Dargoon999

[quote who="N3rull" reply="5" id="2319500"]Ruiners are defenseless as they are. I truly believe they need to be remade. They are thought to be useable on the offensive, but they aren't. [/quote] I dont understand, what do you mean by Ruiners are defenseless? because they have no weapons? that would make carriers also defenseless, no? Nerull, I did re-read your post about changing them into some sort of medium/heavy cruiser by increasing their cost/survivability

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="3" id="2319480"]If they did they Should put it back. [/quote] Ruiners have no weapons, I just checked. The reason they removed the weapons in the first place was because they were easy targets. Ruiners are not combat units, thats why I think the "best" way to make them useful in combat is not by increasing their survivability or by giving them weapons, but by giving them 1 squadron. That way they can support ships during combat.

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="1" id="2319370"] I see number of fixes for mines, all could work well. But if the Ruiner is to be worth itself, its high price, low maneuverability, retarded speed and utter uselessness above laying mines where it is currently floating, it needs some offensive boost. I dunno, an ability to throw mines into their position from a distance, to deploy them in a more complex fashion (ring, wall, evenly spaced field?), something. I would just b

[quote who="Savyg" reply="7" id="2319194"]You don't barge into their offices and say 'Here's your website' and they say 'Great, thanks, we're not going to pay for it but you have to give it to us anyway.' So where exactly is that scenario anything like what game devs go through? Just because it isn't an MMO doesn't mean it can't apply MMO concepts, which is exactly what they're doing. </e

This might be very OP, but how about make grav mines an upgrade for existing mines? This way, Vasari will be able to damage AND slow down enemy ships at the same time. "Throwing" mines into position should work well imo. I really dont think this would be OP. BTW, this idea was first brought up by JohnJames months ago and I always though it was a good idea.

[quote who="ManSh00ter" reply="19" id="2317455"]Savyg, its not really singleplayer if you have to be connected to play. I'd call it more like... let's see... " Non-interactive multiplayer"? "Next-Gen multiplayer with a strong focus on storytelling and solo experience"? "The Cash Bleeder Mode "? Something like that. Hooray for people who actually have to watch their bandwidth usage. [/quote

Double Post, hell yeah!

[quote who="N3rull" reply="10" id="2316949"]I think Ruiner needs a buff. TEC can use its construction frigs to build mines and every planet they colonized has construction frigs. Advent uses Drone Hosts which are otherwise the best carriers in the game ®, so they don't have a problem here either. The Vasari, on the other hand, have to research the Ruiner (T3 research), spend money on the ruiner (moderately expensive), wait till the ruiner is finally built

[quote who="Zaisha" reply="13" id="2316937"] Quoting Dargoon999, reply 12 I'm seriously starting to believe that Savyg is an employe of EA, member of the board of direction??? Eh, the odds of an EA member of the board actually interacting with the "great unwashed" that is their circle of customers is somewhere between zero and negative 100. (even covertly) You don't have to be a company employee to agree with them. There are

[quote who="Savyg" reply="11" id="2316841"] SB: Essentially, whenever you play Command & Conquer 4, be it in single-player, co-op, skirmish, or online, you earn experience that collects in your persistent player profile. Within the profile, you use your experience pool to level up your classes, earning new units, structures, powers, and upgrades. Since your profile is persistent across the game, you can then take your new toys and put them to use in any of our game modes.

[quote who="Zydor" reply="4" id="2316573"]I no longer trust EA in any way whatsoever. Its not yet clear what the angle on this one is ...... but there will be one besides DRM. Whether its tracking online useage, site visits, cutting down on code by using server based modules for the client .... whatever, I dont care, not buying it or any of their games. If I pay for an SPG, then I expect to get an SPG - no dam marketing fudge and creeping "control the gamer" freaks.&nbs

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="19" id="2314652"] Quoting Dargoon999, reply 18 I think the real problem with mines is that they are visible. Making them stealthed, and I mean really stealthed; only detectable by... Capships? and/or Scouts with a mine detection upgrade would make them very useful. But if we are talking about an easy fix, then yeah I think a drop in price would be good. If they were stealthed like then they they would need a pr

I think the real problem with mines is that they are visible. Making them stealthed, and I mean really stealthed; only detectable by... Capships? and/or Scouts with a mine detection upgrade would make them very useful. But if we are talking about an easy fix, then yeah I think a drop in price would be good.

