DesConnor

So planet shields don't affect the damage to trade then? Oh well another missed opportunity. Planetary shields could be buffed by having them mitigate the trade effects of a Novalith attack pehaps? They should have some impact on all the superweapons really. With an enemy in the grav well they are too vulnerable to bombers to be of much value.

I get severe lag with ICO as well, much worse than it has been previously. I've already made comments on diplomatic relations and the Diplomatic Victory! Other issues: Mines- as you're aware of from the mines suggestions thread. Capital ships- there have many threads on how to improve the situation away from carriers-only. Either making carrier capitals as slow as colony capitals or battleships faster would be a basic improvement.

Cannot login with f(rc) version. It seems a pity that the dominance of the carrier capitals has not been addressed in this version, though we've been told that there is another patch planned to deal with the relations system and perhaps other remaining issues can be dealt with then. JJ's suggestion that the carrier capitals should have to pay some AM to rebuild squadrons, perhaps not as much as carrier cruisers, seems very reasonable. When you have free stuff

Webellion? Execute them all, centuwion! So what happened to whatever was chasing the Vasari? Did it give up? Maybe it got bored, if it's intended prey han't invented anything useful in over 10000 years apart from how to get more mileage out of Scramble Bombers. I suppose if it involves a type of madness, rebellion could be a first sign? More seriously though, this could be an opportunity to rewrite the Sins lore, which hasn't really done a great deal fo

Though the AI isn't clever, this is not the main factor in the relations problems. The root of the issue is that the diplomatic system is set up to favour the player. If the unfair level AIs had unfair level diplomats they would quickly gang up on the player. The AI get no compensation for the mission system, and the negative modifiers for cancelling unwanted missions are either negligible or don't work. As the player I can just destroy ships and structures knowing

I have to say that I am disappointed in you 06. We've played what- for over two years on and off? I used to imagine, a little wistfully perhaps, that I had a role in your growth as a player. Of course, that was before you developed your... Grievance. It reflects no credit on me now, I'm afraid. Though of course your powers have grown immeasurably since those days. Naturally. That is the way. But no more reminiscences, on to work. Ga

You just want to Grief me some more 06?

Ha ha 06. I remember when you went 3-Skirantra on me when I was TEC then later you made a forum thread about how awful 3-Skirantra was, you hated it and we should all stop doing it... you were playing as your 'dark side' alter ego, that might have been it? And was anyone overboard with their comments on the Skirantra, or on the Illuminator bug? I would agree that beta testing any game for free when it isn't yet up to the mark isn't fun, it might be considered dum

Well that is something of a relief then, if you mean that we're going to test this beta for 1-2 weeks then move on to another beta version, because the announcement seemed to indicate that the next stage would be a final? It is just difficult to help without any indication of what you expect or want. It can't help you if I don't stress what seems to me to be something very wrong with the game. The structure you have for the diplomatic relations can be made to work, it

It's in your Pirate Dilemma thread. It's a sticky, if that helps. Replies #169-#171 discuss a test game on relations with normal, hard and unfair. It would be helpful to us as testers if you could tell us what you expect to happen with the relations. In fact any guidance at all on the beta would be a vast improvement. All we have so far is that you want a log if the game crashes. As one example, a djacency should be a major concept

Perhaps you didn't mean to be brusque, then, though if you had any kind of opinion or contribution to offer you could have added one? It would only have taken a little consideration of the topic. As I mentioned i t is possible that with their super-fast research the highest levels of AI would get an early +3 relations bonus, this then might shade them into a region where a trade alliance was possible, bringing them then to a truce with the bonus. Having a tr

Hey, Kitkun, you do know how to test don't you, you're not just being an ass ? If the normal AIs are worse then all the other AIs will be worse, no? Is your point supposed to be that the harder AIs are somehow less prone to sign trade alliances with the player? Have you done any tests on this very subject over a long period of time and posted the results? Your normal standard of contribution- or below par even for you?

My first playtest of the new beta was on Double Cross, a standard 4 player map included with the game. I was TEC, my three opponents were one from each faction. Unlocked normal game with diplomatic victory and pirates on. I wasn't impressed by my start as the terran near the sun was maxed and apart from that I had an ice and empty neutrals. Advent on one side, Vasari the other, TEC over the sun. I implemented a basic plan of researching two levels of rel

Well 06 I'm not complaining about the ****ing Domina Subjugator, I'm complaining that the entire relations system, the supposed purpose of an entire expansion, is broken and that this does nothing at all to fix it. How many Diplomacy fixes are in there? Pacts, technologies? Perhaps they got it so right first time there needed to be no further work? Tell me I'm wrong?

