[quote]can you imagine how difficult and annoying all the fights would be trying to maneuver your fleets in that environment[/quote] Not really. HW pulled it off well. Yeah, though, I like it if the option for z is there, but isn't necessary... that suits everybody, I think.
The unique CD key is an incentive to buy the game, not copy protection. The CD key isn't actually an attempt at stopping the buyer from copying the game for a friend, seeing that the game can run without CD. The CD key is in actual fact the reward - anyone who legitimately buys the game gets the updates and free tech help. Or am I wrong?
[quote]is it just me or ever since the game came out the most dumb, idiotic and n44best questions seem to roam the forum with a vengeance...[/quote] The thing is, this isn't a bad question. It's perfectly rational - space is 3d, right? So why, the OP asks, is this fact not made all that obvious? It's not dumb, it's not idiotic, and it's rather the opposite of n44by, if you ask me.
[quote]But, where are the space stations? Where are the moons, nebulas, ion storms, solar flares etc. Where is the diplomacy? Where is the espionage? There's numerous more which I've listed in my thread on the subject.[/quote] Expansion material! We've gotta put this to the devs again and again and again, I think.
[quote]FTL isn't possible for anyone's level of technology. The sheer amount of energy it would take to get to even 99.9% the speed of light would require you to be able to harness the power of several galaxies, and we're nowhere near that level.[/quote] Remember that light speed is like a horizon. You can't reach it from this side of it (the slower side), and you also can't reach it from the other side (the faster side). So anything that exists at speeds faster than light cannot slow t
Sorry to question, but why would a longer ship have more inertia? Is it necessarily more massive? They might be harder to turn, but because of the large radius, but not due to inertia, right? Or am I speaking through my left kidney?
Spamming is, in my opinion (which has changed), a valid strategy, AS LONG AS it does not require degenerate strategies - which is, as someone said, what happens when you have a counterspam. If spams can be stopped with, as that same person said, a) easily erected anti-spam defences, b) obvious unit counters, and/or c) combined arms benefits (which I think should be the case here), then it's valid. If not, there's a problem with the game design and balance. In the case of obvious unit counter
Build on the z-axis! Yay!
'nuff said indeed.
[quote]A litle off-topic, but why is it that people who rant resort to using ... everytime they have to finish a sentence? Doesn't exactly add to their credibility.[/quote] Yes; it makes them look a little bit indecisive. It says "my sentence trails off because I can't think of a good way to finish it". I do it too though, so I shouldn't complain. :P
[quote]btw siblantae are u on these forums 24/7 by any chance? lol xd.[/quote] Funny you should say that. I was before, pretty much, but now Uni's started again I can't be. So yeah! You can tell I'm into this game :P
[quote]Wardell himself was very excited by the way this game mechanic works. "I hate rushes," he said. Apparently Sins of a Solar Empire is going to be specifically designed for those players who enjoy a more sedate pace in their strategy games with plenty of logistical build-up and the need to utilize combined arms. [/quote] Sorry... missed this one.
[quote]As an RTS the game is just as much fun. Spaceships are designed in such a way that any real-time strategy player who ever drooled at the words "combined arms" will love putting together purpose-designed task forces. We learned this early in one of our games when we tried to zerg a diversified enemy fleet with a capital ship designed for planetary bombardment and a whole lot of cheap light frigates. One large collection of space debris later, we had learned that there's a lot more to winni
[quote]calm the hell down.. jesus christ.. oh well i guess fan boys are always like that... totally arrogant post lmao..[/quote] lol is all I can say ;P
I get Aspartic's point. However, I must say that though I recognize spamming as a strategy, I think it's a poor one. Though this is an extreme example, one should remember the positioning of machine guns on trenches in WW1/2. Two of them set to fire as close to their own lines as possible (such that there is a crossfire in no man's land) will mow down masses of charging infantry. Counterspam? Could be. It is, sort of, unless you think ahead. See, a combined arms fleet managed tactically coul
[quote]jeez bob we dont want to know your that you rhink the game is boring you clearly {is not an attack} do not know how to play the game go read some threads how you can play the game without the zerg tactic sure its boring when everyone plays the zerg tactic but i played many games and i never had a bigger fleet then my enemy and i still win so its not true that there is no tactic in the game please dont respond dont want to start a discussion i am just saying[/quote]
[quote]Ship spamming is not an "exploit"! Spamming low-tech units has been in every RTS I can remember, but people have always found counters to it.[/quote] That's the problem. This game is trying to be different from the "traditional" click-fest games. [quote]P.S. The armistice example was an example of a horrible balance idea; don't support it silly![/quote] *in a panic* I back down! I back down! :P [quote]Why is this even an issue? While they're spamming a tard
[quote]good now we can talk about the more interesting topic of the games longevity here and you can move along it is on topic with the posts title[/quote] But not on topic with the OP's statement, which is usually the debate. Shouldn't there be a new thread? But I'm being really annoying - go ahead :P
[quote]i am referring to multiplayer of course[/quote] This thread is not about boringness. Besides, the OP has resolved his problem.
[quote]For those who say moving turrets will drop cpu performance, well then make it a visual option to run it- low end user can just have static turrets. For those who have a high end beast (me, me, me!) I say, bring it on![/quote] Bad idea, unless you can gimmick it. The reason for this is that if you make it an option, and a high-end player (with option enabled) and a low-end player (with option disabled) play against each other, then you have a desynch. The reason for THIS is: I
[quote]Homeworld 1 did it, and that was about 8 years ago.[/quote] Don't bother with that argument. It's been stated and refuted (in my opinion) too many times to mention.
[quote]By capping ships at 50% of the total fleet you wouldn't be able to build anything. Just thought I would mention that.[/quote] Remember it doesn't HAVE to be 50%; it's just the idea. And, though this is admittedly more complex, it doesn't have to come into effect immediately; only after, say, you've got 30 ships in combat or something. Whatever. Just the idea. And though I recognize that more limits aren't always good and that they may limit the strategy, I think
This is probably a stupid question - forgive me for not reading through 36 pages of stuff :P This has probably been suggested before - but what about unit type limits, in terms of percentage? That would stop spammers. Isn't one of the main points of this game forcing one to play combined arms? Isn't this what makes it different and unique? The other RTS's are dismissed as click-fests (with some exceptions, of course); why should this game turn into one as people spam units?
I happen to disagree on the question of whether spamming should be a valid strategy, regardless of whether it actually is. Flander's Fields and Gallipolli should tell us that spamming gets units killed with little or no success. But my main question is: what is actually wrong with the idea of a percentage fleet cap? Everyone I've seen (forgive me if I've missed one) just stated that the percentage cap is a bad idea, but no one actually says why. I can't see anything wrong with it - it worked
[quote]Took me 4 attempts, since their Spam-filter was bouncing my messages all the time due to the word Sins being tagged as obscene language.[/quote] I think that's wrong (on Games for Windows's part, not yours :P); why would the word "sin" be considered obscene language? Because it describes an act of evil? Because it's related to Christianity and the other Semitic religions? Gimme a break.
