Carriers aren't overpowered, you just don't know how to fight them. The only carriers that could possibly be considered overpowered are the Drone Hosts with Repulsion, and you just have to know how to fight it and bring plenty of flak (or a cap ship that disables strike craft).
It's siddy. He's an idiot and a troll, and I don't understand why the moderators don't do anything about him. Really, this forum could use more moderation. That said, he does sometimes contribute to gameplay discussions when he's not being an ass.
Isn't Gravity Warhead a single-target ability?
Hmmm. Perhaps I will try the Desolator for early hit-and-runs of planets, then.
[quote who="Cykur" reply="1" id="1974580"] Is this still a viable tactic? Looking to get back into this over the winter break. Had some fun times sneaking in 15 or so siege frigates to my enemies' home planets while engaging their fleet on their border, but I haven't played since the big siege frigate nerf. I hesitate to call it non-viable, because you can in fact knock out enemy worlds with it, but it is not as easy or cheap to do as it was in the early patches. I have
I thought that your allies' trade posts counted towards the longest chain?
Is this still a viable tactic? Looking to get back into this over the winter break. Had some fun times sneaking in 15 or so siege frigates to my enemies' home planets while engaging their fleet on their border, but I haven't played since the big siege frigate nerf. Also, it seems like Embargo is OP'ed compared to subversion. Like, massively so. A level 1 Embargo steals resources, increases frigate and structure build time 30%, and costs 85 antimatter. A level 1 Subversi
I'm a bit pissed that the Empire Tree isn't up for Best New Gameplay Idea. It really should be.
I played online when I first got this game, and think I was a "pro" at the time- at least, my win-loss record was something like 10 and 1. I stopped playing simply because I couldn't afford to, for the sake of my schoolwork.
Preordered! What if I WANT to be charged now? I live in Canada and am somewhat afraid of a plummeting exchange rate.
I am getting a bit nervous about the role of tactics... I most certainly do NOT want micro to be a large part of this game. The entire purpose of the epic scale of the conflict is to eliminate micro.
Dissapointed about spelling. and grammar, And punctuation. Methinks this game is just over your head.
Oh. Emm. Gee. I WANTS!! Just wondering if the developers have thought of the impact of fragmented expansions on online play, though. How will they manage that?
I am very disappointed. In myself. I had to stop playing because otherwise I will fail school. Can't wait for summer!
[quote]The data (ICO stats and singleplayer commentary) says siege is being used as a massed strike force (and in many cases, multiple strike forces). Its obvious why too: the cost and supply usage is low and you can't kill them quick enough to stop them (nor can you strike at them elsewhere in time). Thus they cost more and are more easily killed - we really want players to have to choose whether they go heavy siege and when and where they should strike with them. But if there is serious proble
Yeah, the longest route thing is totally bugged. Nothing you can do.
I am surprised it won't run- I am running on a 64 mb card. Try dialing down the graphics all the way if you can.
How would I deal with it? I'd raid them and blow up some labs. If someone is tech-rushing (and you know based on how many labs they have), attack them!
I disagree with the use of hangers at all (although I play Vasari, and lose 10 tac slots for phase stabilizers). If your opponents send a massive carrier fleet in, you're screwed anyway. There's no way you can have enough hangers to handle that, and you need to call in your fleet. If they don't send a massive fleet in, your defence force should be able to get there fast enough to stop any major damage. Meanwhile, hangers are fragile and do far less damage than turrets.
If you get stabbed in a FFA, don't whine. It's a FFA. EXPECT it. I would never hold a grudge for that sort of thing; hell, it's refreshing to get beaten by good diplomacy. If you don't want to get stabbed, either don't ally, or lock teams. Go into a FFA not trusting anyone. You'll probably ally with someone in your system for the duration of the game, but don't expect to. They could be planning to team up with the third wheel to destroy you. The best way to ensure you don't ge
Thanks, Norfleet, that's really what I'm feeling as well. It was such a brilliant idea, and yet it doesn't really quite seem to be working. I really think a buff for bounty is in order, to make it more attractive for players to go after someone based on the amount of money on their head. Maybe make it pay out more than you put on their head (kinda 'cheating', but I really think that the monetary reward is far too low to make it worth you while). So for every $250 you put on them, someon
Although I disagree with build-orders and such, I like that you are putting these up for discussion, rather than as 'the truth'. Pay no attention to HuntingX. He is one of the most arrogant pricks I have ever encountered, and anything that disagrees with him is 'wrong'.
Yeah, I have to say, I've switched to turrets and I'm not going back to hangers. They do less damage and are easier to kill. The added range just isn't worth it- with the tac points I save, I can space out my turrets enough to cover 80% of that range anyway.
No, I mean FFA with other people. I understand its use with pirates and with AI, but in multiplayer, has bounty ever affected [B]your[/B] decision of who to target?
Here's my question: in FFA matches, do you ever find yourself attacking someone just because of the bounty on their head, or have it influence your choice at all? It's a great idea for a mechanic, but I just haven't found myself interested at all. Maybe it's not enough money or something? Maybe it's because people tend to team up for the whole game? I stab sometimes just for the heck of it, but I rarely see other players doing it. Anyway, what do you think?
