If I'm in front of a computer then I'll check in. Not that I think a battle can settle any discussion, but it's fun and a shared experience is a better base for discussion than non-shared experience.
Yes, it seems simplest in a team game to reassign defeated players so they view what one of their live allies views. In games with unlocked teams or no teams at all there are complications and it is simplest to give no view at all. Keeping a losing host in the game is a very difficult proposition. Allowing them to "cheat" for their team is certainly going to be the most effective incentive. With anything less it is probably more effective to transfer hosting responsibility to another pl
That's an interesting idea. It seems to me that it might increase the advantage experienced players and AI have over newer players though and that should be considered. The reason I think that is because players will want to choose which defenses go in their defense slots. AI and experienced players won't take long about it and it won't delay their rush (if they're mounting one), but newer players might not even realise that's something they should do because it is free. So I'm
Stardock Forums
[quote]I was actually envisioning that the mine layers would lay thin narrow belts of mines. [/quote] That sort of minefield would simply be bypassed by people using the 3D movement features to go over or under it. The most practical way do do mines with the present engine restrictions (including the one that says defensive buildings all go on the same plane) is to treat mines like strikecraft with a self-destruct for area damage. Then make modified "hangars" and "carriers" that spew t
SoaSE a pretty good game, with canny borrowing plus some genuine innovations making a unique feel. I've had fun with it. I also have considerable respect for you personally from the OS/2 days, not least because of how you adapted and kept going. "RT4X" though is mostly a marketing label[1], like RTS and 4X were before it. Appealing to the widest possible customer base you think you can actually please with the product is an excellent business plan, but don't invest too much in building
[quote]I'd love to see games where you think strike craft are helping you win because anyone who uses strikecraft against me gets their butt handed to them on a platter. [/quote] You're not really advancing your own argument that strikecraft are weak simply by suggesting that people who disagree might be: 1. deluded and just [I]think[/I] strikecraft are helping them win when they actually in your opinion help them [I]lose[/I] and also 2. worse players than you
And nor do I, Sorceress. Jinx's original post risked legitimising labelling other posters and I feel that's something we should avoid. I don't wish to make any criticisms of him as a person.
This reads like a pre-emptive smear of anyone who might disagree with you in future, prefaced with a jab at the un-named person you talked to during your game. You decry ad hominem arguments, but the main thrust of your post is four labels to put on other posters... and labelling the man you're debating with is definitely an attack on the man rather than their words, which is the English meaning of the latin tag "ad hominem". I can at least agree with the advice in your closing
Yes. It's not limited to boosting only one ship either (just one at a time). If you build two replacements for your lost level 7 battleship they both get level 7, although there is a lengthy cooldown on the ability.
[quote]Are you serious?[/quote] Yes. And you? Actually, let's not get into that at all. You gave your opinions and I gave mine and we're not going to profit from starting to argue the toss.
Don't worry about the dead ship. The ability targets a live replacement of the same class. It really, really, is better set to autocast. All you need do then is watch for when you lose a capship and queue a replacement of the same kind of ship, then get it and the ship with Res to the same planet. Once there's enough antimatter the ability will fire and then you just respond to the level-up message by spending the ability points on your newly-levelled replacement ship. There's nothing a
[quote]The way I see it every credit,metal,crystal point you spend will be spent by the opposing force on something.[/quote] You're not really making sense in that quote Tumbler. If I spend 50cr that doesn't give my opponent 50cr. As a general rule of thumb though I guess it is fair to assume two players with equal income. As for trying to give every unit the same bang-per-buck, that does work for games. A real military planner has to just accept that sometimes you need an expe
Just put Res on autocast. It only fires if it can give a free level boost to one of your ships. What it does is level up the target ship to match the level of a ship of that class which you lost in combat earlier in the game. You know the way you can buy the first few levels of XP - the benefit of Res is that it doesn't cost credits and gives the new ship more XP than you could buy for it. You still have to allocate ability points and pick between fighters and bombers, but it is cheaper
Stardock Forums
[quote]I'm fine with the present Cap ships, but I would prefer level 10 offense/defense at the outset. The super abilities are not quite as important. What TEC player wouldn't prefer another squadron over the missle battery ability on the Sova? Uber Cap ships wouldn't add anything to an already great game and might even turn a number of players off.[/quote] Well... I think they'd be fine material for a new faction in an expansion. I'm sure someone will make capship mods as well. I'm les
AI allies [I]are[/I] quite chatty. It doesn't really bother me though, and I think it is great that the AI actually does bother to pay attention to my battles and turn up and lend a hand - it's more than human players would do for them :) . It looks like many players don't make AI alliances in the first place though, some because they haven't got the hang of it, others because they don't want to.
