I use turrets only when I have no points left for any other tactical structure.
Hack78
[quote]Hack87, you never brought up these ideas in your initial posts. You see the public support and now you're desperate to shred this idea no matter the cost. You're pulling half-baked baised ideas out of your ass, as fast as possible. People will see this, please, don't pretend otherwise. [/quote] First it is Hack78. Secondly - I READ the other posts. They asked for the arguments to be about Sins ONLY. No Star Wars or WWII etc... So I did that. You just call me a troll again and a
Don't bother - the latest version is 1.14 and supposedly 1.15 is not far off from what I have heard
Lol - I love how Credit does his little [Reserved] while he compiles something. Yay you got someone supporting you Credit. Woohoo - I got this one [quote]The OP did ask for debate and Hack did supply opposing views on the subject. I see nothing wrong with that, I've been around some time in the lifespan of the game to have seen the ebb and flow of balancing efforts and read many similar posts stating concerns about flak frigate effectiveness and other perceived imbalances per
[quote]I'm sure it's not that hard for them; the argument that it might be difficult to implement simply because it's hard to do with the official modding tools is bullshit. [/quote] Um no - the argument is that it is hard as the game engine has a limit of 3 weapons per cap and they are currently allocated. To add flak means removing a weapon and therefore rebalancing OR changing the engine to handle more weapons. Both are not quick fixes. This has been posted numerous times. Please d
Lulz of course. Isn't it obvious!!! :D
There is no reason to ever auto-place. I often put them close together to cover them with repair bays. Also note that your start works for AI, not humans. We go around your guns. So hangers work better.
[quote]True, but that should be solved by making the capitals have strikecraft as what their weapons deal the least damage to. Right now ships will auto-attack what they are best at fighting. Combined this would result in weapons not firing on stikecraft until there are no more non-SC left they can hit. ex in a capital vs capital carrier battle all of the first's forward weapons will be firing on the second. Strikecraft will only be hit by side weapons as they flypast in attack runs. If there
[quote]Might want to add: 4 - the current engine only permits three weapons, adding a flak, fourth, weapon would require making a major change to it. That aside, I think every good ship from fiction where there are strikecraft has flak of some kind. The problem is putting it into the game while balancing it to take into account your three points. I think the best solution would be letting capital ships fire on strikecraft with their existing secondary weapons. This would
[quote]@ Snoop: You sure you aren't Sins101?[/quote] I was wondering that myself and was going to post it today. Queue conspiracy theory!!! :) If we don't see Snoop we will know. I hope it wasn't though. I'd much prefer to think it was an unknown in the community then a known member....
Fighters/bombers can get a pass at them before they get close to your infra/planet!!!!
OK - lets put flak on the caps. This would mean that like flak frigates, they can shoot down SC AND other ships. So you have just boosted the DPS per second of all caps. Have you considered the following: What this will do when colonising. You will be able to do MORE damage to militia frigates while your primary weapons engage the primary target - e.g. kill the Garda/Cobalts quicker while focusing on the kodiaks. Is this a good idea? Cap weapons increase as they level
The demo takes AGES to load on my system (Q6600, 8GB, 3870X2 and Vista 64 Ultimate). It also seems to be unable to handle alt-tab. If this is indicative of the real game, I won't be buying it, even though I was strongly considering it.
I'm not disagreeing there - just saying that they didn't have dedicated AA batteries!!!
While I get the gist of what was going on, is there something more informative as to what occured? Another thread or something?
[quote] "We can live without Flak for capital ships, but do we really want to? Also on very principle we shouldn't. We owe it to the Science Fiction Genre. "[/quote] Star Trek is Sci-Fi and they don't have flak. The word here is FICTION. It is what someone imagines it will be. There aren't transporter beams in Sins either... So there doesn't have to be flak on a capital ship if they don't want it. [quote]I can see by far and wide the overwhelming support from most posters in t
Wow - those arguments from Agent and Bob are pretty concise and persuasive. Impressive. +1 Karma for not using red and caps to do it
[quote]Welcome to the new generation of computer gaming. Stardock/Ironclad are #1 in my book as far as customer satfisfaction.[/quote] It probably makes more sense too - get more life from an existing product by adding and improving it rather then starting a new one. It encourages the fan base to grow rather then migrate after a few months and surely there would be less costs due to no start-up costs associated with starting a new product???
Good point Astax. Maybe the AM ability should become a Lvl 3 one to make LF more effective vs carriers as you can get it a little sooner, thereby encouraging people to field more LF???
Technically it IS multi-core. It uses a seperate thread for texture loading etc... It just runs the main game on a single thread. As has been stated before, there are serious complications to making something multi-threaded. Some of these issues can actually slow something down more then running it on a single core.
[quote]i think the Akkan is by far the weakest colony cap ship. weak gunnery, fragile compared to other cap ships, and not particularly useful special abilities (Ion Bolt is pretty good, the aura is sucky, and its got a weaker colonizing ability than the other 2 in my opinion). [/quote] While I originally thought it useless, Targetting uplink is usefull for making flak more accurate vs DC and increasing the range from what I understand.
I don't think it is possible for you. Impulse patches you to the latest version. You would have to had patched to those version in the past and created an archive file. You could then restore the archive. e.g. I have an archieve for 1.11, 1.12 and 1.13 as well as the original patch for 1.05. As such I could uninstall and revert to any of these versions. However the next time I patch via Impulse I would be at the most up to date version (currently 1.14) available.
[quote]Oh no Hack mad another logically developed arguement back.[/quote] My bad!!! [quote]Hack, I don't want to start, so I'm not going to. Any thread you touch turns into a messy shitfest over your own ego. I'll say this politely: please leave, thank you. [/quote] Why - becauseI spend the time to write a counter argument? Where are those debating skills and big words you keep hardping on about? [quote]Those close-in weapon systems or known on US ships as the
Note that the Vassari get a tech that lets them get a % boost on fleet supply. So technically if playing large they would get a larger %, there by able to field a larger force. However this assume you have enough resources etc...
24" baby :) Assuming we are talking Imperial class here... From Wikipedia Fighters 6 TIE squadrons (72 Ships) Auxiliary craft 2 Lambda-class shuttles From wookipedia TIE/ln