Haeso

[quote]Hee hee...This is funny....What it boils down to is that people are upset that the Vasari are no longer overpowered and are now losing to people playing other races ( including the TEC...which were a little wimpy)Sounds like they are trying to balance the races...I play TEC ( I always play Humans ...even in Starcraft I always played humans)I haven't played MP yet to due the fact of TEC defiencies and all those stupid LRM spams....and mostly because I don't like people as a whole...Hee hee

[quote]Anyone who's been with us since the Galactic Civilizations days knows that we take feedback responsible. Heck, the starbases in GalCiv came from player feedback! Can anyone whose played GalCiv imagine GalCiv without the starbases now? But the people who suggested starbases didn't start out by saying "This game sucks, only adding starbases will save it."Rock on. Now starbases are not only an integral feature of the game, with the famous 24 Military Starbase Array being some kind of achiev

[quote]@ bonerfest > Thanks for your correction. I am not visually impaired : I had focused on the official 1.03 changelog, not paying any attention to the homepage.My hypothesis, then, is that a marketing-oriented author, on the homepage, got carried away.As far as I'm concerned, the official changelog is the most correct & precise, reliable technical info ... and I do not see any « vastly improved » A.I. there. Marketing ...[/quote] I'd just like to say, that the changelog, didn't eve

[quote]@ bonerfest > Thanks for your correction. I am not visually impaired : I had focused on the official 1.03 changelog, not paying any attention to the homepage.My hypothesis, then, is that a marketing-oriented author, on the homepage, got carried away.As far as I'm concerned, the official changelog is the most correct & precise, reliable technical info ... and I do not see any « vastly improved » A.I. there. Marketing ...[/quote] I'd just like to say, that the changelog, didn't eve

more repeating of what's already been said, hopefully someone listens to you or innociv, they're certainly not listening to me, at least I got the ball rolling even if people hate me. Glad other people are starting to realize I wasn't just having a kneejerk. Carry on here :|

Double post, go forums. Not sure how that even happened, two versions of one post. And uh, the biggest point is balance was -better- in the last patch, a step backwards in balance is a very, very bad thing. And it does alienate a lot of us when we're blatantly ignored and this stuff actually goes live.

[quote]Ahem....I would just like to point out Haeso, that before you even posted this thread very, very, very many inflamatory choice words were in fact being used by you in the ICO chat! Anyone having had to listen to you on ICO would have gotten a terrible impression of you.....just my take.the Monk[/quote] And I'd totally buy a new sim city game astatine. I like them. It just felt accurate to me, I've never seen so many trade ports compared to this patch. And monk the point

[quote]From (Stardock CEO) Frogboy's reply #15 : Some people have explicitly said that the hard core multiplayer players are the heart of the community and must be made top priority. And that's something I can't accept. Our goal has to remain to make sure as many people as possible enjoy the game. To the tiny 0.1% « competitive elite » : Is that clear enough for you non-noob, non-moron, non-stupid guys ?![/quote] We like variety :( Why are you guys so hostile when we mention imbalance,

[quote]Stick to your guns, Frogboy. We SP (and casual MP) gamers love what you're saying. If the "elite" think one race has an advantage, they can either mod it themselves or all play as the same "advantaged" race. Some people would complain even if you hung them with a new rope.[/quote] We like variety :( Why are you guys so hostile when we mention imbalance, are you so affected by fanboyism that you cannot see very glaring issues? I can't stress enough, we like the game, we support

[quote]Nobody is suggesting that it should: simply that players like that look at the stats and optimise more than friendly games or single player, and they will find the problems first. That's important for multiplayer, simply because once found, they're easily communicated, and now the small flaws in the unit balance mean 80% of all games play the same way, x faction is never used, y unit is never used, etc. We agree. The problem is that it's hard for us to seperate the signal and the noi

[quote]What would you have me say to that. You and I disagree. I don't know how many times in how many different ways we can say that we look at the posts, play through the game, and make recommendations on balancing changes based on player feedback? But at the same time, I don't agree that elite level multiplayer issues are going to take precedence over, for instance, improving the computer AI or getting AI players to replace dropped players or making it easier to join multiplayer ga

[quote]What I am saying though is that the belief that the "competetive" MP crowd is doing the rest of the community a favor is a fallacy that has been statistically proven incorrect over countless of studies. (1)Because competitive players play differently than the rest of the community, they will discover issues that the rest of the community does not see(2), are not affected by(3), and in many cases don't even understand(4). Competitive MP players are the smallest denomination of any IP. (5)O

Balance effects everyone, competitive or not. Try again.

