[quote]here's the problem, why hasn't it already happened?[/quote] Just speaking for myself, I'm not sure that the community mod addresses my particular concerns. I'm okay with that - it obviously can't be everything to all people, but.... [quote]Why is was there no community mod before?[/quote] I think because there is a perception, possibly correct, that the online players would not bother to download and use it.
[quote]Now, Kharma...let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly... Current, shield projection on the Iconus Guardian means that some of the damage suffered by nearby ships is shared by the iconus...are you saying apply this concept to the radiance so that it takes damage when nearby ships are attacked?[/quote] Yes. We had a thread several months ago, where I posited this idea. A few others chimed in and liked it a lot. Darvin, I believe, chimed in wi
[quote]So we're back to the drawing board with animosity. Let's ask ourselves a few questions:[/quote] I'm not involved in this, and I haven't read all the posts (I just pop in to scan some posts once a week). However, I just wanted to know if you guys reviewed the brainstormings we had on Animosity a few months ago, posted on the forums? For instance, having a certain percentage of damage done within a radius of the Radiance dumped onto the Radiance (I am not suggesting
[quote]If you make them independent of these the Overseer will be entirely redundant, for example.[/quote] The overseer can still be used to heal frigs, cruisers, starbases, etc. and yes, capships. Caps must be made to perform their intended role without having to jump through a lot of hoops to do it. A robo-cruiser doesn't have to jump through lots of hoops to fulfill it's role. Why should capships? It isn't dumbing down the game to have a unit fulfill it's
You're DT. I'm guessing you've seen similar feats already. Perhaps not DT against DT, but certainly a decent DT against a non-DT? I'm basically saying it's probably not all that surprising. One guy was a micro-oriented guy similar to a JohnJames type, and the other two guys were just "okay" players.
[quote]Subverters and minelayers are a rough combination but the killing of 2 overwhelming fleets with them is still a little hard to swallow.[/quote] I admit that I didn't count the ships, so when I said "couple hundred," I really have no way of knowing how true that particular statement is. But the grav well was essentially filled with 2 enemy allied fleets from 2 different players - "2 overwhelming fleets" as you said. It was late game, so.... There was a lot of
[quote]Kharma, I do admit that I personally would prefer a game with more powerful capital ships and believe LRF/Bomber spams are a major concern... However, balancing the game and...shall we say, improving the game are two very different things..[/quote] I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I'm not advocating my own personal flavor of improving the game. What I have said for eons, and what many others have said too, is that caps don't fulfill their
No exaggeration. One of the two "retards" (not my word for him) is a fairly well-known name on these formus, and plays well (not a pro, but plays well). It was not "Swordsalmon," but someone along that caliber of name, probably a few more posts than that guy. I will not speak the name because I don't want to embarrass the guy. Again, I don't fault that guy, nor his ally. I fault the game mechanic which allows this.
[quote]I can see a rationale for giving them a few more hitpoints, but anything beyond that will change the entire strategy of the game[/quote] Well, if the official strategy of this game is supposed to be "keep capships alive amidst hundreds of lrms and bombers," I guess count me out. [quote]Capital ships are still useful and many good players make more than two, even as things stand now.[/quote] They are useful at colonizing and bombarding. Beyond that, the car
I actually like options 4, 5, or 6, on the surface at least. Option 5 - lowering capship cost - sounds interesting, because it would allow you to scale capship survivability with fleet size by simply deploying more capships than normally possible. In addition to straight resource cost reduction, a reduction to crew research (the research which allows you to deploy additional capships) can be considered. If that isn't enough to play with, we could also look into population
I used to play online heavily. I both used starbases offensively (and defensively) and had them used against me. It is a main feature of the game, you shouldn't play without them. They are beatable even fully upgraded. They are easily beatable unupgraded. Try this. Instead of trying to convince him to let you use starbases, tell him to humor you, and play a game against you where HE (not you) gets to use starbases offensively. You said he plays ad
[quote]And do you really think a game is fun if the outcome is predetermined as soon as one player gains an advantage. There needs to be a way for a player who's behind to come back, and a player who's ahead shouldn't be allowed to get careless without being punished for it. [/quote] There shouldn't have been a way for those two players to have lost this engagement (a couple hundred ships vs. a handful). Period. Your "there needs to be a way for a player who's behind to
Don't know if this has been suggested before, but I suggest making Dunov's magnetize also able to target the owner's ships and structures. I spent a fair amount of time quite a while back trying to make Dunov counter strikecraft - this was when Advent was totally OP and I had left Vasari because they sucked so hard. I was trying anything I could to counter Halcyon rushes. At any rate, to cut to the chase, the only way Dunov stands a chance at countering any strikecraft is if
