A simple "I was wrong but I'd still like the feature" would suffice. You asked for this feature partly because you expect it to have an effect on the odds of intercepting enemy fleets. I'm simply pointing out that it won't. There's really no need to get defensive here.
[quote]Yes but if I could have a patrol route set to move between two different phase lane entrances for instance in a gravity well I would be increasing my chances by 2X that I would be in the 'right place' at the 'right time'.[/quote] No you wouldn't. You're just as likely increasing the chances that you'll be in the wrong place when the enemy fleet shows up.
I'd have nothing against this just on the basis of making things a little more lively but as far as in-system patrol routes, it wouldn't increase your chances of intercepting an incoming fleet much, if at all. Your ships are either in the right place or they aren't. Moving around doesn't really change that. Interplanetary patrol routes, I'd kind of like to see but I could probably count on one hand the number of times that a patrol route in one of my games was actually stable
Man, I hate this forum sometimes...
Players can also collect bounties. This isn't a bug. It's stupid when there are only two players remaining since the AI can't collect its own bounty but with more than two players, bounties are a normal part of the game.
Getting a cap ship to level 6 isn't exactly a major feat. Especially for the Advent.
Repeat that all you want. It still won't be any closer to the truth and since there's really no way to test it here, it's just inane babble at this point.
Outside of the MMO realm, which games would those be? I know I've certainly never paid for one.
[quote]In the entire history of warfare, no commander has ever had to order his units to to avoid static defenses, only not to avoid them.[/quote] This isn't warfare. This is a game. In the entire history of RTS gaming, no game has yet to play itself for the player. Not to my knowledge, at least. Sins is already 'very' lenient with micromanagement. It does most jobs for you but if you want them done better, get close and pay attention. Again, I just think it's odd that yo
Have you actually completed the research for those cruiser types? You can queue up the research and the option to make the cruisers will be highlighted but they won't actually start building until the research is finished.
[quote]2. Huh?.. ships don't sit by while there are things to kill unless your fleet orders are messed up.[/quote] Actually, I get this one a lot, myself. Ships will auto-acquire targets just fine until the cap's start bombarding. After that, all of the frigates and such simply jump into formation and shut down, even while there are still targets to shoot at. It's not a big deal and it's easy enough to issue the order myself but it is a little odd that they simply stop acquiri
[quote]3- It's the distant future, yet ships still don't know how to avoid static defense items when moving through an enemy sector. It would be great if ships would simply go around the attack radius of cannons rather than flying right though them, or at least have this as an option.[/quote] I can agree with all of them except for this. I don't think it should be up to the game to avoid threats in hostile systems. If you're going to go trapsing through heavily defended enemy territo
I haven't tried out the TEC yet but the Vasari Destructors are down to 14 too. So if that's the buff meant to offset the price, the Advent didn't really come out ahead on that front.
It means that enemy culture is currently affecting the planet you're trying to take over. If the local phase-lanes are all painted a color that isn't your own culture, odds are, that planet isn't up for grabs. To fix this problem, either bring a cap. ship or two into the area (cap. ships repel enemy culture), build your own culture centers in nearby gravity wells and wait for them to push the enemy culture back, or find and destroy any local enemy Media Hubs/Broadcast Centers/Temples o
Or play another game that doesn't charge a monthly fee. Whatever. If Ironclad/Stardock wants to adopt this model and lose my business, it's no skin off my back. They're certainly not the only game in town. And I have to ask, why exactly do 'you' support a subscription-based model over a micro-expansion (or simply a standard expansion) model? Especially when you're suggesting that people simply cancel subscriptions once they've gotten what they wanted which, essentially, has
[quote]That's why it would have a free trial.[/quote] A free trial now doesn't tell me what I can expect in terms of future content. That would do nothing to address my concern. [quote]I think that is a lie from most people's mouths in attempt to save some money. They will pay. Good games are addicting and people will pay for their addictions.[/quote] Well, think what you want but I'm still not going to give someone my money unless I know what I'm getting. I'm n
[quote]Welcome to the very near future buddy. Games have been costing $50 for 15 years. It's just not feasible anymore unless you want a poor quality game.[/quote] Then bump it up to $60 (or whatever amount gets things back on the feasibility track). A great many people aren't going to pay single-game subscriptions without knowing what they're getting. If this is, indeed, the future of gaming, then I'm most likely out. I'm not going to pay a company $10 a month for the privil
Yeah, that's what I did. Things seem to be working now.
Well, a few more attempts at sales triggered a boom but the rates are all still roughly the same as they were in 1.03 (and buy/sell rates are exactly 3/1). I'm just re-installing. Hopefully that'll fix it.
So I assume this means it's working fine for you then, eh? I've got some time. I suppose I could just reinstall or something and try it again. I'm really aching to see the market changes in action...
[quote]So, there's proportionately more experts for campaign games than there are for multiplayers?[/quote] No. I'm saying that campaigns don't require much in the way of expertise to balance. Balance generally doesn't exist in that setting so what's left? Presentation. Something pretty much anyone can have a say in. And to echo what's been said already, I'm not suggesting that the word of self-professed experts become law but I would suggest giving more weight to the guy w
Negative. Vanilla game, freshly patched through Stardock Central. According to SC, I'm running 1.04.022 and having run the application directly from that screen, it's still unchanged.
So I just started up a new game and naturally the first thing I looked at was how the market was working. As near as I can tell, Buy/Sell rates are still 3/1, the minimum sell price for resources is still hovering around the 100-130 range and so far, after buying an ever-loving ton of crystal, I still have yet to see a single boom. My version is 1.04 according to the main menu. Did I misunderstand the changes? Has something gone horribly wrong with the patching
[quote]I have to say that it's more than a little biased that the OP says it's wrong to listen to the vocal minority for campaigns but they should listen to the vocal minority when it comes to game balance.[/quote] The OP recognizes that campaigns very rarely have any semblance of 'balance'. Because of that, it makes sense to take more an interest in what the highest number of people think would be 'cool' than to spend time mulling over balance issues. Skirmish and multiplayer
[quote]I am curious to know what people think about the heavy price you pay for having planets far from your capital in loyalty with the resulting loss of significant revenue.[/quote] Does there come a point where you actually start 'losing' money and resources on upgraded planets? If not, 35% of something is still better than nothing and more logistics slots means more trade ports which give you the same amount (or more) of credits wherever you put them. Which is to s