Cykur

Picking teams has long been the meta-game. It is hard to perform to your own expectations when you aren't on the winning team.

Then log it and get him banned from ICO.

It is pretty much up to the community to self police since the game lacks any sort of automated matchmaking. If you don't like it, don't tolerate it. No one makes you sit around trying to fill a 5v5 while taking abuse. Make a smaller game and don't invite disruptive people into it. In my experience many members of the community have created chaos during the matchmaking process or gone afk for a LONG time wasting everyone's time and were tolerated in the

This type of problem has in fact existed for years. There have always been people that wasted everyone's time in trying to set up a MP game.

Yeah, the D'deridex is a dedicated warship while the Galaxy is a multipurpose ship for exploration, scientific, and humanitarian missions. I would give the D'deridex the edge, but am pretty sure they are both powerful enough to maul each other. They are also both capable of disengaging from a bad fight with the other, the Galaxy via speed and the D'deridex via cloak. I suspect this 1v1 never played out in the series because the Romulans aren't inclined to fig

[quote who="myfist0" reply="4718" id="3456721"] Star Trek universe, the star bases are not death stars. I highly doubt that will change. We will talk about the Breen cruiser, but balance is ultimately up to psychoak..[/quote] I like that they aren't death stars. If they were, you would have to do what we do in Sins.... camp at the edge of the system for 15 minutes with a bunch of bombers trying to chip your way into the gravwell. I think the balanc

Recently fired up Sins again to check out some of the mods. Just wanted to commend you guys, SOA2 is fantastic. It's been a couple years since I last looked at it and it has come quite a long way -- It really captures the feel of the Star Trek universe. I've only played a few games so far, so I'm not 100% sure on balance (obviously the Borg are tough), but so far it feels very reasonable. I really like how tough heavy cruisers feel. SOA2 still has eno

Get a stamp that says "no longer at this address - return to sender" and put them back in the mail. Don't expend any energy trying to solve other people's problems beyond that or you will go crazy.

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="15" id="3453438"] Multi cap strategies work better when there are multiple ecos....while I was kind of trolling, I did a lead with 4 halcyons once when there was another eco on my team...they were a nearly unbeatable fleet when I hit the enemy since once one got too damaged I'd just pull it back for repair...meanwhile the bombers just raped the LFs, I took on 40 disciples and a prog with 4 halcyons, no losses, but I was only able to get the caps in the

[quote who="JAV1L15" reply="12" id="3452591"] Oh of course competent players re-focus fire and they have, I watch them. But the Antorak has a great antimatter pool, and can repeatedly cast Phase Out Hull for a considerable period of time. What this allows for is a little merrygoround like this. 1. Phase ship out, enemy ships change target 2. Ship phases back in, get an overseer or two to cast their healing on it, repair cloud if enough of your

If you are playing against the computer, phase out hull works a lot better defensively. Any reasonably competent player is just going to refocus your ship again when it is un-phased. Against the computer it makes sense to go cap ship heavy because you can rotate damaged ships in and out of combat and use them as damage sponges. Online against other players, they will chase down your damaged cap ships and they will have an extra 40 or so frigates to do it with instead of 3 ex

It depends on the skill level of your game. If everyone is really competitive, an AI is not going to do so well. If you lost a bad player and had him replaced by an AI, no harm done. The single biggest problem in the Sins Rebellion era is that an AI is more than happy to level up an enemy titan.

I played both WoM and Fallen Enchantress,and I don't really see the need to revisit the old game with an upgrade. I think it makes more sense to sit on the WoM brand name for a couple years and when you are ready to do a completely new iteration of the series, you break out the WoM name again, which I think is a stronger product name than Fallen Enchantress.

As pointed out, fighters are the main counter to bombers. It is also worth noting that basic light frigates will shred carrier cruisers. This won't help you out much if the carriers are well defended by a starbase, titan, or a reasonable sized fleet, but if the carriers go on offense with no support, you can kill them pretty quickly with massed light frigates, though you will take some bomber damage in the process.

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="971" id="3412208"] Okay Cykur, I'll explain.... You see, whenever an ideal gas is under pressure, the temperature is constant...but we don't live in an ideal world do we? No, we live in the real world, with real gases, and the real gas law states very clearly that higher pressure in fact leads to higher temperature...for your benefit, I'd put the equation below... " /> As you can clearly see, if P goes u

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="967" id="3412190"]Some one else want to explain? I'm laughing too hard....[/quote] I'd love to see your explanation if you can manage to get over yourself. In the case of the Earth and Venus, surface heat comes from solar irradiance. Core heat comes largely from radioactive decay. Being under constant pressure does not generate heat unless the pressure is so great as to start fusion. If there is a pressure change and volume

[quote who="Seleuceia" reply="965" id="3412123"]WRONG[/quote] If you want to clarify what you think is wrong. Krazikarl was right in that pressure is not the source of heat for planets. This whole thread has become ridiculous, most people aren't even talking about the same thing anymore.

[quote who="petrossa" reply="958" id="3411871"]I am glad we finally agree venus is hot because of pressure and not CO2 cutting that silly argument out of the CO2->warming thesis posed by those who don't believe in natural variation of climate. I knew that finally you'd come around.[/quote] Dude...are you joking around? The only person who got this right was Krazikarl, quoted as below. [quote who="Krazikarl" reply="949" id="3411694"]Planetary cores a

[quote who="myfist0" reply="852" id="3407089"]I guess I could use statistical bias though and 'cherry pick' a nice section to scare the shit out of everyone ... [/quote] Your sarcasm isn't really helpful. I'm not sure why ideologues find it necessary to react in this way. We don't live millions of years in the past, my "cherry picked" years are the current years that most pertain to us humans living on the planet. They are the years

It's also worth mentioning that sea level rise has not abated even if surface temperatures have leveled off recently. Unlike ocean temperature, sea level has been tracked for over a century. The average sea level rise since 1880 has been found to be about 1.6 mm/year, but since the early 90's, satellites have found sea levels to be rising at the rate of about 3.3 mm/year. This indicates that the rate of sea level rise has increased significantly since the early part

[quote who="Kantok" reply="750" id="3404850"]But it's not. Never has been. Mentioning nuclear power to an AGW propoent is met with nearly the same reaction as denying AGW exists. Why is that? [/quote] Just for the record, there are a LOT of reasonable AGW supporters who are heavily in favor of nuclear power. There are people in this thread who are pretty negative on any idea, but they don't speak for all of us.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="747" id="3404813"] I noticed that no one has really addressed what was brought up yesterday which is: Ok, let's assume we all agree, 100% that AGW is happening and it's a serious problem we should do something about. Ok. What then? Solar doesn't work very well at night. Kantok gave a very thorough yet straight forward walk through. Unless we begin immediate conversion to nuclear, there's really nothing that can be d

[quote who="GeomanNL" reply="728" id="3404464"] Quoting Kantok, reply 726Nuclear isn't considered an alternative, yet it is the single best hope humans have right now of dramatically reducing CO2 generation as quickly as possible. WTF is that kind of argument. It's only the so-called "economically viable alternative" It's not the best one if you consider the consequences of placing nuclear power plants all over the globe! For

Nukes are not that easy to maintain or build. Dirty bombs? Those are so easy I'm amazed one hasn't gone off yet.....

Nope, using v24 just fine with Win 7. I can't even remember the last time I've seen a BSOD, at least on one of MY computers.