innociv

Do you have a mod activated?

Hahaha. :)

Oh and also to note, while the counter-to-cost of flaks:bombers was over 15:1, since fighters die more than twice as fast(as of 1.02 and 1.03. Now bombers die less easier, but i'm comparing based on 1.02/1.03) you can figure how good of a counter they where to fighters. Oh and it's not like I'm saying flak should only kill bombers 3.5:1 or so, more in line with other countering. It's just 15:1, even 10:1, is ridiculous. :) The counter-to-cost ratio should be closer to 7:1

[quote]Wow Innociv that's interesting point. I wonder if that's why they changed antiverylight damage to do less vs light, in order to buff bombers. Which makes it stupid as hell because now you cant use fighters vs lrms and you cant use flak as well as before, so to counter lrms I have to tech to HC? WTF? It makes very little sense. And now u will probably have a better chance of using bombers vs flak. Any scenario where bombers counter flak is a retarded one! Why would you make bombers ef

Astax, Bombers aren't going to counter Flaks now.. they'll be more resistant to them as they shoudl be though. Before a few flaks would kill bomber squadrans before they even got to fire a second shot! If someone had 10 flaks you needed to have like 70 or 80 bombers! That's ridiculously hard of a counter compared to all other counters in the game being relatively medium.(usually beating things at 2:1 to 4:1 ratios) In comparison to beat 10 flaks with lrms you needed about 40 or 45

Not just one of my favorite game company people, one of my favorite people. ;o I just hope This Demigod being pushed back to Febuary is just to make it better not to add a bunch of single player.. The head developer months ago said Single Player would basically just be training and that it's a primarily multiplayer game. :P

Thanks! Though i haven't worked on modding yet since it's too limited right now. :P

thats for 1.1

ugh stupid edit gone.. Anways. Sorry if I sound condescending, it's because I AM now. I'm so tired of making valid points and backing up my arguments with FACTS to have people say the same WRONG thing over and over. (IE: Omg fighters are super buffed and will pwn lrms now because flak does less damage to BOMBERS and hits BOMBERS less.) How many times must I explain that bombers have a seperate armor class than fighters? Fighters are VeryLight. Bombers are Light. Th

How did bombers get a boost vs LRMS?! They do like 4dps when they cost so much! Just as well off using light frigs! Or did you not know that Fighters are the unit that counter LRMS? You know, the one that has a whole squad die instantly to flak? And no, people are simply going to build MORE flaks now since they'll need more to effective kill LRMS. That means fighters are LESS of a counter to LRMs.

[quote]Did you even read what I said before you barfed that hyperbole out? [/quote] Yes I did, babycakes. *clears throat* [quote]Also, innociv, carriers now have a better chance of countering LRMs, as they should. Flak will miss 25% of the time against fighters. [/quote] Here let me rub in the point a little more. [quote]Also, innociv, carriers now have a better chance of countering LRMs, as they should. Flak will miss 25% of the time against [size="5"]fighters.[/

He's actually somewhat right..

[quote]Superb job, guys Really well done!Also, innociv, carriers now have a better chance of countering LRMs, as they should. Flak will miss 25% of the time against fighters. [/quote] Sorry but... No. I'm tired of justifying people saying this with a response to. I almost think I should have some document with the math for all these showing how just a few flaks(say 4-10) will kill many squads of fighters within seconds each. But no, I shouldn't, [B]you people should be a

Carrier Cruiser cost reduction is great but really fighters and bombers just need better survivability and faster building/lower AM cost. And of course the Market fix is great but i don't understand why just that change couldn't of been made 3 weeks ago, it's just an entity file change that takes 2 minutes.. but ah well.. And the lrms thing, the big issue.. them not being able to chase caps planet to planet is nice, but the problem is that caps still won't be able to

These changes to Illuminators now sound like they'll actually make them comparable to the other LRMS, maybe even the best(they are tech3 and the most costly, why shouldn't they be the best?) /edit Crap. I thought you made the side beams do 30.3 while keeping the front beam at the 65 proposed earlier. Yeah nevermind.. I guess I'll see ingame. Surely javs will be better. I don't think the RA changes are the right ones, but I guess are okay temporarily. The problem wit

Well yeah FA DID make supcom a hell of a lot better, but that's because supcom economy model was broken in the first place. soase on the other hand doesn't have anything that needs to be redone and radically changed to fix any issues with the gameplay. The gameplay is solid and good. Just needs more of the good game. But Supcom is a great example because 99% of people that would look at the economy changes would go "oh yeah, that makes a ton of sense and would really

Yes, which'd be good. But my point is look at supcom vanilla vs. FA and there are a lot of other games out there for examples, cases where they developers decided to redo a bunch of gameplay elements which left half people playing the expansion and half the original still, along with lots of complaining.

lol wut. This is the part where i challenge you to a game. :D

Joe, you're right the ai for movement needs to be greatly improved. It's again, another reason, why micro definitely IS needed in this ship. If you just tell your cap to move somewhere, it'll die. You have to click 5 times a second to keep it moving smoothly along a specific path that keeps it from getting stuck on other ships. And they won't use the z axis to go over/under a long line of ships automatically. THis is an issue imo.

Please don't do what developers are often doing now days which is in the expansion drastically changing gameplay mechanics and hwo thigns work. Then you have people who liked the "original" more while some move on to play the new one. No stupid things like completely changing how cap ships work, where like all of a sudden in the patch you have to research tech that takes 20 minutes before you can get one, or changing completely how the grav wwells and phasing works. <b

[quote]Will LRMS be better early game now? YESI think you meant to say Will Illuminators.... or Advent LRMS....[/quote] Yeah i meant illums. Can't edit now because of stupid forums. [quote]Fixed resource asteroids is going to remain? It looked to me like quite a few wanted the random ones back...Plus is it too late to ask for a option to choose where to store savegames and recordings? Have the default path as hidden folder local settings whatsit if it's to keep Microso

Illums where far from unused in 1.02 though. They just weren't used before getting gaurdians and cap support. This gave the Advent a different playstyle. Not to mention, illums are mil3. and to 4, It's not about small steps. It's just like in flaks case it's a step in the wrong direction, same with illums. I never asked for perfect balance, simply to fix the majorly overpowered units/strategies. Nerfing flaks damage 25% doesn't stop that. It just means

BRB Antorak. Anyways when you're saying Illum is being BUFFED the big problem is that you're comparing it to the 1.03 illum, not the 1.02 one. FOR AN INCREASE OF 10% credits, 15% metal, and %40 crystal cost to Illums over 1.02 Illums now have: 15% more damage(almost 1/3rd that crystal increase, almost half that metal increase.) Less than 10% increase in survivibility(REMEMBER, 1.03 nerfed it's survivability! YEah a 200 increase seems like a lot compared to the crappy 1

[quote]I want a timer option that will end multiplayer games at a set time.[/quote] none cares. Learn to beat people within the time you want.

[quote]Cykur, thanks for pointing out how you're putting words in my mouth. I was quoting you. If you don't want it quoted, don't type it.[/quote] You have trouble understanding what i was saying then..