shfir

Yeah, the mines in unowned grav wells change works well for Vasari and Advent because they can drop mines anywhere, but it doesn't really do a lot for the TEC. I'd suggest a change that allows the TEC to have a free constructor frig in gravity wells they have culture in but don't own the planet. This constructor is limited to only constructing mines. That way the TEC has a way to mine their unownable gravity wells (asteroid fields, gas giants, etc) but doesn't allow them to remote-mine adjace

I'd support the phase destabilization effect be either a researchable and constructable upgrade or have a minimum damage applied. If you researched it then it becomes another tactical choice instead of an inherent ability, and if you gave it a minimum damage applied to enemies passing through, then it would function effectively to wear down the enemy scouts that keep running around through your rear areas like cockroaches. [e digicons]:D[/e]

God, I'm glad of that. I'm off to Iraq on the 4th and I was a little worried the update would be postponed and I wouldn't get to enjoy it. Whew!

And see, I just thought that was some guy standing next to a turd and laughing about it. It makes so much more sense now.

Thanks for the news about the upcoming update. I know a lot of us were starting to wonder if one was going to happen or not. I'm sure we'd love to get some kind of heads-up about what the changes in the game are going to be and where you got them from! [e digicons]\o/[/e]

Add to that the possibility of different upgrades being different costs. Doubleing the shields and hull of an SB the same cost as a minor trade addition? Should be different.

Now we know where all those "space ponies" came from ...

CHUCK F**KING NORRIS is chasing the Vasari. [e digicons]:')[/e]

Make Halos a gravity well type, like Dead Asteroids are now. No resources, low population, but lots of hit points and an awe-inspiring number of tactical slots. Enough tactical slots to put a lot of superweapons on it. After all, no one in the galaxy today can make them, and they deserve to be tough. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

Why does turning the graphics up cause minidumps?

Forget Norway! If Kenya were to physically as well as hypothetically urinate on Norway, this is the approximate trajectory ...

[quote who="Jrla21" reply="24" id="2011040"]How about we list possibilities for replacing the Asteroid ability instead of leaving it up to the developers. That way, when we testers agree on something, the Devs can implement it.[/quote] Yeah ... you really don't know how this works, do you? They (the developers) produce ideas, then we (the players/testers) play with the ideas and give feedback, and then they (the developers again) decide whether our ideas have merit, our

[quote who="Jrla21" reply="18" id="2010630"] The reason the Advent starbases use this ability is a basic extention of their psionic and PsiTech abilities. If you remove that ability from the Advent Starbase, the game will be even more unbalanced as the Vasari and TEC will have a better starbase if it is removed. Let me explain, the Vasari Starbase can move. That has been established I need not say more. The TEC Starbase can construct frigates and carriers and is the only one that c

And you can always go with the classics ... use cruiser carriers with bombers to harass enemy buildings and capitals to draw away your opponents, and use a s**t-storm of anti-fighter frigates to cull the enemy fighters. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

And this is why I want to see Starbase construction times nerfed in hostile gravity wells. It's just too powerful a tactic in the offense. Starbases are for defense . I don't understand why people don't get that. Also ... the Vasari Starbase should not be their Starbase killer. That's just silliness. Does this mean they have to build a Starbase to attack enemy Starbases? Sure seems that way to me, now.

A Vasari experiment into generating a stable phase-tunnel that would allow instantaneous transport across space from any location in the galaxy to any other linked location suffered a disaster through miscalculation and an incomplete understanding of Unified Field Theory that the Vasari in their pride would not admit. When it went awry, it caused a cascading continuum-tearing effect that began to destroy space and cause the dematerialization of matter below the subatomic level. When t

Heh heh, and some of 'em were mentioned by me! [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

You're very entitled to disagree. It's the whole point of feedback from multiple people ... it's not a game for me, it's a game for everyone. And if the other problems with Starbases were fixed, there wouldn't be any need for additional Starbases. Out side of camping stars, at least. [e digicons]:grin:[/e]

My idea is to give Bombardment Cruisers (what I call 'em) a low-damage long-range weapon. If they have a "target painting laser" with the same range as their ability that does 1 or 2 damage then when given an attack command will automatically stop at max range and autocast their ability at the target. If you were unobservant and told them to attack a ship, they won't do enough damage to be worth turning on passive regeneration. Problem solved? Problem solved.

After 22 games and well over a hundred hours in the beta for Entrenchment focusing on different races and playstyles, I feel I've gotten a pretty good look at what the mini-expansion is all about and how things work together. I took a couple more hours to think about what I wanted to say for feedback, and wrote up this ... book practically. If you can hang through my long-winded discussions about the beta, I applaud your temerity and resolve. If not, I understand. I'm g

The only thing I'm giving him is another relapse.

Karma is like sanity. It only matters to people who have it.

How do you drop two and a half bears? ... Because I really want to rent that other half a bear. ...

On the one hand, the way the game is programmed each "entity" has four "sides" and each side is equipped with certain weapons. This means that a starbase can only bring 25% of it's weapons to bear on a single target, and in order to get the full damage output of a starbase, the enemy has to be idiotic enough to fully surround it. Instead, I want to see starbases have the ability to bring more (but not all) of their firepower to bear on a single target. Say ... half inst

I find the idea itself of using Starbases as an offensive tactic to be rediculous. And the ability of the Advent Starbase to use asteroids to attack enemy planets ... either it's going to be in a friendly grav well (in which case the ability is useless), or you're going to have the capital ship / seige frigate support to reduce a planet without the added help.