Here's a dirty little secret: real-time strategy games (including Sins, at least the way it is played online) aren't strategy games, they are tactical games. What matters most is "micro," not "macro," and they are all clickfests. Even Sins, which is said by many to be a slow game, is way too much of a tactical clickfest for me. I've watched pro-level Sins players - even being in the same room with them while they are playing. In almost all cases, what matters mos
1) Assailants hard counter disciples. Any lrm type frig hard counters any lf type frig. 2) I didn't do the math to see which should win out, the illums or the assailants in that scenario. Just know that you have to put your illums inside his fleet so that the side beams get to shoot. 3) Again, didn't do the math here, but 250 assailants is an absolutely huge number of assailants. As you see here, the name of the game is "lrm spam." The only other game
Oh no, this has absolutely nothing to do with vasari, phase missles, scramble bombers, or anything else. This problem has been around since the beginning of the game, it is endemic to the gameplay mechanic. This problem was discussed at length on several old threads, way before the last patch which buffed scramble bombers and nerfed advent. This problem was discussed at length when vasari were widely considered to suck. This is a major problem requiring a more radical
Well, it is huge news to me that folks don't believe caps die far too easily to focus fire, and that something needs to be done. This was certainly a belief held very strongly, by very many, when I used to play heavily. If most believe the way DesConnor and Seleuceia believe, I guess that makes things much simpler, and my job here is done. Since one of my main balance concerns with the game is my very strong belief that caps die far, far too easily to focus fire, and canno
[quote]The problem with a community mod is that it's doubtful it would ever get used online. Trying to get online Sins players to use mods is like trying to herd cats.[/quote] I agree 100%, which is why I said: [quote]While it is most likely doomed to never go anywhere....[/quote] The best chance of success might be to get a decent-sized core group of "hardcore" players to dedicate themselves to using the mod - people like yourself and whoever else out there still pl
PURPOSE: There is some talk of a community balance mod. While it is most likely doomed to never go anywhere, I guess there's a 1% chance it might, thus consider this my contribution to help organize some of the thinking and planning of it. PROBLEM: As most of us know, one of the big problems with the game is that caps can't really do their job of supporting the fleet because they get focused and killed. The problem is that they can't really accompany the fle
My suggestion would be to decide what the ultimate gameplay model for capships will be before tweaking stats like incendiary shells, because the tweaks may end up being thrown in the garbage. For instance, if it ends up being decided that capships will counter other capships, and they won't counter frigates, and neither will frigates counter capships, abilities like incendiary shells may have to be reworked so as to not counter frigates, and you will have wasted time. At any rat
[quote]The biggest problem I'm seeing here is a fixation on the past...it doesn't matter if the Advent were OP and the Vasari UP for a millenia, that doesn't reflect on the current situation.[/quote] The past has to be fixated upon if there is to be a successful community mod. "Those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it." I wince every time I hear someone suggesting that siege frigates should be seriously buffed, because I was around when the game first lau
[quote]5) Nerf Phasic trap...for a faction that can have their fleet anywhere at anytime, invaders should not be excluded from using THE MOST POWERFUL UNIT, SC...I'm not looking to kill the ability, I simply want it to be reasonable...[/quote] I haven't seen complaints on this ability yet which are to be taken seriously. It's an ability on a static structure (a hanger)... hard to see how it is OP or game-breaking. Vasari were seriously UP last patch, and seems like most
[quote]I suspect there probably will be at least one more patch, but we do need confirmation one way or another before we go through with this.[/quote] By all means, don't wait for the devs to do anything before starting a community patch. You've waited for years for the game to be balanced. You will wait years more if you intend to wait on the devs. There is no reason to believe that some "next patch" (if there is one) will go any further towards balancing the game
[quote]There seems to be the expectation that Ironclad will not leave the game in its current state, but I don't know where this is from....[/quote] That's exactly what I thought as well, when I uninstalled and quit playing a while back. Ironically, I bought Diplomacy when it came out, not because I wanted Diplomacy (nothing about it appealed to me), but rather I wanted support. In other words, I looked at it as me buying another year or so worth of support from the devs,
[quote]There seems to be the expectation that Ironclad will not leave the game in its current state, but I don't know where this is from....[/quote] That's exactly what I thought as well, when I uninstalled and quit playing a while back. Ironically, I bought Diplomacy when it came out, not because I wanted Diplomacy (nothing about it appealed to me), but rather I wanted support. In other words, I looked at it as me buying another year or so worth of support from the devs,
Sins Forums