[quote] Would it really bother anyone if Dunovs shield regen couldn't work on Dunovs? [/quote] It seems like a inelegant fix to me, if even a fix is needed. Right now it sounds more 'neat' than anything. Yep -- it's possibly overpowered, but it doesn't look like counters have been fully explored yet. Give it a little time before crying nerf? :/
You could just increase the "burst" value in the entity files -- it won't affect the damage.
The Advent use flash beams. Alternately, fool with these for a bit [link="http://danielv.chaosnet.org/files/flash_tec_caps.zip"]TEC Capitals with "Flashbeam" lasers.[/link] Or do you *just* mean increase the firing rate of the ones already there? In which case, yeah, agreed... but for all weapons.
Ahem, ignoring lame drama... (and I was worried about cluttering Kosc's thread! :/ ) [quote] Guys, guys, guys! Ease up! Sins is a game. It's not a physics simulation. Pulse lasers look the way the
[quote] no, they are a unique tech developed from reverse engineering Vaz tech, has nothing to do with their previous weapon styles. [/quote] Hmm? Really only changes the source of the tech. Doesn't really change the possibility of other stuff based on the same idea. *shrug* In any case, my motivation isn't re
[quote] The Advent use the flash laser look you are speaking of. [/quote] Figured as much, one of the reasons I'm really looking forward to them. That said, I think the flash lasers fit the TEC well enough as well. Maybe toned down
[quote] Specifically in the case of lasers, we don't like the approach because little dots flying through space doesn't imply a light speed weapon, which by definition a laser has to be. [/quote] Mhmm. Even ignoring realism, if it looks cooler... why not? [quote] What I'd like to see from larger battleships are perhaps a slower fire rate, but more cons
[quote] Those look lovely! The "disco lasers" could probably use a fraction of a second longer existance, but they still look nice for what they are. Now, if only you could convince the Kol's primary beams to track along the hull of the enemy, instead of just burn in at one place
As discussed a bit [link="https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?forumid=443&aid=166856"]here[/link], the TEC "lasers" look a bit off. They've always looked a bit like autocannon fire, and Beta4 went further to differentiating them, but they're still missing a little something. Ron suggested using the flashbeam effect for them, so I gave that a shot. I *really* like the effect, and am wondering if others feel the same. [link="http://www.dailymotion.com/Tseddicus/video/x3e6go_te
[quote] Question: If you can fiddle around with the various weapons graphics, could you change is so that TEC lasers are no longer firing like their auto cannons (dots streaking outward), and instead use the "flash disco" effect that the Vasari have (its a laser -- it functions are light speed, not like a little dot flying across the screen!)? [/quote] After playing with this, I made a couple of videos. I didn't want to directly rip from the Vas
[quote] Question: If you can fiddle around with the various weapons graphics, could you change is so that TEC lasers are no longer firing like their auto cannons (dots streaking outward), and instead use the "flash disco" effect that the Vasari have (its a laser -- it functions are light speed, not like a little dot flying across the screen!)?
Personally, one franchise strikes me as a perfect fit -- Freespace. 3 races, plenty of ship variety, and... well... lots of beam action
Honestly, I'd prefer if other methods of picking up the pace is used -- I'm a bit opposed to choose-able speed in game. DEFCON did something exactly like you're proposing. The game would run at the slowest speed players 'voted' on. Unfortunately, you then end up with a ton of "SPEED IT UP" "C'MON FASTER" chat-spamming. :/ Now, as a game creation option (ala StarCraft), I'm fine with it -- you know what speed of a game you're getting into. Variable speed inevitably pisses *s
Right, according to vista my page file is at 2345mb (auto manage) min: 16mb max: 3067mb Hope this helps? Even for vista, a page file of 2345 MB's is overkill. As in you have a lot of junk running in the background, try running in a clean boot. (Unless that means that its allocated that amount, but isn't using it... I don't know enough abou
stars do go big and blue (and green) usually right before they're about to go supernova (in the next ten or so thousand years) They go big and *red* at that point (with a timeline dependent on size). Blue is generally an indicator of a young, hot star.
Now look at this bad boy. This is what I want to see in the middle of the system... also why do i get green stars? you cant have green, think white, orange to deep red. no other colours please Actually, it's entirely reasonable to call our sun a 'green' star. Blue is also a 'natural' color, fyi.
sorry a planet orbits a star. a moon orbits a planet. Yep, exactly. The only reason moon-like objects couldn't be in orbit of a star is because then, by *definition*, they wouldn't be moons. it niether g
which are a far greater distance than the immediate gravity well, you just supported what I said thank you. Newp -- your assertion was that "either way stars do not have moons", not "either way stars do not have moons very close to them". Even ignoring the asteroid belt/s and various KBOs/etc, Mercury is still smaller than some moons (though still more massive) in the solar system. It is *moon-sized* and exists. An object sma
either way stars do not have moons, it has to do with their corona and massive gravitational and electromagnetic flucuations. their only "moons" are planets. ...huh? You're right -- stars don't have moons. It has nothing to do with 'gravitational and
I believe it supports whatever your monitor/videocard combination support. 1760x1020 is certainly not the highest (I'm running 1920x1200, myself).
Not many habitable worlds would be covered in magma either. But it's pretty!
Just curious if this is a bug or not -- I *never* see planetary rings in game. I see them before a game is started (when creating a game and whatnot), but never in actual play.
This sounds more like the Gauss turrets should be able to rotate it's turrets, as opposed to being fixed to fire along the X/Y axis only. I'm pretty sure they already can? I'm pretty positive I've seen 'em firing off-plane. All I'm seeing in "examples" so far from various posters above, is a request for unnecessary amounts of complexity that would serve for nothing else then to bog down the pace of Mult
I think the main problem is that it really doesn't add as much tactical depth as some people claim it does (up or down, you still can't get any further away from the planet than you would on a 2d plane since it's a spherical arena), so it really isn't worth the added complexity. Fair enough -- know if the modding tools/kits will expose the AI enough to make such changes to the AI feasible (if difficult)?
As it stands, the AI will react to you using the z-axis, but it won't actively use it on it's own. Even just using it a bit makes battles much more interesting, so I'm curious if the current plan is largely sticking to planar movement, or giving the AI some competence when it comes to the Z-axis.
