Inert

Inert

Joined Member # 2601079
8 Posts 231 Replies 404 Reputation

We really wish you'd consider removing Phase lanes, or at least pretend that you do. Or list out the problems with it. (that'd be more helpful) We could always come up with ideas to help with that.

28 Replies 15,994 Views

well the alternative would be to give the ships a limited "phasespace range". in essence it would act like phaselines, but you all planets within a certain range would be connected, not just a few (and the others for some wacky reason detatched) Actually I was thinking something along those lines too. You could restrict the range of phase-jumps and with orbiting planets, distances between planets would change. So while your homeworld was originally withi

29 Replies 15,854 Views

When you have hundreds of frigates, subsystems become irrelevant. The hundreds of frigates become your immediate focus, and not their engines. Besides, that robotics cruiser can disable some things already. Use it on capital ships.

18 Replies 7,590 Views

How about planetary problems? You shouldn't be able to just send supplies down on an uninhabited planets (what are the chances) and be able to capture it. And you only ever need one colony frigate. Have a bar that shows the progress of the planet being colonized, have some "resistance" slowing down the bar, or in cases of extreme resistance (planets already owned), have it go backwards. You have to send multiple colony frigates to take down that owned planet (something of the order of 6 to 7) in

5 Replies 19,613 Views

As much as I like this idea, it'd be difficult for the pirates since all planets are now defended. In addition, it'd be difficult to give any incentive for the player to build an planetary defense when they can just build some jump-capable frigates and send them there.

13 Replies 5,644 Views

If you don't buy crystal off the black market then it's almost impossible to do a lot of things. Be a little bad, buy off the black market! Arrr...

16 Replies 24,821 Views

Actually downsizing the guns on cruisers (like the Arcova) and renaming them to support units would put some discontent at ease. As of right now, the term cruiser is very misleading. I still think the Kodiak in large numbers are still better then the Cobalt, but then again anything in large numbers is better.

82 Replies 30,020 Views

Are you saying you still actively build Cobalts after you've gotten Kodiaks, then? I sure don't; more bang for buck has always been my philosophy. And placing them high on the tech tree is a bad idea. If the point of the cruisers is to act as frigate support, then they should be more accessible to aid your frigates in the beginning. Why not just build a capital ship instead of a group of cruisers? They are easier to obtain, just not in large numbers.

82 Replies 30,020 Views

There's no reason to support turtling as a strategy. In fact if you use your assets wisely, you can have two capital ships and a group of frigates (above 10, that's for sure) within 30 minutes with your home planet and the gimme asteroid . I don't know how much more of a turtler you can be, two capital ships and a group of frigates can destroy anything your opponent has at that point. You can also get up to tier 6 research.

595 Replies 414,459 Views

One thing is certain, the Kodiak's role replaces the Cobalt. In addition, cruisers are too weak (in terms of health and armor) that putting them into their own category seems ridiculous. Maybe expanding the frigate list to include these units would be better, but putting them into their own group and making them so damned hard to get seems ridiculous.

82 Replies 30,020 Views