To beat it to death: I partially second your proposal but I still think the minimum number of upgrade slots used is 3. 4-5 Would be much more sensible, making for a nice risk/reward mechanic when it comes to outfitting Orkuli. But then again the Vasari have all the devs' love they can get why do you think anything will change?
So mecha-Lenin isn't that more durable than his bio counterpart? I hoped he could fare better =P
As stated time and again taking away one offensive/defensive upgrade from the Orkulus does literally nothing to reduce its effectiveness when you can spam them anyways. You lose about 20% offensive/defensive power. This is nothing.
Which subesequently leads to the Kol being ignored by friend and foe alike. As stated orignially.
On the other hand the AL Titan already has that functionality.
[quote who="Mecha-Lenin" reply="114" id="3192642"] Video game military/physics experts make me puke.[/quote] With great power comes great madness. Might have been the other way around, though...
No to the OP. It's an interesting idea which deserves careful balancing. And likely will receive none. I refrain from any suggestions since my blubbering is already all over the place...
One question? Did it ever happen to you that when selecting all available scouts at once and setting them on auto they distributed much more efficiently than when you switched them one after the other?
Let's hope there won't be any need for such a thing. Meanwhile, Seleucia, can you see why I think there's more of a problem to the VL's mobility than his income? Whether or not the VL gets additional spoils for running a scorched earth tactic, for everyone else there's still only scorched earth. The SttC boost only enables this much earlier and adds insult to injury.
Nothing inherently wrong with that.
Did you make it a passive? Would sort of turn the Revelation into a Swiss Knife capital. With the actual knife being unlocked at level 6, but hey =)
[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="77" id="3191925"] VL players strip are enemy worlds that aren't going to be held (because enemy forces are desparately chasing you)[/quote] Still, if you simply reduce the amount of SttC income this does not reduce the mobility of the VL. And even if he doesn't get any resources out of a planet when stripping it, rendering it useless for the enemy without having to fear to lose your fleet in the process is still the obvious choice for the VL.
One could pretend it is on purpose, thus buffing Clairvoyance and making it a viable skill choice for once. But rumor has it that it is unintentional. EDIT: Bulletin 1 is a lazy means of fixing/hiding bulletin 2. No auto-explore, no problems =)
[quote who="Volt_Cruelerz" reply="67" id="3191587"]Well, obviously STTC isn't a buff, but if it were made one, that would be interesting.. Of course, you'd have to differentiate between loyalist and rebel ships and I feel like once you start doing that to any of them, you ought to continue to most of them.[/quote] I don't intend adding SttC as a new ability/buff per se, I rather want to extend the list of possible targets for Drain Planet. Since there are already abi
I concur with CoronalFire, SttC should be brought in line with the risk/reward-principle all factions are subject to. And the primary means of this is taxation. Still, to be able to balance SttC and make it viable early through late game, I propose making it available early on in a weak form and then provide multiple salvaging improvements further up the tree. Other than this, there is one thing I might think of that could be implemented as of now, that might help with t
I see SttC as being a key mechanic of the VL, not a late game trick to pull off. And to repeat myself once again: Why not tie SttC income and time to planet health? 1 credit per planet HP, 500 resources per extractor, 1 second scuttle time per 10 HP. I am aware that this is beyond entity file modding. But this would mitigate a lot of the problems associated with SttC. Additionally, this would be more in line with "going mobile" than the current "going locust". Btw. non-c
[quote who="SteelFin" reply="40" id="3191162"]Not saying this is the fix but doesn't culture prevent SttC? Couldn't you use that to slow it down and catch the VL fleet or pressure them to move on?[/quote] Only in theory, since a VL normally has enough capitals to overcome culture.
You did read on after this, didn't you? It's not like I didn't propose any means to balance it out...
[quote who="Mecha-Lenin" reply="35" id="3191111"] Worst idea ever. And I'm not even trolling.[/quote] Care to elaborate?
Firstly, if you are only looking for a solution with minimal effort involved I second your suggestions. In the long run, though... I would prefer it if SttC would be available much earlier, say T2, with 20-30% of its current income. At T4, T6, T8 I would increase salvaging returns by 20% each. Thus SttC would be viable at any stage of the game. Additionally I would like to see the income and scuttle time be proportional to planet health. (Lore justificatio
Firstly, I second any change that makes SttC-income subject to taxation. Secondly, another proposition: Instead of changing the "residual planet type" of stripped asteroids to avoid the problem of denying everybody its resources, I would take a different route. Stripping normal planets is more or less fine, an Asteroid is still something one can put some stuff on and mine its resources. (Are both asteroid types stripped down to belts, btw?) Asteroid Belts are the real
Most interesting idea. The damage would need to be lowered significantly but nonetheless the idea is intriguing. This would be an enormous addition to the Aeria's assets.
edit: invalid argument =)
[quote quoting="post"] no multicore support at this late date is a little unacceptable [/quote] Considering that most users run multi-core systems these days this might seem unacceptable. Considering that efficient multi-core programming is a major pain and the beneficial returns are not so major in most cases it is actually very acceptable. Aside from this: The developers are quite active (apart from 4th July holidays right now) and so is the community.
Then be it so. Since an AI is supposed to react to situations that may arise in the context of its deployment, one might actually hope that it does so in an efficient manner. The AI does by no means need to be intelligent when compared to a human being. But if it is only able to deal with the situations it is confronted with by changing the situation itself, well one might consider it lacking in terms of its capabilities. I do acknowledge the difficulty of programming a good A
