Sibilantae

[quote]Ya know, all of this is addresed by the way the space ponies is set up..[/quote] Smooth advertisement there. Well, you got me - as soon as I get the game, I'll join you guys. If I remember :P

[quote]It's just peoples' way of coping with the fact that they can't handle those dimensions, so they decide to take them out of the picture. That's one thing good about the AI - it doesn't cut things out like that. Stardock has tremendously improved GalCiv 2's AI over time, they can do it here too.[/quote] I'm aware, that, in my ignorance, I for one am part of that unit of people. Forgive me - I will change! I've gotta play the game first, so hammer me if I try and be sanctim

[quote]because gas giants are nothing more then vacuums in space[/quote] Read: vacuum cleaners in space I think he's referring to the dip in the 2d representation of the spacetime continuum, which would sort of make sense; since it's so "heavy", it "sucks" smaller planetoids (such as moons) toward it much more easily than terran worlds. His statement was figurative - I think he would have made it clearer if he had called them vacuum cleaners... But that analogy is, like all analo

[quote]We see the same philosphy in Supreme Commander, where "Tier 1" defenses are extremely effective against early rushes, and defenses powerful in the early and midgames, but fall easily to highly effective lategame units like siegebots and experimental units.[/quote] ...which is an extremely effective philosophy, too!

[quote]He built more ships than you and then attacked? WOW, thats low![/quote] That's not the point. I'm not saying it's dumb or shouldn't happen. I'm just saying that it should be easy to stop or prevent. But Aspartic was right - I shouldn't consider my points all that valid if I haven't played the game. I am, however, basing my arguments on what the devs said, and if it turns out that the game is NOT like the devs said it would be (at least in one aspect) then I would like to know

[quote]Sib, you need to just get the game and actually play. Talking about countering spammers in theory is not the same as talking about it with actual experience to back up your statements.[/quote] Then I shall! *determined*

[quote]Developers, before release: I don’t want to be told by some guy on a forum how some lame rush strategy could have “easily” been countered if I had simply followed a 10-step counter strategy that, naturally, required prescient knowledge of the impending rush. A counter strategy should never be more complicated than the original strategy.[/quote] That is soooo right! Rushing and spamming are strategies, but they should be BAD strategies in this game. Not Ok, or pa

[quote]I think given that game developers these days are releasing more and more buggy, untested and unfinished games that often outright lie about minimum PC requirements it's not surprising that piracy is becoming more and more acceptable to test whether a game is even playable let alone good. I certainly wouldn't buy a game unless I'd played it first.[/quote] That's true enough, but if you take that point of view you might end up like the pirates in that other post about "c

[quote]personaly i dont give a crap what anyone thinks i will spam ship if i chose fight me or die i dont care you spam me good for you i like a chaleng make me beter thats what i look for im not gona sit here and cry like some little girl[/quote] The thing is, the devs sort of said that if you think like that, you'd lose continually in this game. Just a question - for the average gamer on here, is a spammer easy to beat? I mean, obviously you play to win in the game, b

[quote]I dunno, 'sack of orbitless motionless planets'.[/quote] Sorry, but do the planets spin? If not, then I agree with you. However, a question about the time scale of this game has to be asked. As an RT4X, is there any sort of accelerated timing? If that were so, I'd also agree with you. But if it plays out in true real time, and is not a simulation for accelerated time (as are, obviously, most 4x games - note the hundred year jumps in the early game for the Civ games), then

This is pedantry, and I hope you forgive me :) But these research stations aren't built in outer space, as the title says - they're built in orbit. Remember that outer, in the terms of our solar system, applies to the space outside the asteroid belt. All else is inner space. I suppose where ambiguity in solar systems such as in Sins are more prevalent, it would be safe to restrict inner space to orbit, and outer space as the regions between the outer planets or something... But orbit isn't o

