brindle

[quote]I would love to play online if A) There were more games online to actually join...B) There weren't only 2 or 3 viable strategies to succeed... Javaslinger[/quote] QFT i stopped playing since the game has almost no variety. Virtually the entire economic and tech trees are completely ingorned. It is just rush to LRM/HC and gangbang.

dont forget the horrible 'migrating' crap when/if the host drops. many many fun multiplayer games have died a premature death due to the host dropping. it never seems to ever migrate to a new host. i've never seen such poor networking code in any RTS as far as managing drops.

if you do the math, it takes about 5x sucide resources to kill stuff. the skill is horrible.

I like the suggestions a lot except that I think strikecraft will need more of a buff than you propose. I think a problem people have is that they tend to think of the strikecraft as completely seperate from their host cruiser. Instead, think of the strikecraft as a really 'long range' gun mounted on the hosts. Cruiser carriers have no other support skills, they are pure DPS. So if you think of them like that, then you can stack them up against something comparable. Basically, cruiser carri

[quote]Huh.You sound like a typical whiney punk from World of Warcraft. That said, I will respond in a language that you are undoubtedly more comfortable with:"QQ more? kkthxbai!"That is all.You are dismissed.[/quote] You might not like his tone, but there is much wisdom in his message.... Virtually every team game I lose is because one of my allies is off colonizing his 4th planet while his other allies are getting 2v1 beatdowns. Answering request for help with "I'll be the

[quote]Asteroids have 2-3.ICe/Volcano 2-4.[/quote] I had an asteroid with 4 and a gas cloud with 4 spawn last night. 4 on a non-planet world seemed excessive.

[quote]Advent Military None. [/quote] I like the list a lot, but i would add one item to Advent Military. I think that the Martyrdom skill needs a 50% buff to its damage. As it stands now, the damage output of using the skill is way too low compared to the cost of the martyr ships. In its current state, being generous, it takes at least double the amount of Martyrdom resources (in ship cost) to destroy things. Structures are more like 3x to kill. G

It's even worse in competitive team games. Most of which have at least one 'odd man out' who is stomped right off the bat since he is positioned directly between two enemy homewords. On non-random maps like foreign invasion, twin empires etc it usually ruins the entire map to have teams broken up. The last time I played twin empires it paired one enemy and one ally on each planet set making it basically four 1v1 games akin to playing four simulatanous 'point blank' scenarios. On mu

[quote]Will LRMS be better early game now? YES[/quote] I think you meant to say Will Illuminators.... or Advent LRMS....

[quote]2) Beefing the survivability of bombers will not help this game at all, because the problem with bombers is that they have an insanely low DpS/supply cost ratio, and a really poor damage type, which is why they suck, and currently nobody should build them ever. Please, devs, if you want people to use strikecraft more often, make bombers viable damage dealers, not viable flak sponges. Currently the only real use for bombers is to nuke orbital structures.[/quote] Don't forget that

The input to the formula is also wildly inaccurate in that it is not considering the value/cost of the resources needed to buy the ships/do the upgrade. The upgrade has a one-time resource cost, while every ship cost resources. The true price of making ships should include the cost of resources (at either the buy or sell value to the Blackmarket, i'd use the buy value personnally). Even adding the resource value, most upgrades are not very good bargins. But much better than the post

[quote]I don't think the advent sucks, I think a lot of their skills in the research tree are misplaced, which causes them to be severely underpowered initially. Getting started with them seems to go very slow and if a Vasari or TEC player decides to rush you earlier on, then its GG. Perhaps if Culture had a more substantial effect then Advent would have a starting advantage in a specific aspect of the game just like Vasari and TEC.[/quote] Yes, I agree 100% with this. The odd thing ab

[quote]Back to the drawing board for Advent.Let me draw you a picture. BUILD A FRIKIN SCOUT, go to his homeworld, see what he is building. If he is making LRMs, then you make defense vessel. No drawing board required, just IQ over 50.[/quote] I'll add a bit to this. conversely, if you see he has tradeports up and no military, take your ships and go directly to his homeworld. It is the only way to beat a boomer. You must take him out before his huge investment in early eco takes root.

