Worth noting that a lot of weird unit prototypes were unveiled prior to SC2's original beta that didn't make the final release (anyone remember the lame "Soul Hunter" that rode a hoover-board and shot electricity out of his hand?) Not only that, but many of these units may end up being campaign-only. I'd really only give any of these units a 25% chance of actually being available in online multiplayer.
Sins Forums
Good micro in Sins is the difference between victory and defeat. It's all about position and tactics, trying to move individual units to mitigate enemy damage output and maximize your own. Most units are forward shooters and have sluggish turn speeds. Just because the game moves in slow motion doesn't mean there isn't micromanagement.
[quote]I'd rather build battleships, but seeing as carriers are so OP'd, guess I ain't got a choice should I make the mistake of going to ICO...[/quote] Battleship opener is a double-whammy, not only is it just weaker than a carrier opener in general, but it is also [i]countered[/i] by a carrier opener. The Kortul is the only battleship remotely viable as a multiplayer opener, since it balances its offensive and defensive capabilities with a reasonable antimatter ove
[QUOTE]Cool. Well give me time, buddy. I'll try to catch up and hopefully be another good challenge or ally for you. I'm determined to become a better player and hopefully master each empire.[/quote] I know where you're coming from. I had to pick up this game, too, at one point. I've got a more extensive multiplayer background, so I was ready to jump into the multiplayer fray early, and I was [i]still[/i] taken aback by focus fire. The AI deceives you
[quote]At the risk of rebuke, I've found that even an Easy AI has been a challenge[/quote] I eat unfair difficulty AI's for breakfast, so our game experience is worlds apart. [quote]I've not experienced that, but again, I'm fairly new and still playing at an easy level[/quote] You haven't experienced the true difficulty this game has to offer until you've had 80 LRM frigates or 80 squadrons of bombers all attacking your capital ship. This
[quote]I reckon they should have a nude ability to entice the other 2 male races.[/quote] Who says the Vasari are male? Maybe a deep raspy voice is a really feminine trait for their species? In all seriousness, lore-wise the upper ranks of Advent society are primarily female, but it's not a 100% deal. Same goes for the TEC; they seem to have a cultural bias (similar to modern western society) that military service and higher political leadership is primar
[quote]Having 3 or so capital ships is nice if you have a strong supporting fleet as well[/quote] Absolutely, and 2-4 capital ships is what I've always maintained is the sweet spot that balances performance, cost, and XP distribution.
[quote]Technological advancement is a freight train and everyone has two options if they don't want to ride along. Get out of the way or get run over. Simple as that.[/quote] I'm not aware of anyone in this thread arguing against the services being offered. Rather, it is the [i]restrictions[/i] entailed by them that we disagree with. This has nothing to do with technological advancement, and everything to do with policy and legal decisions at both a gov
[quote]A cap heavy fleet has worked for me and it is a strategy to consider[/quote] It works against the AI in the long-term, but the problem I have with this is that the AI just isn't very good in the long-term to begin with, so this really doesn't mean much. Assuming a 4:1 credit to resource conversion rate, your second capital ship and its crew research cost 7100 credits. A Javelis LRM costs 560 credits by comparison. For the price of your level 1 capita
Yeah, I've done it before. Gets boring after about 60-90 minutes when you're basically in cleanup mode. The AI can't really do anything against massed bombers once you have about a 1000 command fleet.
[quote]A self-assessment suggests that I rely heavily on my caps which is something I do in other strategy games (I rely on heavy firepower)[/quote] Capital ships are [i]not[/i] heavy firepower, they are actually relatively [i]low[/i] firepower by cost until you've gained many levels. What capital ships have is a [i]decisiveness[/i] factor over frigates. This makes them quite good against low-firepower enemies, but against high-firepower enemies they get completely ste
[quote]I think Advent's bad economy is simply a faction quirk. Rather than balance the Advent economy to approach the economies of the other races, I think what's supposed to be Advent's strength (namely, military) deserves a buff instead to make them competitive with other races.[/quote] Unfortunately, this causes some pretty significant distortions based on map size or start positions. The obvious case is an Advent in the pocket in a 5v5 multiplayer simply will nev
[quote]The Dunov is nice in long AI games where you have a lot of caps and don't like retreating them.[/quote] Honestly, by that stage [i]anything[/i] will work against the AI and I find the Dunov redundant. The Dunov needs to bring something relevant to the game... and really its EMP is the only thing that fits the bill. Even the Antorak has some late-game gimmicks at its disposal (increasing the move speed of your entire fleet starts getting very appealing later on)<
Yup, though personally I find it fun to actually look back at which comments spurred people to give me karma. Karma is really informal. There's no official rules, and so long as you're acting in good faith it's really all about recognizing active contributors to the community.
