Jinx

[quote]The games that are most popular in the competitive circuit are those with the most pathetic elements of teamwork or much cognitive thought at all. Team deathmatch does not teamwork make, on that note.[/quote] Counterstrike and Dota are both highly competitive games that after a certain point, your skill level basically plateaus and it's teamwork that carries you forward for the win. Both games are very popular, so I beg to differ with your statement.

[quote]In conclusion, competitive gaming doesn't kill, it's the dev decisions in harnessing that energy that kill the games. Like any resource, it can be exploited in a positive fashion or a negative fashion.[/quote] QFT

I think we're getting a little side tracked here. We just want the game to be balanced. Balance is good for both competitive and non-competitive. When the balance is skewed, the "win at all cost" players will abuse that strategy over and over. That's bad for all parties. However, don't get that confused with competitive gaming. I'm competitive, but won't take advantage of exploits and things. I won't feel happy unless myself and my opponent are on an equal playing field.

There are so many things wrong with your posts. Is this your first time playing a video game let alone online? [quote]If you want a game that is widely popular with new players then what you have to have is an MP mode that the odds cannot be stacked against the unwitting.[/quote] The odds aren't stacked against you. [b]You simply aren't good at this game.[/b] You have a choice - play this game against the computer for a while and learn the basics, or suck it up and lose on

[quote]I think as of 1.03 this issue is solved. Maybe we'll see a resurgence if it turns out massing LRMs is still a great idea due to damage potential +range, but I doubt it. They get shredded up by cobolts evenly now. Anyway, GJ Ironclad![/quote] Looking over the patch notes, I see nothing that really weakens the LRMs. Why do cobalts shred them now?

Any game that has a winner and loser will be competitive. Don't tell me you play so that you can lose.

[quote]Read the post it's very good and expresses my end of it perfectly. The attitude displayed by your numerous responses of this type are purely exploitive. Since this is something you enjoy well then chow into it. I won't be back for it. I think what many have been expressing is really a rather callous view of what a game is and indicative of today's culture: steroids, extreme and ultimate fighting, doping, fixing and so forth. So good luck to you all.[/quote] Do you blame everyone

Of course the devs should be congradulated for their hard work. I don't think anyone on the board feels resentment to Stardock/Ironclad. They've been excellent developers who really care about the community and supporting the game. That said, in order to have strategy/play the game, it needs to be balanced. Many of the "complaints" are valid concerns that some of the fixes were for the worse. Some (for example the chat problem) outright broke an essential gameplay piece.

I agree with Pnakotus. It's one thing to come out whining that you lost a game and how that makes it a bad game, but it's an altogether different thing to flame anyone who sais anything negative of the game or that they simply don't enjoy it.

@JeffK965 I love this game but I have said on multiple occasions that it's imbalanced. However, gripes like these are unfounded and highly emotional nonsense. What he's complaining about can apply to any game. In fact, his complaints are simply him venting his frustration that he lost in a game against MORE EXPERIENCED PLAYERS. He lost?! Say it ain't so! The humanity!

[quote]I would not consider a pre-arranged partnering with anyone for that purpose[/quote] That's good, because I'm sure no one wants to play on your team either. For pretty much any game you play, if you play against someone more experienced than you, you will lose. The fact that attitudes like yours STILL exist in this day an age is baffling. Just when I think mankind is starting to rise up from the murky recesses of stupidity and arrogance, nature pushes us back

[quote]Uranium, I couldn't agree more with your post. The reason I don't play starcraft is that memorizing the ONLY way you can build units means it isn't a game, just clicking buttons.[/quote] Nobody clicks buttons in starcraft... they learn the hotkeys :p Build orders only exist as your initial boost. How you play after that is entirely up to you. It's like saying smash brothers is all about button mashing when it clearly has elements of precision and some strategy to the g

[quote]If build-orders were so god-damn necessary, why not just have the game start with the build order already done?[/quote] [quote]Build orders are an atrocity and have no place in a game that claims to be about strategy, and the unthinking retard who uses them has no business thinking themselves a master of it.[/quote] Chess: -simple game that has a very refined balance to it -will likely to still be played in 100's of years -is a turn based game -can immedi

They rushed you and sicked the pirates on you. Not really sure how that's an exploit or how it may constitute not "playing for fun." I lost many times in situations like this as well. When you play with a stranger on your team you always run the risk of getting someone you can't rely on. My suggestion is to play 1v1 a lot in the beginning, save the replays everytime you lose, and figure out what you did wrong. This goes for any RTS. I don't understand people's hostility w

[quote]s with this as I am. Why isnt this being looked at?[/quote] Because a lot of people get swollen heads when they beat a POORLY EXECUTED RA rush and think it's balanced. Then they come and spread their fairy tales of how it's easy to counter on the forums.

1.03 seems to actually make them tougher (at least for vasari and advent) but slightly more expensive. The lrm balance issue remains

i believe it deals 10% damage. Players can also see the bullet coming from a mile away and move their fleet. The problem is that phase gates are so inexpensive and easy to replace.

once RA is up and running, there is NO counter. Unless you're also vasari with RA teched.

I guess the evacuator will be my sole planet bombing ship from now on... :(

[quote]back on topic... this game has eliminated the effectiveness of a spam strategy... i wonder how many other game companies will step up..[/quote] I don't mean to say this with any offense, but people like you undermine efforts to balance the game. Inferring from your posts, it sounds like you think you're a high level player. Perhaps you've only played games on huge massive multi star maps where rushing obviously makes little sense if you start in separate star systems. However,

[quote]That's funny. You're resorting to name calling and I'm the fifth grader. Haha![/quote] Of course. You may not actually be in the fifth grade, but your mentality/maturity is definately at that level. [quote]I didn't even read your message as soon as I saw all the decimals.[/quote] That is a red flag for a fool who wishes to stay ignorant. You're basically saying, "decimals are too complicated. Me no understand". I take back what I said about you bei

Most people I meet online who preach "surrender if you lose" end up quitting themselves. I surrender if I lose since I know other people would like the win, but for myself, I couldn't care less about stats. As soon as they quit, I just quit too. If you REALLY want wins, you could simply make 1v1 games where you and the comp are on the same team. The instant the game loads, you get an immediate win.

[quote]Anyway, these are rhetorical questions. The point is, it's a lot harder to quantify what scuttling the thing will do for you than simply looking at total resources. It's a choice between having those extra 33 seconds worth of resources or having a logistics-burning lump that won't do a thing for you until you can feasibly scrape together the ship-cost + logistics upgrades required for a second cap ship. In a competitive game, as has been said, this may never happen and by the time it does

[quote]No one cares. At least I don't. I didn't even read your message as soon as I saw all the decimals.[/quote] Ah I see... so you're a fifth grader. Suddenly your posts make so much sense.

I scuttle the cap ship fac to get 35 (or was it 30?) crystal. In the beginning of the game, when everyone makes a mad dash for crystal, it's not uncommon for it to get as expensive as 850 credits. 35 crystal means you get the pop upgrade on the asteroid sooner/assailant tech sooner/1 extra assailant