mean a quick escape - on the contrary, they drove back towards the centre of the well and jumped out at the pretty blue line. This doesn't make a lot of sense, and limits tactical options - particularly when there's a huge battle causing traffic jams. The o

[quote]The funny thing is, you and the people like you need to do a lot more growing up than anyone else. The fact that you interpreted that as "ignorant hate-speech" makes you look like an idiot. Being mature doesn't necessarily mean being a pathetic wuss who wants to give teddy bears to communists. [/quote] Caring about the rights of others = being pathetic wuss. You learn something new every day. I could point out that nobody has suggested anything

Yeah it's the internet, we need more ignorant hate-speech from twelve yearolds! They say shit they don't mean, and that's totally okay! :CONGRAT:

Yeah, in my first game I actually thought 'haha I will sploit by waiting and then dropping' because the AI does the whole bidding thing. So I 'win' at 0.00, and then... they wait! And the other guys outbid me because I spent all my money! And I thought, 'if that had worked, it would have been really lame'. :) The idea of changing their course after launch is a good one, especially if you could directly pay them to change targets or something. It's irritating to have 100k sitting the

Did you think about this? If it launched at zero, everyone would sit there watching the countdown, then click like a madman in the last few seconds. The uncertainty is needed to prevent all kinds of lameness. You can't control pirates like an ebay auction - SHOCK HORROR! THEY'RE PIRATES! You *can* determine who it's going to be if you drop massive amounts of money. I dropped 20k on it near the start in a recent game, and the AI couldn't match that for hours (and only then b

It amuses me that if there was strong 'factional diversity', the 'wah races are teh samez' threads would be replaced by dozens more 'zomg teh imba' threads. :)

a) Homosexuality is not an insult b) There is PLENTY of warning with regard to pirate attacks: text warnings, audio warnings, big flashing red lights, etc c) Being defenceless means you're screwed anyway d) Creating custom maps with no pirates is incredibly easy e) Some pirate-free maps are included with the patch

The quality of the game in question is irrelevant to the example. And duhman was referring to the ships in a single gravity well: don't split your fire between targets in a battle. That's basic stuff, particularly when (as he said) defences can't move and you can sit out of range and kill all the ships THEN move in. The AI is tragically stupid when it comes to placing turrets so most of them won't even be in 'useful' positions. For what it's worth, I don't use siege frigates