Gabal

Lol, somebody should put up a sign here that reads: "Do not feed the trolls" People who fight over evolution, people who fight over God. Sad. Really Sad. You guys fighting are fighting over the same thing, the Past. It is pointless to argue over the past, as it is set in stone, and the only thing to argue about is how to name it. Was it evolution or God? Does it matter? Suppose we find the answer, then what? Will it change humanity? Will the wars end? Will poverty, hun

A few observations Forgiven, they have nothing to do with what you are saying, but please hear me out. 1- Try and put everything into one single post, making so many consetutive posts is borderline spam, and that is bad for both you and everyone else on these forums. 2- Dial down the caps, so many words in capital letters seems like you are shouting and is considered rude by many people. 3- This is the Internet, it is pointless to expect all people to agreed with you,

Wow, this must be a new record for these forums!! This thread has nothing to with Sins, but it have already reached 10 pages in three days. And people are so stupid. They invoke the right of freedom of speech, only to use it to attack the other person and tell him to shut up. It's so stupid. Lets see if by next friday this thread has reached 30 pages. :P

[quote]I am a fast worker, but with all those different planets and of course all the testing I have to do... 2 - 3 weeks.But I will post some screens and maby videos for a little previewAnd I have a question for you guys: Should the Star wars galaxy include Pirate bases ? I mean its Star Wars and I dont think pirates exist, but I want to make shure.[/quote] Can the Huts be considered "pirates"? Hell I think the Rebellion (in its early stages) could be considered pirates. Using

Somebody should read the patch notes before patching the game.

170 planets??? I though there were thousands of solar systems. Anyway, 170 planets is enough and, coupled with a good star wars mod, it would be awesome. :D One question though, it would be 170 planets, but how many stars, and how many planets per star?

[quote]I loved starcraft and warcraft III.. Very good unit balance, cool graphics (for the time, though wc 3 still looks really good).. Excellent plot and great single player campaigns, and for me thats a big one.. Having prince Arthas fall to evil, watching Kerrigan transformed into a slimy, spikey Zerg..[/quote] [quote]The problem I've always had with Blizzard's RTS's is that they're too much like going back to the early nineties and playing Dune 2 again. The basic gameplay has been p

This thread is rather stupid and pointless IMHO. Arguments should be argued with Facts. The only Facts I see here are the ones about the scientific method. Everything else is the same old shit believes. "You are wrong, I am right, now shut up you idiot." If you talk about "science", accept what you can 'prove' with the scientific method, ignore the rest. It is as simple as that.

[quote]oh look someone who doesnt know what he is talking about and yet it doesnt stop him from posting, now thats new... Im just one of the ppl who were around at the beta and maybe u dont know it but Ironclad/Stardock were around, "contacted" us, talked to us and implented the changes/suggestions the beta players came up with and i dare to say that the beta was better balanced than the final game (and this despite getting not further patches for a few months). So what i basicly wa

[quote]So PLZ Ironcland/Stardoch, Craig, Frogboy or whoever else read this, dont take it as offense but "we" can spent more time on playing this game than u can. Thus we know where the balance weaknesses are. Get in contact with us, talk to us and more important get those changes in the game.[/quote] OK, who are you? What company do you work in? What is your position? What is your experience? What education you have? Do you have a resume? Surely you must be a very

double post

I have a question innociv. Is the aim of all these suggested changes is to obtain a pure rock-paper-scissor balance? Because what I understand from reading your explanations is that you simply dislike any and all type of rushes, and what you are hoping to change is to make each race have an effective counter to each and every other race' units. Also I get the idea you also dislike all type of end-game super weapons/research. If so then, IMHO, these changes would suck

1- annoying yes, but easily corrected. we already have options to select engagement ranges and auto-attack for ships and fleets, you can try disabling the auto-attack and set engagement range to local area or hold position. Although an additional option to dictate target priorities would be nice. 2- I too have encountered this annoyance, nature of the beast i guess. In my experience, fleets move and behave around the lead fleet (flagship). If the flagship move, the fleet move, if the fl

X2 is an awesome game. But just like sins, you either like or you don't. On that topic, if you end liking X2, consider buying the sequel, X3:Reunion, Its improve in many aspects of X2 gameplay, but IMO its more complex with all the new end-game stuff, if you like X2 and want more, then X3 is the answer. Also, join the official forums, read up on all you can from there, there are many good guides in that forum which will greatly help with the learning curve. Also there is a good and frie

Thank you HuntingX and everyone else, I haven't seen a discussion thread this good and civilized in a very long time. Now if it could only get a sticky so that this become THE thread about discussion of the game's balance........