[quote]It's more fair to compare SC's campaign to sins skirmish play than it is to compare SC's skirmish play to sins skirmish play? I don't understand the logic in that. 95% of my play time on SC was in skirmish or multiplayer, and not in the campaign. I always thought the campaign was too limited and restrictive to play more than once.[/quote] lol - funny how we happen to make just about the same point at the same time :P

[quote]But Sins do not have a campaign mode, and SC does,and i think until Sins have a campagin mode, it is not really fair to compare the two. Because it is simply not fair to just evaluate SC based on its multiplayer mode, even though it does have some sort of skirmish mode from what i remember.[/quote] I agree with you on all your points except this one. Just because Sins doesn't have a campaign mode (which, in my mind, is indeed a slight disadvantage) does NOT mean that you shou

[quote]-best zoom feature of any RTS, which sins copies.[/quote] Though they have this zoom feature in common, they were developed independently... I can't remember where I read that (I think it might have been on the Stardock blog site on whatchamacallit) [quote]what i want to added is that how can Sins and Sup Com be compared, the two games are like apples and oranges. Well for one thing, the maps in Sup Com, they are very mission based, and the entire map for each mission opens u

Off-topic continuation: Of course the war's going to be expensive. It's a war. Wars are expensive. Notice also that, since Rumsfeld left, Iraq's been going a lot better. The Democrats are using cost to justify the end of the war where they used to use "loss of troops" and "we're not winning" strategies. But yeah. Have all our points on this thread been resolved?

[quote]-Heroes Become capital ships (I'm just going to use those words interchangably) -Capital ships use the same xp value for the first several level ups -Level cap is 10 -Level 10 heroes still eat experience -Armor damage reduction = ((armor)*0.06)/(1+0.06*(armor)) replace the 6 with 5 for sins -First Hero is free -Neutral units around for you to level up your capital ship on. -Heroes start with a free ability, get the ability to put 2 points in any ability at lev

[quote]Seeing some of the one-sentence replies in this thread one can safely assume that at least part of the idiots this thread is devoted to browse this forum too...[/quote] So true. And now we know who to avoid, too. As for the rest of that post, I couldn't agree more!

[quote]Well, sins did borrow a ton of gameplay mechanics from WC3[/quote] I'm sorry, having not played the game I'm at a bit of a loss here. Could I ask what some of these mechanics are? Just curious, is all.

I've said this everywhere, but after contacting EBAus, they told me they had Sins scheduled for a 16th April release. It IS coming out! DON'T WORRY!

[quote]Pirates? Those are the same as "neutrals or creeps" in wc3. However WC3 has a FAR greater variety.. in fact pirates are just re-done tech units far as I can tell.[/quote] You can't compare pirates with creeps. Their functions are totally different. Totally different. Totally... oh, never mind.

[quote]For example I suck completely with the Aeon in Supreme commander: Forged Alliance and finally read more about Aeons units to do better. Now I know that T3 Artillery sucks and I am better off building Experimentals much earlier in the game. Also how to build my economy better to compete with other players. I also realized I need to relay on more intelligence from the enemies base more of the time too, so I can target his economy. http://supcomdb.com/db/[/quote] Yay! Anoth

[quote]Homeworld's awkward interface and camera control was one of the reasons I never got into that game.[/quote] But it wasn't a sufficient enough reason to damn the game to a poorer mark that it got. I very much doubt Homeworld would have been considered so revolutionary if it didn't have the total freedom of movement. I'm not saying the 3d movement made Homeworld revolutionary all on its own, but it was certainly a major factor. Even if this weren't so, I totally disagree with y

[quote]No, you aren't[/quote] Oh goody. Thanks guys!

[quote]Only with a liberal use of the pause button[/quote] What, in HW? Or is this a response to something else? HW was easy to manage in z - an intuitive interface that made sense, in my opinion. There was no pause required.

[quote]Setting arbitrary limits and caps is simply lame. The Germans attacked with overwhelming numbers of tanks and infantry (blitzkreig), there wasn't anyone telling them they could only send 50 tanks and 2000 men....[/quote] You're right - my view, for one is revised.