[quote]One thing that may be causing you troubles is that usually, strike craft should be targeting a different ship than your frigs/cruisers/capships. One of their primary advantages is that their alpha damage reduces the effects of shield mitigation. Use that to your advantage and hit a target that is at 15% mitigation...[/quote] That is an excellent point and should probably be made in the thread discussing the strikecraft targeting AI as well. Except when I'm racing to prev
Stardock Forums
I wouldn't attempt to add super-caps to the existing factions. I would use them as the base for a new faction that relied less on control of planets - perhaps even use them to flesh out the space pirates, although that would miss an opportunity for an unusual playable faction. I would build on the classic Mothership theme, so the super-cap would be capable of building frigates and cruisers. A mobile capship factory would be too much though, so I'd look at some mechanism where the superc
[quote]"Alpha Strike"(who coined that term?)[/quote] I don't have a conclusive proof, but it looks like the term was probably created during the Vietnam war. It certainly seems to have entered the wider language from the specialist jargon of air force bombing planners then, but I can't rule out an earlier origin during the second world war without making a much more serious investigation.
You can always keep an archive of 1.02 in case you don't like it. There's a box you tick in SDC. Personally I think 1.03 is fine. It's not perfect, but 1.02 wasn't perfect either. I do like the more dynamic market prices in 1.03 which don't shoot up the very instant anyone buys, but rise and fall over time.
[quote]I don't see people take much notice of trade ships, they often have to pass through non-colonisable space, stars etc. There is no way for someone to defend them other than to divert enough ships there to kill a raiding party, otherwise you just slowly peck their trade income to death. Carriers are awesome at this because you can keep them at one edge of the well and move out the moment someone shows up to do something about it.[/quote] Yes, hitting the supply lines is an absolu
[quote]In another thread someone stated that there is unlimited range in the z-axis. Is this not the case?[/quote] I think they just assumed that and it isn't the case. The z-axis is a little used feature, but not a useless one. I suppose if we ended up having problems with people exploiting turret range giving turrets a cylindrical firing volume rather than a sphere [I]would[/I] be a cheap fix for them. I doubt it would really satisfy the people who want to fight their space b
Stardock Forums
Yes, I know it has autocast. I just don't think it is currently as effective as it needs to be. The autocast has the problem of disabling the ship (zero damage output) while it is still in good fighting condition and may be needed for the fight. That's why I was thinking that brief invulnerablity or "invisibility" (targeting immunity) might be a way to improve the self-regen special ability. The autocast could then trigger later, when the ship is in some real danger and that would make more effi
Heh. Sorry if my digression on the AI seemed to imply anything about your post. I didn't intend to do so, the only things about it I was directly questioning were the specific language ("sucks") and the general assertion that the AI was seriously defective. I wasn't reading between the lines looking for an insult - although I do think saying a piece of programming "sucks" could legitimately be taken as one and I wish you had chosen another way to make your point. I've had fun with SoaSE
Stardock Forums
[quote]At the bottom of the post I noted that Skirmishers are an extremely underpowered unit and highly regarded as too expensive or not good enough.They should get 50% health regen because skirmishers cost 75% more supply and resources than disciples.At 700, or my proposed 800 change, that's a lot of health to regen at only 1. Most units with high hp have 1.5 or 2 health regen so it doesn't take attrociously long.Also i think it'd be better to add things like more range and health regen over t
Random medium map. All AI on different teams. Random personality, either regular or hard intelligence, not unfair. You can lock the teams if you hate diplomacy or leave them unlocked. I prefer unlocked for more variety, but I play both and a lot of players seem to pick one and stick to it exclusively. Not every random map will turn out to be a challenge of course, especially if you've become skilled. Taking a non-random map usually gives a big advantage to humans though because they can