Dargoon999

[quote who="N3rull" reply="234" id="2390050"] Quoting Blair Fraser, reply 75 We missed some changes in the patch notes. I'll be posting them shortly. Some typos were also fixed and already edited. Are these already in? I haven't seen anything change and I'm curious what else you guys messed up (joke) [/quote] Yes, they are already in. See reply number 88.

[quote who="Shadowhal" reply="191" id="2388211"] I think he means that lvl 1 upgrade equalises build times no matter the grav well ownership and lvl 2 gives a hefty build rate bonus across the board (aka also irrespective of well ownership). in fact not such a bad idea, since time is everything here and you cannot really go below the friendly well rates. you know, I have not looked into it much, but for vasari part of the problem is also that their starbase killer i

I know I'm a little too late, but I was wondering if you guys had enough time to take a look at the following issue; Vasari have no Assault Cruisers because they use their starbase as the anti-starbase weapon. This is fine on paper, but no so in reality. It might work vs. TEC or Advent, but it is completely useless vs. another Vasari player. A Vasari starbase trying to assault

[quote who="Blair Fraser" reply="88" id="2384689"]Ok here are the missed elements from the changelist. Its constructed from a huge list of change logs in our source control so there is sometimes errors in the "English" version you guys are presented with. 1. -Lasurak Transporter - Adjusted linear velocity to 450 (this was previously a typo and listed under the Skirantra by mistake) 2. The Guidance change is now split into two parts to describe it properly

WOW, very nice! I can't wait to see how it all plays out. But everything sounds nice. BTW, good to know you finally did something about the Siege Frigates, Light Frigates and the Egg. I'd also like to give a special thanx to Deceiver for his amazing thread.

uhhhhhhh..... what are you guys at IC doing? No preview for Diplomacy?, no news?, nothing? I find it very strange that vanilla Sins came out on Feb 2008 (thats 18 months ago), Entrenchment came out on Feb 2009 (thats 12 months after vanila), and Diplomacy will probably be released on Feb 2010 (thats 24 months after vanilla) Those MICRO (key word here) expansions take forever to make... why? By now you should have released a FULL expansion with a

[quote who="N3rull" reply="526" id="2350593"] Change armor type? Nah. Though I'm curious what it is currently (as well as the Sivuskras and Ogrov's).lol. That sounded like "I don't know what the problem is nor what the change would do, but don't do it anyway". Edit: Interesting how you didn't vote for a drop in fleet supplies... I did not say 'nay'. I said I agree with changing armor (Bombers, lrfs and adjudicators are all different assault choices and should requi

Assault cruisers (ogrov/adju) have light armor. If I'm not mistaken, Ruiners are support cruisers (heavy armor), please correct me if I'm wrong.

[quote who="N3rull" reply="514" id="2350104"] yeah, nothing like commenting the balance of one game based on your experience with another. Interesting how neither of you wanted to change the armor type. I suggest you read some of the earlier duscussion on that topic and change your vote there, as this change is simply needed - light armor makes there guys as squishy as lrfs against fighters, and with their price and supply cost it just sux. Moreover,

Sol. Adju. No to all, except YES for a decrease in supply cost from 18 to 12. Right now its just easier/smarter to go for a carrier (20 supply cost) with 3 bomber squadrons. Dropping the supplies from 18 to 12 would certainly make this ship a LOT more desirable. Deceiver, I'd like to take this time to add my vote for the Vasari scout. This thing is weak. Buff Damage/Hull/Shields by 25%.

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="1" id="2339010"]Why bother posting the devs don't care. Plus the comunaty doesnt care either. [/quote] I care, but you're right, the devs dont seem to care...at all! Not a single word...NOTHING. I think they moved on, I know they said that they were going to make 2 more micro-expansions, but at this point I just dont believe it anymore. I'm not even sure that they're going to release another patch to fix the balancing issue. The devs have been DEAD sil

[quote who="ToJKa" reply="11" id="2334218"]Well, i hope this silence means they ARE looking at something. Or maybe they're just hoping we'll get the hint and go away. [/quote] I think its the second one but I do hope its the first. They probably just want us to STFU. Maybe we should?

