kaashar

[quote who="Silveus" reply="25" id="1903865"] No I didn't. Check the ships: Karrastra Destructor - Planet Bombing Damage: 23 My bad, i don't play Vasari, well ever and i thought that was their HC at first. I still think that making it so ships can't fire through each others shield bubbles and better use of the fleet formations you could effectivly use the smaller ships to shield the capital ships.[/quote] No worries, I rarely play them myself (I'm more

one thing that you missed with your fleet calculations, to the second above poster, is that if the enemy does 800 dmg or so, they kill the assailant, for example, and remove that DPS perminantly from the equation. 800 dmg to a capital ship just mars the shields a bit. But when you factor in it's cheaper just to replace the lost assailant than even build the capital ship in the first place, the point is moot. Fights aren't won or lost based on 800 damage. It'

So I don't sound like a WoW player and do nothing but whine I'll make a suggestion. Make capital ship fleet capacity completely seperate from normal fleet. Give some incentive for them to be used on the board. The cost is already there given that they're not really more powerful than their cruiser counterparts given the ability to spam. I'm sure it would cause a plethora of balance issues, but at least it would be a step in the right direction.

[quote who="PeskyFly" reply="18" id="1902247"]I think CapShips are just fine as they are, and don't need any buffing. See, a Kortul Devastator fresh out of the factory has 2650 Hull, 5 Armor and 1425 Shields. Adding it all up, this gives the Kortul 4737 hitpoints out of the box. It then has 12 Wave + 8 Pulse Beam + 6 Phase Missile DPS for it's front bank with 11 Pulse Beam DPS on each side, giving it a total of 48 DPS(ignoring Phase Missiles' penetration ability).

[quote who="BlackWindx" reply="3" id="1856062"]they changed it to make them more like what they want them to do capitalships are not the beall to end all there the support beams for the fleet. if you still think they should be then you know noughthing of navy doctriants as they apply to space as well as water.[/quote] I disagree, applying current naval doctrine to the 3d battlefield is a terribly ignor

Each core is displayed seperatly in the software I use. In fact, during heavy operations one core does occasionaly peak a little higher, but the gameplay stays slow for hours with the CPU load on both cores being light. I'm watching it from a second monitor, so I can easily monitor what's going on. If you want to see it for yourself, just load up the resource monitor and watch the history of both cores when this event happens. Or, if

My friends and I moved back to the traditional "port forward" hosting because of this very problem. Once the tools are released to help ICO troubleshoot the issue we'll help test that function out.

[quote who="Jedmonds24" reply="5" id="1888923"]You probably had what happened to me before, I was playing TEC, and bombed all of an oponnet's planets at the same time. So I killed off all thier worlds at the same time, so technically they had been defeated but they still had a fleet.[/quote] Naa, it's not that. On the maps this happens on we're talking 7-10 planets still owned by the AI in question (not counting the other 4 AIs) and ther

I and my friends have noticed a problem that was mostly gone in the previous beta that's returned in the current. We play multiple AIs cooperatively pretty often. The problem happens near midgame when the entire game slows down drastically to the point of being almost unplayable. I check the CPU load via the in-game meter and nobody is over 50%. I'm always the host (using the traditional port forward method) and watch my own CPU usage through a sidebar

I don't think shield mitigation is enough. Espically when playing as Advent against Vasari. Given the amount of time it takes in the current iteration of the beta to get a capital ship to level 8+ there needs to be SOME reward for one's effort. Their power needs to scale better as they get up in level.

The latest version of the AI is really wimpy. Drive a large fleet directly to even "unfair" AI homeworlds, decimate their fleet in orbit and destroy the planet. AI gives up and is defeated. It's really made fighting the AI boring. You can beat them every time quickly if you know for sure you have enough fleet to arrive at their homeworld and sustain a battle there succesfully.

Cap ships do need....something. I build what I call "luxury cap ship fleets", but I only do so because I'm in love with the huge brutal capital ship, I turn a blind eye to the fact that this game's cap ships are made of marshmello. I only bring my caps out when I've got the required huge support fleet of Hoshikos/Cielo/Kodiaks to baby sit them (unless playing Advent then it's the support fleet of Guardians/Subjugator/Crusaders). In SOASE cap ships are fluff. &

The advent gun isn't worth the resources it takes to build once you factor in it's research, tactical planetary upgrades and own cost. I typically build one so I can expedite colonizing a planet as a luxury item. Defeating a planet with your culture is a pointless gesture when you factor in the time it takes to get the job done. For instance, let's say you build 10 Deliverance Engines and stagger all of them on a planet 1 minute apart. I'd have to fire up a replay, but the last time

I disagree Raknor. I've been playing RTS since Dune 2 and hate playing other players, some of us are just different. Being tank rushed, Zerg rushed, LRM rushed, it's all the same. Most players aren't even creative enough to come up with their own strategy. They just read what's on the forums, copy that and if you counter it...they're more boring than the AI. At least it doesn't whine about "lag" or "bad planet arrangement" etc. I and my friends have played 100+ sins game

I wonder if ICO would consider an option for dedicated host PCs? Some of the load of the NPC AI calculations could be done on it instead of the shared model we current use. Plus you could run the game in a headless mode for hosting eliminating more of the overhead to allow the AI more room to grow. FPS games have been doing this for over a decade now.

It's not CPU related (ctrl-alt-del while one of these furballs is going on shows only 70% of one core ; 50% of the other). I have noticed that the RAM utilization goes through the roof on these fights. I've seen it go up to over 1.8GB of RAM used. It's not graphics related as you can save the game, turn the settings down and come back in and it will still be locked up. I've noticed it a lot when the AI is having to do a lot of fleet movement during a fight (if I have a large

Thank you for the responses, I've at least got some things to follow up on now. I like your idea Retro. I and my friends play co-op against the 'bots. I think it'd be more fun if any non-asteroid got progressively stronger as you went along. It'd definately add a new element to the game.

I'm trying to make a map where a few of the planets have the usual militia NPCs defending it, but I'd like a few gun placements, hangar bays and repair tatical items to spawn when the map does. I've tried playing with it, but they don't spawn...what am I missing? Thank you in advance, Kaashar