Posting in an emo-filled thread. :D Depending on the enemy's actions, building up my economy might be the best choice. Scout for the enemy, see what he is doing, then team up with your allies and work together to squash you enemies. Then rejoice on a job well done.

Interesting idea Uranium, i like it. But I must say that to implement those ideas would a royal pain in the ass to whom ever develop a game like that. Things like spawn camping on the one portable device(simply for griefing), actually finding your enemy in the huge map and not spend hours chasing ghosts and having no action, the balance of having customizable player classes, and something which Sins already suffer from, some games take so many hours to finish, players run out of time an

[quote]And balance issues can very well be dealt with spreadsheets.[/quote] That is the most stupid thing I've heard today in this forum. Any GOOD and INTELLIGENT developer/play tester/player will know the best way to test balance issues is by actualy running a simulation, not by simply looking at spreadsheets and numbers. I hope this Megavolt guy never have a say on the development of sins.

Megavolt, what you wrote is not about the minority, or the majority, or anything like that. Yours is simply an argument of "I am right, you are wrong, why? because i says so and i know better than you, now shut up and do what i say." What Annatar11 said is right, the real problem are the people flaming each other in every thread. If the WHOLE community can have civilized discussions about the balance of the game, it doesn't matter what each player likes or dislikes, a favorable result w

[quote]I never did play Homeworld 2, is it any good? Homeworld2 is definitely a great game it's the main reason I have hope for sins mp which I havent tried yet. I will say though that once you've played sins, HW2 will really feel dated IMO.[/quote] Homeworld is Homeworld. Nothing will EVER come even close to it. All three games are simply godly awesome, and not even sins manage to be as good as any of them. That said, Homeworld is more focused on tactical combat, where the pla

[quote]LOTR elves, space elves/Eldar, dark elves, light elves, green elves, brown elves, orange and blue striped elves, Elfquest elves, Christmas elves, Keebler elves.[/quote] That eleven elves right there. As for the op, Tw[B]ELVE[/B]field. Now that makes twelve elves. Sorry, just had to do it. :D

[quote] Homeworld's story campaign is a good example. It was pathetic and drew the developers away from improving the game mechanics.[/quote] ROFL. IMO, a (any) strategy game without a story is just a screen with a bunch of pretty things with stats moving aroud. Having a good story is never a bad thing for any game. And sometimes playing against an AI is more fun than playing against another player.........

[quote]Am I the only RTS player on Earth that regards linear, "story based" lead-you-by-the-nose campaigns in RTS games as boring, pointless, and unplayable? I mean, add a metamap campaign or some other kind of higher level strategic layer and I'm interested, but I can't imagine bothering to play through a story campaign in a game like this. Strategy games simply aren't good story telling devices IMO.[/quote] [quote]Campaign mode? How would that do anything but dumb this game down? This

[quote]Most mods that i've seen in other games, change the way the games look, such as battlefield having desert combat mod, or homeworld adding extra ships, but i have never seen a game overhauled so nicely by a few select people, in a way that has nothing to do with "taste," it's just so much better in every way. [/quote] Better in every way? Says who? Some people would like Sins to be more simple, while some would like it to be more complex. It has all to do with "taste". <

I have a question Kruelgor and everybody else, why haven't I see any tests between fleets with mixed units?? Like what happens when 40 cobalts go up against 20 ilums and 10 drone host(with fighters and then with bombers) and 5 subjugators for example?? And also, why so many stats, numbers and "if". In this sort of discussion a replay would be a lot more useful to identify what really happens during the battle.