DatonKallandor

[quote]I'm simply not up to having a game of "TEC, TEC 2.0 and TEC 3.0"[/quote] That's the way it's now.

I think he means the "you can jump to other Stars" Artifact. Not that artifacts matter since they are completely random and you get absolutely no clue at all where they could be. They need a "Alien Ruins Here!" Marker that is visible as soon as a planet is discovered (though you still have to colonize AND finish the exploration developments). That way everyone will rush for the planet and there'll be another, dynamic, focus point except the usual "Ice planet - Crystals!" focus.

[quote] Sorry, but you're incorrect. With few differences (i.e., Orcs, Necrons) the economies in Dawn of War are exactly the same - they all gather requisition and energy, and they spend it the same way. What differentiates the them is their style of play. The Space Marines are brute force with overpowering weapons, but small numbers. The Eldar are advanced, but their strengths lie in being swift and making quick hit & run attacks. If an Eldar player ever tried to make a d

[quote] Hmm, how best to respond to this.... Basically Schod is correct in his arguments (though I grant that I've not read them all in detail). The Vasari are powerful, but not in a hammer-headed brute force approach ala the TEC. Playing the Vasari successfully requires finesse and different tactics than the TEC do (this is intentional, bt

[quote] That's something I've never understood about SupCom. TA Spring has also projectile calculation (I've shout down nimble scout planes with the heavy artillery) but it doesn't use that amount of processing power that Supcom needs.[/quote] That's because SupCom units generally fire much faster, their projectiles have a longer livetime, and because the unit's also calculate what they can fire at based on 3-4 different layers of counter-intelligence. In addition to a shield-layer

[quote]You want the simple sliding scale of unit strength vs unit numbers, whereas he is enjoying the more dynamic and mature multidimensional scalar exemplified by the idea of being powerful without being strong via units that focus on mobility and (for lack of a better word) interference (screwing with the enemy's ability to do stuff).[/quote] What you fail to realize is that you can have [U]both[/U].

[quote] Daton supcom is an exception to EVERY extreme, its a terrible comparison. [/quote] You are, quite simply, wrong. SupCom's scale is far higher than SoaSE's, and has many more movable parts - even using their wasteful system (which, by the way, isn't the turrets - it's the actual projectile calculation, something SoaSE doesn't have anyway). What's actually completely analogous to SoaSE's scale is Homeworld and Homeworld 2. And those

The Culture isn't really a problem - it already is propaganda. Basically, massive campaigns promoting "Surrender and you will be spared! Resist and you will be erradicated!". That's a good "evil" analogy to TEC culture. I like the mobile refinery and mobile colony idea.

[quote]and "abilities are slightly different" excuse WHAT??? what exactly is the TEC parallel to phasegates huh? how about highly tuned sensors? how about returning armada, phasic barrier, gravity tolerance, planet sucking, PHASE GATE (ability), Antorak, Subverter[/quote] What about the fact that the entire frigate selection (which is the meat and potatoes of the game for a very, very long time) is identical with a different dress. What about the fact that the same is true for military

Seriously, Homeworld had animated turrets. And if you want a game of comparable scale, Supreme Commander has animated parts on units. More animated parts than SoaSE's units would need, on many more units. There is absolutely no excuse for not having them. And that's been said from the start.

[quote]I would go out on a limb here and say that the Devs so well differentiated the Vasari from the TEC that this could easily hold starcraft by the balls in a head on contest. why isnt it apparent? because it doesnt shine at you, the differences are all in their technologies and their capital ships, which may seem like a small portion of the game but are in fact, the whole thing.[/quote] Unfortunately, the diversity so far is Warcraft 2 level, at best. Identical Units, slightly diffe

[quote]You guys don't seem to realize that this game pretty much needs to be done by the beginning of December. There's not 94 days of development time left, there's less than 30.[/quote] Well, then you better get onto animating all those turrets. As it is now is okayish for a Beta, but a game coming out in 2008 can not, under any circumstances, not have animated turrets.

disagreed, I don't want people just racing for the super spots Why? You already have it with planets. Hotspots is the spice that makes terrain interesting.

Here's my take on how the Zoom on Cursor should work: In short, think of it as Homeworld + Supreme Commander. In detail, have the usual Zoom on Cursor function as it was in Beta 2, that is, zoom on cursor when zooming in. Precisely at the cursor - no autolocking. With an added twist - if I have the camera locked on something (alt-leftclick, middle mouse, etc.), it should act as a regular zoom, and not break the lock whenever I zoom in. That way, you have zoom-on-cursor whenever you want,

Incidentally, I think the system would be better if you could still see if a planet has an artifact - but you had to survey it to get the benefit of the artifact. That way, you don't get instant-boost from capturing the planet, but you also get the rush of competing with other people for control of an artifact.

If it becomes any simpler, Pong will look like Quantum Physics in comparison. What Sins needs at the moment is more depth, not less. And that seems to be the direction it's taking with the beta, luckily.

I very much doubt Slingshot is still in, or that it was an Advent ability to begin with. Slingshot in a space context means using a planets gravity to accelerate yourself when you pass it. Everyone can do it. (Hell, we already do with our probes)

On that note, if the zoom-on-cursor would not override the focus camera it'd be much more usable.

I like how rare crystals are. Arctic Worlds are keypoints, and Sins is the first RTS in which a trade-resources feature is actually used instead of ignored by the vast majority of players.

I'm under the impression that the gravity well of a Star is considered a "no go" zone, except for ships arriving "at the Star" instead of "at a particular place inside the Stars gravity well".

I've had a single Sova jump right into an inhibitored, gauss cannoned and hangared system. And the AI already knew these things were there (earlier scouts ran into the same thing). I think there needs to be some kind of "only send capships when tactical info on target system is <## seconds old" routine.

That'd be adressed the same way SupCom does - (which the screenshot does not show because it's far too low-res) - Frigates get a uniform icon that denotes frigate, with a special filling that denotes it's purpose. Say, a stilized planet for the colony frigate.

I think the Marza approach might have been to take the weapons first (which are all massive - tri-barelled cannon and giant missile battery) and then build a ship around them. That might explain it's look. Though I have to agree on the Sova - it's really looks 100% custom built. It might be, which would be nice if we could have that confirmed.

I'd like to throw out an idea or two on shield FX: A: Shields are display faintly, starting the moment shields drop below 100%, while applying the usual "more impacts - more visible" after that. B: Shields display faintly, whenever enemy ships are in the same system, while applying the usual "more impacts - more visible" after that. At the moment, it's incredibly hard to tell which ships still have shields, and the effects is generally a little too "subtle".

I think limited logistic slots and limited crystals already limit research enough, though Insurgency needs some tunedown regardless.