[quote quoting="post"]As Diplomacy starts to get closer to beta, we're going to be making some changes to the Sins of a Solar Empire website so that players can participate with the development of it (similar to what is done on https://www.elementalgame.com). No official ETA yet on Diplomacy. It's more of a "When it's done" type thing. But things are going well. [/quote] This is freakin' sweet!

[quote who="ManSh00ter" reply="6" id="2305548"]Piracy won't make people stop making games. I am not advocating piracy, because in the end you're only hurting the creative types at the end of the line (head honchos at big publishers always have a way of getting their wallets stuffed, even if it rams the rest of the company into the ground). But piracy won't destroy game making. Before the big publishers reared their ugly heads, we had games, and arguably much better ones than what w

[quote who="ManSh00ter" reply="21" id="2305144"] Honestly, I am starting to think that EA is run by lobotomized robots which got stuck in an infinite loop , and can't get out. How many failed DRM schemes do they have to try out before they finally realize they lost more money by alienating legitimate customers than they gained by those few would-be pirates who couldn't wait for those 48 hours and purcha

Deceiver, please look at my reply #234, so you can add my vote for LF, thank you.

[quote who="EadTaes" reply="20" id="2300246"]I think they went way int he ball park and are now completely lost without a single clue were their at. [/quote] I really dont think its that bad. They listen to us complaining about how everyone spammed carriers. So they deceided to buff flak and nerf carriers, nice in theory, but no so in practice. They could not have forseen that buffing flak could have such an amazing effect vs. strikecraft. So in theory, all they have to do i

[quote who="Volt_Cruelerz" reply="14" id="2299936"]Perhaps a +25% versus everything, +40% versus heavies.. Common sense says these things should be massed and be a meat shield for the LRM's. LF's ought to be a general fighter, good at just about everything... Now, they are only used to take out support cruisers... [/quote] I am in complete agreement with you Volt.

[quote who="Deceiver_0" reply="12" id="2299697"]I suppose I should clarify that, I meant it as a general increase in the bonus damage their weapons do to heavy armor, allowing them to kill cruisers more efficiently, as opposed to an increase in damage dealt to everything. With the amount of health carriers have, it requires a large group of LFs to focus fire on each individual carrier as they kite the grav wells. Making them more efficient cruiser killers will allow them to put some more hurt

[quote who="N3rull" reply="10" id="2299597"] Increase Damage bonus to armor type?:Somebody explain this to me anyway. Everybody's sayin' yay or nay, but I suppose saying it makes sense only when we specify against WHICH armor type we want the damage boosted? I for one think that Light frigs should have their damage boosted generally, while LRFs should have their damage nerfed against everything they do not hard counter. So that they are no longer all-killers but sp

Deceiver, I'd like to cast my vote for the other "almost useless" frigate, the LF. LIGHT FRIGATES Buff Light Frigates- Increase Damage?: Yes (+20%)

[quote who="soasertsus" reply="12" id="2298256"]The way I see it there is realy no winning with saige frigates. If you leave them how they are than they are useless but if you buff them then people will just go Rambo with them and maul your planets. [/quote] I disagree, giving Siege Frigs heavy armor will make the LF the hard counter, LF do +50% damage vs. heavy armor and they have +50% faster speed then Siege frigs. So, in theory, this alone should make LF a real threat to Siege

Deceiver, I would greatly appreciate if you could add my vote on the Siege Frigate dilemma. I would also like to cast my vote on other ships but for tonight I will concentrate on the mighty Siege Frigates. Siege Frigates Buff Siege Frigates &nbs

Deceiver, you did a great job gathering all that info to help improve game balance, so kudos to you. [e digicons]k1[/e] But what about the lonely siege frigates? [e digicons]:([/e] They never get any love. Please bring some love to the Siege frigates. [e digicons]:smitten:[/e] I dont even remember what they look like! [e digicons]:S[/e] Drop the supply points from 14 to 10 and/or increase the bombing damage vs. planets. and/or i