[quote]I don't know Sideshow. I'll have to start a new game to check, but I'm able to use up my metal/crystal supply pretty quickly. It would be one thing if a "non-upgrader" was just sitting on extra crystal and metal, but if it is used for research/ships/fleet/upgrading new planets, there is a time advantage of some kind.[/quote] Yes, i think some of the confusion on this tread is over that point. The point is not to argue if the upgrade pays for itself. Certainly it does, and it doe

actually, I doubt your test accounts for the 500 metal/crystal that was expended by the upgrader. So the payback is much slower (but still overall a good buy). The upgraded is not only sacrificing 750 credits but also 225 metal and 225 crystal. When you include the metal cost, the real cost of the upgrade is about 2050 credits (at current market buy value) before it pays versus doing nothing. on a small map or a map such as a 3v3 where enemy locations are known and only a f

Actually it takes longer. since the planet upgrade only provides $$, you have to monetize the entire cost of the upgrade 750 for upgrade + the cost of 225 Metal and 225 Crystal which means the true cost of upgrade is (buy off market price) 2100 credits. i'd guess you are much better off holding off the upgrade and buying cheaper upgrades on first captured planet.

[quote]I still don't understand why SoaSE isn't 4X. You still eXplore new planets, eXpand into said planets, eXploit the resources on planets, black market, and pirates, and eXterminate. The argument is flimsy at best. If you seriously think some one make Galactic Civilizations run real time without it collapsing into anarchy, then your kidding yourself.[/quote] I can make this clear. In a true 4x game you find that each of these four phases are similarly equal in importantance to each

[quote]Just so I'm clear here (I've only played a couple small LAN games so far and we're still learning the tech trees and such), but there are no options of player placement in MP besides random?So those "3v3" maps and such don't actually put a whole team to one side, etc?[/quote] This is correct. Players are randomly placed on homeworlds, usually intermingled. In 3v3 it often results in 2v1, 2v1 setups where one player is sandwiched between two opponents.

[quote]Hi Brindle,Embargo rush isn't too good. Learn to scout and if you see it coming then counter it with heavy military and a good military cap ship. The Sova is a terrible choice early game for anything but embargo and if you go heavy military you'll easily kill him/force him to retreat and then he'll be stuck with a nearly useless Sova.PS I Sova rushed you or one of your allies on Foreign Invasion.[/quote] Actually, i think we were on the same team. I've only actually been embargo

[quote]Yeah, I think that Psychoak may be on to something. For those of you who think this game lacks depth, try increasing the size of your maps. I'm not going to say that it will convince everyone but it's a different game at larger sizes.I play large, random maps with 3-5 stars and at least 8 opponents. I've played those settings since my first few games where I learned the ropes (well, I tried the Gateway map a week ago and had fun). I find that at this size there is a great deal of strategy

Unfortunately, I'd have to totally agree with Vinraith. I'd say that as a single player game Frogboys comments ring true. You can play the game in a 4x fashion against purely AI. However, in MP this game fails miserably at being anything but a rushfest. Forget eXplore, on maps designed for 3v3, 2v2 etc you know exactly where the enemy homeworld is. Forget eXpand, if you are playing a team game your Homeworld will be attacked around minute 6 of the game by a Solvo and/or a dozen frigates wit

[quote]in fixed maps, you can send scout to enemy planet asap and see him coming those 4 jumps away.If you see sovan built, you got still time, build 2 hangar defenses, and your own sova if you so damn please. This is not sim city in space, planets are secondary. Your mission is to piss into other layers cereals, not colonise planets. Planets, credits and all that are just means to an end, killing enemy.Dont forget, that other player must spend 2750 credits on that sova to get it to lvl 3 and th

[quote]Embargo rusher take grate risk. if he fails at it he will be set back for many minutes to come. I see it as usual fault of the player itself who die to embargo. When i scout someone that is 4 jumps away from me building 2 civic research labs, well, he will die same to sova as to LRM rusher and he just deserve to die, period. End of discussion, case closed. This said. Internet is full of bad players, and embargo rush is usualy emplyed by the more ad

I've now played four games in a row on maps like maestorm and foreign invasion and in every case have had at least one person (team mate and enemy) embargo rush. Since the map is fixed, the rusher knows exactly where the nearest enemy homeworld is. A very good strategy i noticed in replays is to actually spend the $$ to upgrade the capital ship. Get heavy bombers to go with embargo. At about the 5:30 mark, the lone capital ship will show up and start circling the plane

I know a lot are complaining about trade/TEK but I find way more MP games ruined by the completely assinine player placement scripts on team MP games. About 1/2 the games I play are immediately abandoned since the placement will do things like stick one player right between two enemies homeworld and then place his allies across the entire map. The script does not seem to pay any attention to teams or map or anything. For example, tonight on a 4v4 huge random multi s