[quote]I don't know if Advent or Vasari players have similar concerns, but if they do, I would suggest these tweaks for them as well. I haven't played Advent/Vasari yet so I'm not familiar with the Rapture or Antorak. One day.[/quote] The Antorak is right up there with the Dunov as one of the game's most marginal capital ships. The Rapture is [i]highly[/i] underrated and is extraordinarily powerful. Large Advent fleets should [i]always[/i] have one. <br /
There's not a lot we can say about Rebellion right now. I certainly do hope that there will be a fresh look at the game's balance, but that'll be discussion for when the beta rolls around and we actually get to see what they're cooking up for us.
Advent capital ship fragility is a huge issue, particularly against phase missiles. The illuminator cannot focus fire, so they're largely incapable of returning the favour. Their economy is lackluster, their only outstanding civic tech is allure of the unity (which doesn't come into play until [i]very[/i] late) and otherwise their only real option when economizing is to trade port spam. They have no good way to take down starbases except brute force, which is utterly
[quote]You sure about that?[/quote] If it's not already obvious, I do not use Steam, so I may not be up to date on specific policies as they apply to different applications. My biggest concern over the past year or so has been Steamworks, which does implement stringent authentication. [quote] That people still want Steam to have centralized control of all their games boggles the mind.[/quote] I can accept that some people are willing to acce
[quote]I'd say that the opportunity cost of three SB upgrades is more concerning than the actual upgrade cost...but, in large games where players specialize in roles, I think it is a pretty balanced mechanic overall and a very nice Advent card to play....[/quote] Totally in agreement. My natural playstyle is passive-aggressive, and this thing is one of my favourite fall-backs when I have the eco to actually support it.
[quote]Maybe if the devs were willing to scale down the cost of culture SB upgrades to a cost comparable to what they're worth...?[/quote] Add in the cost of the logistics slots to your calculation, and it's actually a very economically-priced upgrade. If logistics are at a premium, this is a very cost-effective starbase upgrade.
[quote] But to compare that system to what Steam uses is absurd and silly[/quote] I disagree; the specifics may vary, but the principle is the same. With both Spore and Steam, I have to ask permission to play my games, and that access can be shut off for any reason (or lack thereof) at the the discretion of the publisher. That said, I will agree on the rootkit and duplicity in the Spore case was especially egregious. <br
[quote]At the end of the day, Impulse still doesn't offer anything competitive with that.[/quote] Basically Impulse's only selling point is the niche of being the least-intrusive DRM option for mainstream digital distribution. For people who actually make a priority of that, Impulse is something worth supporting, but I have no illusions; we're a small minority of the market. Back when Spore released, it looked like gamers were going to stand up and reject DRM
[quote]What's wrong with Steam?[/quote] Many people, me included, do not accept Steam's policies and refuse to patronize them as a result. Admittedly these days you [i]must[/i] read the fine print to find out what you're buying into if you want to avoid DRM. For people trying to avoid Steam, Impulse has really been one of the last bastions. The fact that Gamestop has apparently capitulated doesn't bode well. For people who want to avoid Steam,
[quote]According to Yarlen this is being looks into![/quote] Being "looked into" is not the same as a confirmed feature. The whole point of what GaoFan is doing is to constantly remind the devs that this remains a high priority item so it doesn't end up being a forgotten item at the bottom of the list.
That's always been a rare but annoying bug. Glad to hear it finally got nailed down.