Balance effects everyone, competitive or not. Try again.

Balance effects everyone, competitive or not. Try again.

[quote]Grarg, I tried to edit my post but it didn't take effect.fenwe, your argument here is a bit silly. Are you saying that because you don't play the game competitively, no one should be allowed to play the game competitively?[/quote] as soon as someone posts after you, no more edits, silly eh? lol Just won another game going full eco with two allies and pooling them, 3v3, clan match with XX, just jumped in to give em a full 6. My economy dominated that game even though I ha

[quote]You numb skulls don't realize if there are imbalances it doesn't affect just the elite. We just spot it first. It trickles down eventually.And some people fail to realize that an "imbalance" only exists if the only thing one does is spam a particular unit or utilizes a very specific strategy, which is something that usually only "competetive" people do. If one approaches the game with a different mind set than one would probably never see the "imbablance" as such to begin with.[/quote]<br

[quote]The funny thing is that the competitive MP crowd is the smallest population, but because they scream the loudest and are more active in general on the forums they tend to get the most attention. It is funny also about the fact that competitive gamers always credit themselves with the success or failure of a given IP. Competetive gamers actually drive up the cost of most IP because of their willingness to use exploits and the mind numbing spam that they resort to, so more patches have to b

[quote][...] Ironclad doesn't want people coming up with an optimum strategy every patch, and then players going online and finding that that strategy is all that gets used. I can understand that, seeing a glorious game reduced to a calculated number of mouse clicks every single game [...]If indeed Ironclad is worried about gamers ripping the fun out of the game by playing only to win [...] Already, on other threads, you have self-glorified, « high-level competitive » players who are bragging, i

Games should always strive for as close to true balance as possible, perfect balance in a system more complicated than rock paper scissors is impossible, even Starcraft isn't perfect in it's current implementation, but as it stands it's obviously the closest RTS ever. And these are the only similarities, it's an RTS, and it has to have a balance element. As craig was saying on ICO yesterday, and I definately agree with this, this game and starcraft are two completely different games. They really

[quote]Well, I feel noobish; 4 MP games under my belt (3 wins), and about a dozen vs the AI, and till I read this thread, I had NO idea I could build more than 1 trade port (or super weapon) per planet. I use to only build one per planet (never asteroids), as I also thought the income was based on tax income. I wonder if a "1 per planet" change would help with all this?[/quote] I'm not surprised, I still see that at least once a day.

There is no resource option you tool. He's talking about an actual one, you know the one where you could make a different amount of resources spawn per planetoid. When everyone played on many? How this patch reduced total resources by half if not more? How with that change the races that had to sell (vasari/Advent) Can no longer afford to do so? Not the income speed which is % to everyone and doesn't affect the game the same way.

[quote]After reading the vast majority of these 5 pages (I'll admit to skimming a few posts here and there), it really just sounds like some Vasari players (a few boldly proclaiming how they are better gamers than the TEC players they were beating in 1.02) have found that their favorite side and strategy are tougher to play in 1.03 . . . just like TEC was tougher to play in 1.02 . . . and now proclaim the game is broken, completely unbalanced, etc.. Now, whether this unbalances the game in favor

[quote]a single tactic? i digress, my personal style is a single huge capship fleet, playing as vasariand while this patch does nerf vasari down to the level of any other race *gasp! its more balanced than it originally was*, my vasari play style still works well, so to you complaining about vasari sucking now:TELL THAT TO MY JARRASUL!i think he will disagreevasari excell in the late game, thats all there is to itget used to it and quit complaininganyway, enjoy your rant[/quote] Meet me

thanks GA, I might not be the nicest guy nor do I claim to be, but I do know what I'm talking about :/ this wasn't a knee jerk reaction, this was simple math and experiance. Vasari vs TEC in anything but point blank or multi system large+ maps, the TEC are better. And in those bigger maps with proper scouting, and an aggressive strategy, it's more than viable to still rush somebody before RA. Regardless of what you think of either of patch, it's simply a fact that the game was more bala