Extreme disappointment, more of the same Ironclad fiddling around with mostly capital ship abilities. Skirantras will not be stupid any more, after a wholly unecessary buff last patch. The worst news is the beta duration of a single week. Seriously? Apart from that, nothing done about general carrier capital superiority. Some number changing, mostly minor. Even a Marza nerf, yes thats what we needed TEC late game nerfs? Nothing on mines after

Even without the rubbish Diplomatic Victory the relations side of the game is very broken in the current version. You have to realise that the second expansion had to be altered in the beta and was then rushed out, and has only been patched once. There are few bugs, but the game mechanics just do not work. It is incredibly easy to get good relations with any AI, even from another faction, as they cannot achieve even a truce with each other and will therefore fall to the fi

Nah. You can keep a Vasari SB next to one, but it makes it static. You could build more but that is expensive. Also, there are some mad skillz you can use against them. Or just go by another route. Other factions have problems with a Halcyon parked next to an Advent SB. Halcyons disable any amount of SC 'indefinitely' as well, no? What Advent need is a revision of their useless late-game economy tech and miserable superweapon. I'd revert their

Darvin is often sound, he seemed to have a blind spot on carrier capitals, I'm happy that he appears more persuaded. Scramble Bombers needs to be reverted to 1.18. If you halve the duration instead as he suggests, that would be good enough and bring it more into line with the Halcyon ultimate. JJ's suggestion seems an excellent idea to me, there should never be anything free in RTS gaming it just leads to abuse, and carrier capital abuse has stifled the game for more

If this was a principled RTS community and not one gimped by 4s, 5s and random maps, an invitation to have one's rear bruised would be followed by a 1v1 bo5 or bo7.. sadly Quar probably means in the next team game, with all his friends there. 1v1 doesn't have to be on a random map, there are many maps that have closer starts. Though Ironclad could please indicate which maps they comsider best for balance, at the moment we have nothing like a 'map pool.' Illum

Is the issue with the mines once revealed, or with the mines acting as mini-ships in tems of AI? If its AI making mines invisible won't make any difference? I just wonder whther the close-up poly model matters much unless someone happens to examine it dduring a game? JJ, an anti-personnel mine isn't the same as an anti-vehicle mine, and starships are armoured vehicles. It is difficult to damage a vehicle with blast because the blast wave tends to move around a v

How is the Vasari player supposed to set a trap in an opponents grav well using the attract method though...? Whereas as it is currently the Vasari can jump into a gravwell, disable then fire mines off? I'd hardly call that an insignificant change? Especially as the mines put down beforehand are subject to the same sort of interception that you pointed out Advent mines could suffer from? JJ claiming that mines are a type of bomb brings up another issue, mines, a

But do players complain about Assailants, anyway? What is far more often complained about is the use of phase missiles on Vasari flak and fighters. I'd like to see the results of a test of the various factions fighters against LRF, though. LRF vs flak might also be useful. Its not as if these are uncommon matchups. The general principle used in the game is that the strongest ship of a class is the least cost-effective. Also, it makes a difference

I know how mines work and how Subverters work currently. The thread is about suggestions for change. JJ argued that banning the combat use of mines would affect Vasari unfairly. Perhaps I should explain what banning their combat use means, for the stupid. It means not firing them at ships. Clear? Mines either could not be deployed if a ship was deemed in combat, or not be deployed too near an enemy ship. Simple enough? So, if they

Could you give an example of when mines have been used offensively in combat? A ship carrying mines would customarily dump them before entering combat, basically because you wouldn't want to carry large amounts of high explosives around on deck. I doubt this can be considered combat use? There have been no 'mine throwers' either, unless you count depth charges, which have no permanent presence. Often the 'offensive' use of mines would involve droppi

Isn't Cykur a heretic though, since he wants Scramble Bombers toned down again? I presumed you were 100% against that? I have consistently agreed with Cykur's two main points- the Halcyon should be rolled back along with the Skirantra (to extra strikecraft rather than extra squadrons) and that fighters need a buff, though I want this accomplished indirectly by making flak counter bombers more than fighters, which would diminish their effect on fighters.However there is a lot mor