[e digicons]:O[/e] WOW, I really like your thread Kitkun. I really do. I've read every single changes you suggested and I have to say that I love them all [e digicons]:inlove:[/e] . All the changes you're suggesting are good and could really make the other capships on par with the egg/mothership/marza. I hope for you (and me) that a dev at IC is reading your incredible thread. (more) Karma for your! [e digicons]k1[/e]

[quote who="Deceiver_0" reply="425" id="2331105"] All these easy changes would certainly make this structure "a must have" for TEC players. Cheap, available early & making planets invulnerable sounds very nice to me. But lets face it, I doubt the devs will do anything about the planetary shields, hell siege frigates have been obsolete for more then a year now... I totally agree with you there. It would definitely be a must have if it were cheaper and easier to get. B

[quote who="Deceiver_0" reply="422" id="2330882"] I dont doubt the usefulness of the planetary shield, Its not that useful. Think about it like this. AM recharger effects all friendly ships with AM.(thats a lot of ships). Nano Jammer effects all enemy ships (again a lot of ships). Planetary shield effects enemy Cap ships and siege frigates.(not a whole lot of ships). If the planetary shield were to make a planet 'invlunerable', it wouldnt be that mu

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="419" id="2330689"]Indeed they would. Idea noted. [/quote] I just crunched some numbers, look at this EadTeas; Planetary Shields - Labs Required: 5 - Research Cost: 1200$+200M+325C - Construction Cost: 1000$+150M+175C Upgrades for Shield Generator - Labs Required:

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="417" id="2330677"]Dargoon the planet sheidl generator is already very powerfull. With the full upgrade for the planet sheild and Nova Cannon witch normly does 3500dmg to a planet wil now do only 250 or 500 dmg. I tested it a long time ago so I forget the dmg it did but it absorbed ALOT. The problem is that with Starbases even if you fire a Nova and kill all the population and lal the infrasturcture the planet will remain in control of the player. [/quote]

[quote who="-Ue_Carbon" reply="415" id="2330239"]Yeah your right, I didnt know how close ships can get to the shield though. So 3000 sounded like a safe number. [/quote] I'd like to give you guys my 2 cents on what to do with the planetary shield generator. I say make it powerful, I mean, really powerful. So powerful that it could become something of a "must" for TEC. Imagine if this structure negated completely planetary bombardment. Once this structure is build in a gravit

[quote who="ManSh00ter" reply="19" id="2326888"]Haha Savyg, aren't we a "good citizen"... So now you can't even speak up against EA? Better watch out Elias, the men in black might be just around the corner... [/quote] lol, the banhammer [e digicons]:banhammer:[/e] of EA can reach far and wide, all the way to stardock's forum. EA's coming to get us... [e digicons]8O[/e] Savyq you're too much! [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]

I agree with you Nerull, the Vasari weapon's tech tree is messed up. Here are my 2 cents about what could be a good change; (The numbers in front of the upgrades are the number of labs required for that research) 1. Rapid Pulse Cycling ( Pulse Gun and Pulse Beam Damage: +5%, +10%) (Navigator, Skimisher, Migrator, Subverter, Overseer, Starba

[quote who="Cykur" reply="10" id="2323187"] And yeah were is IC , after their last patch, witch did to few good to fix the game, they haven't said a single word. I'm sure they read this stuff, but if I were them I wouldn't want to address all of these changes either. There are so many changes in these lists that it is plain silly...just a couple tweaks to ships or game mechanics can have a huge impact to the way the game is played -- if all of these changes were ma

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="6" id="2323039"]I think that's exagerating it. [/quote] I'm kidding EadTaes. Just couldn't help myself. But I'm with MindsEye on this one, this could be way OP. Imagine a capship being literally suck in the middle of a minefield. Anyway we are not trying to create something new here, we are trying to come up with easy fixes for the devs to make a more fun/balance game. Thats why I still think making Vasari grav mines an uprade of the explosive ones is

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="4" id="2322930"]Well it will need to be balanced properly by adjusting the sucking power. [/quote] what is this... Spaceballs! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptOUWC-Itc

There is no reason why a person would research something that slows down the enemy when he can destroy him with what he already has. Make grav-mines an upgrade for existing mines . Reducing vulnerability and cooldown time sounds good also. I think this is the best idea so far. But I do not agree about reducing vulnerability/cooldown time. This would make Ruiners more

[quote who="Deceiver_0" reply="7" id="2319611"]I don't really think the Ruiner is the problem, i think mines are. Ruiners aren't meant to go charging into battle wiht your fleet, which is probably why they have no weapons. I see no reason to give them squadron, as 1 squadron won't make much of a difference and would make them more like drone hosts, and it would be ridiculous to make more than a couple of ruiners. Ruiners are better than constructors as they can go anywhere, but they aren't be