Actually Lieu, 'we' went through the exact same things as you (omgwtf-HoL phase and everything). My experience sounds very similar to yours, tho mostly from 2v2 Conquest on Cataract. Against competent opponents it is very difficult to score a kill. I play Sedna as a combat hero (from my experience she makes a rather poor minion master compared to other generals) so I maximize Pounce, Heal and Grace, later adding Presence and Silence. Items are usually Banded+Gauntlets to start,
SoFFacet
My friend plays a mean Ooze Beast, its very painful. Much more troublesome than Spit.
Right but what youre saying is that you'd get Vlemish-->Boots, whereas right now I am convinced that Vlemish-->Plenor is the way to go (can get same number of mana pots either way). I take it you disagree, but imo Sedna doesn't need the +5h/s since she already has grace+banded, and the 600 hp isnt better than 775 mana. The 70% mregen is just gravy (pretty useful gravy, tho).
Lieu, Your arguments regarding Shield+HoL are quite convincing, nicely done. However, regarding Sedna items I have had quite a bit of success with Vlemish+Plenor (Boots etc can come later). The extra max mana from Plenor gives you about 3 extra spells for a major DG battle, and the extra regen really puts her spamability over the top.
R-P-S is unfortunately the acronym for both Reward Player Skill and Rock Paper Scissors. Ironically, those concepts are often conflict with one another. I usually mean Reward-Player-Skill. Malskidasith: I never said anything about execution barriers. I think we would both agree that requiring people to juggle batons while pressing buttons with their toes is stupid. As you said, the game should show who is better at playing the game. I agree, and suggest that the game should include (m
1. Pounce is really, really good. 2. Yetis are awful. Play enough games and you will come to these conclusions as well.
@ Milskidasith Actually no, if everybody tries to use the more complicated strategy then lesser players will fail to execute it properly, allowing the more talented players to distinguish themselves, which is the whole point of competitive gaming. I really don't intend to argue that reward-player-skill should apply to DG as 1) its not a major cybersport and 2) the game mechanics of DG generally don't lend themselves to R-P-S the way other games do. I was just mentioning it to point ou
Well I've made the reward-player-skill argument many times in several different games so I do have some sympathy for the OP. Basically how the argument goes is that while there are no arbitrary rules of honor or minimum-required-skill for the players, an ideal game should be balanced in a way that in general, simple strategies have a lower maximum potential than complicated ones. But achieving that is totally the responsibility of the game designers. However, I personally don't
[quote]I have been running a negative economy since the beginning of the game and doing pretty well.How do I do this? By selling technology. Selling technology brings in ridiculous cash. It almost seems like I'm cheating.[/quote] Yeah, thats one of the first strategies I discovered too, and quickly became bored of it. It really felt dirty, somehow. Set up your race with as much research and diplomacy bonuses as possible, research like crazy and sell (almost) all of it for gobs of cash.
Say that you have military spending at 50%, and social and research at 25%. You have a planet with no starport. Does that planet miss out on a potential 50% extra social/research production? Or is it smart enough to divy it out to social and research? If its going to waste that way, is there a way to manage economic spending on a per planet basis?
[quote]This is the kind of attitude that RUIN ALL games, single and multi players alike. The devs should really LISTEN to everybody and then they, the devs NOT the players, will decide what to do. There is no single definition of balance, we the players can debate for the rest of our lives on what balance really is, and how it should be. It doesn't matter how "high level, pro, elite, have an idea of what you are talking about". Your definition and views of "Balance" are not exactly the same as m
[quote]This attitude will pretty much kill the game and the company. Sorry, but Stardock made the right decision when deciding to cater to the casual player instead of the protournament goon. This is the philosophy that worked in GalCiv2,it'll work here two.Nice try though, trying to get your way, how about you save us a lot of time and just spam "Listen only to me!" on every forum. Seeing you crow about yourself in every thread is really tiresome.[/quote] Incorrect. Considering everyon
[quote]Vasari... seem to be good at generating a lot of credits as compared to the other two factions.[/quote] Uh huh.
[quote]Having a power that can help mop up an already won battle, isn't nearly as valuable as having a power that can help win a battle.[/quote] I agree with that general principle, but you have neglected a significant number of facts in your analysis. Akkans expand much faster, so it is highly likely that an Akkan player will have a stronger economy and a bigger fleet when its time to fight. Kols arent so much stronger than Akkans that a few extra frigates cant make up the di
jBrereton has summed up my views nicely already, but I will toss in my experience as well: An Akkan expands [I]much[/I] faster than a Kol (or anything else) + colony frig, since you dont have to deal with the colonizer's annoyingly low anti-matter or insta-aggro. Considering it isnt a main battleship, Akkans are surprisingly effective in combat. They deal a superb amount of damage and are quite resilient at high levels, since they gain hull and shield points as they level up much faste