Mettra

[quote]Excuse me? DirectX *did* own OpenGL. (1) And now we have a situation where everyone has to use it, and since they are locked into it games become Windows only. (2) [/quote] (1) Sorry, I guess I missed the fight where DirectX really whipped OpenGL. I think John Carmack missed that fight as well. DirectX capabilities are inferior to OpenGL capabilities. The market doesn't decide things like this. What DirectX has is Microsoft shoving it down every possible th

[quote]That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard..If games are good they play on linux? Give me a break.[/quote] QFT. I agree completely with the sentiment, but gimme a fucking break. All you're gonna do is activate the counter-troll 'DirectX > OpenGL' posts (I've already counted one) and otherwise get flamed and do no good at all. To everyone else, there's no need to say stuff like 'just dual-boot Windows' because that misses the entire point of asking fo

[quote]They are? Looking at Starcraft 2, I've yet to see anything original in there. In fact, look at the 'supply depot walls'. That alone should pretty much prove my point.[/quote] I didn't say original. Blizzard doesn't do original. Warcraft is heavily based on Warhammer Fantasy; Starcraft on Warhammer 40k (HEAVILY). Diablo... you get my point. From a mechanics point of view - Dune, Lineage/Everquest. The appeal that Blizzard has is that they can take st

[quote]I don't think so. Let's take two old games off the top of my head - Allegiance and Natural Selection. Both of them still have players, but 'died' long ago. Both these games are still maintained by a hardcore competitive playerbase. (1) Occasionally a new person will join the game, but are immediately chased out by both groups. Be it the skill level, the learning curve, the attitudes present. (2) While one could say that the competitive scene is driving these ga

[quote]... I think I love you, Mettra. (1) HOWEVER... I disagree. While I don't 'follow' tournaments and competitive gaming, I have played many games that have had rabid competitive involvement. In my experience, competitive gaming is really nothing but detrimental to the game's health. I really don't feel like going into elaborate detail, but I'll just mention a few things. The issue of game balance is a two-way street. (2) While it's PLAUSIBLE that competiti

[quote]This is my major concern, many game companies have offered these things, but with very minor exceptions (such as Bethesda with it's downloadable content for Oblivion - but that's not a MP game at all so it makes no difference) these ongoing updates usually turn into "if you want to win, guv us moar moneiz!!!111one" and that can easily turn a clientele against a company, I know it would ailenate me. It's viral, antagonistic and downright sleazy. It makes it an extremely hard line

[quote]This is the worst idea I've seen in this thread so far. (1) 90% of people don't give a flying shit about 'tournaments', (2) So go ahead and tell me what Joe Average Gamer, like me, gets out of your tournament idea? Some twitchy build-order-obsessed 13 year old gets to win money, I get... nothing? (3) The entire reason Xbox Live works is because it's a monopoly. Such a stupid system won't and never will work on the PC, because our internet is 'free'. (4)

[quote]What you're saying is that it's a good thing that: 1) I have to spend the absurd resources to increase capital cap. (1) 2) I have to spend more resources to increase fleet cap. 3) I have to lose a chunk of my income to do so as well. (2) 4) I have to spend the massive amounts of resources to build the ship. (3) 5) I cannot actually use this ship for hours, and have to micromanage it before it's worth a damn. (4) So effectively Capital Ships have a 'build

[quote]Perhaps, but that doesn't stop it from being tedious and impractical.[/quote] The need to capital ships alive and success or failure of doing so in the long term adds a lot of strategy to the game in the larger games. I can understand why someone would think it's tedious if they just wanna build and reinforce caps late game, but if you could just 'build' a lvl 8 cap at the end, it takes all that work keeping your first cap alive away from you. The advantage you had from keeping

[quote]Just my two cents, but if your opponent does get RA up and running AND has a fleet by the time you show up, that's your own fault. It takes a good bit of time to get this ability. You should be scouting, because if the guy is seriously doing RA, he's easy pickings.[/quote] You're correct if you're talking about 1v1. In 2v2 and larger, however, one player can sac himself to build up an RA rush for another player. An RA + helper can have RA and three+ phase gates up twenty minute

From LinkesAuge [quote]sure, a lot of them are. (1) sry but seriously if u have no clue about the game dont try to argue. (2) Caps are just used cause u get the first one free, a lot of others times they arent used at all. (3) I dont know any ship type which gets less used than some caps so wtf are u talking about? (4) sure someone as u with such a knowledge about the game might assume that... (5) They arent powerfull early because of their a

[quote]Also they are just powerfull cause of their Abilities not cause of their battle strength. (1) Sry but caps acting as support simply doesnt satisfy me. (2) In my opinion support should be left to specialised ships. (3) Abilities are for me a nice little extra for caps to give u an edge in smaller to medium engagements but they shouldnt be the main purpose of having caps. (4) u could easily balance it so that u wont "spam" caps early if thats ur fear. (5)

[quote]You have a good point -CU-Raptor, but as I pointed out, in that last post about this very same problem it is not with the how powerful the ships is, but the leveling system. I found that a 4 level(I buyed the levels in this case)battleship is just about equal(just a little less) in power to that of the same support unit cost in HC(12*4=48, I was playing Vasari at the time). A level 4 battleship! That a lot of resources, buying the levels and the ship. I also found that i

[quote]As soon as I read that I switched from taking you seriously to wanting to type tl,dr. This isn't Starcraft and I don't want to play another Starcraft game. (1) I remember what you competitive people did to the singleplayer aspects of both Starcraft and Warcraft, especially Warcraft 3. (2) I'm not a competitive player. I'm a casual player. You competitive types have ruined everything you've touched, from Starcraft to UT3. (3) You people want to define "experts" a

Conflict of interest much? ;)

[quote]Again, the problem here is defining who those "experts" are. (1) The inherent nature of balance changes is not as simple as a see-saw because we have so many different kinds of people playing. (2) Everyone has their list of 20 items they want to see changed and nobody can ever agree on a definite list of changes. (3) Yeah, I do have a short fuse with the competitive group since I think they think they're entitled to their changes, but let's be realistic and real

[quote]Actually, I had the same thought when I started playing. Don't get me wrong, I really like Sins, but it does bear striking similarities to War3. Especially Heroes/Capital ships. The rapid fanboy denial theses published in this this thread are funny in a facepalm kind of way. Like it's blasphemy to suggest games can be similar or something.[/quote] You can call them whatever you want. You can call them fanboy denial theses or fwoophuggle zoombopples, but giving someth

[quote]The OP states his point clearly and supports it with relevant evidence. (1) Not really sure why people are throwing the BS flag without subsequently citing their own counter-evidence to disprove him. (2) Very slow, and I thought the hero units ruined the balance that I'd come to love so much in Blizz's work with Star Craft. (3) Strangely though, the formula seems to appeal to me more in SINS than it did in WC3. (4) [/quote] (1) The problem with

It's funny that someone mentioned the pirate ships look better than the TEC ships. I'd have to agree with this simply because the pirates have some style while the TEC are a bit dry. I think the Advent ships (besides the carrier... although that's more of a personal taste I guess) look fantastic. The Vasari ships look quite good too and have a definite art direction. The TEC are just a little too plain.

No need for yielding and all that. I just type and think quickly and end up typing a lot (makes me look like I know what I'm talking about perhaps a little more than I actually do >_>). I'm sure many would disagree for reasons I haven't even considered. Aesthetically, the TEC could definitely use a bump. They lack the visual and thematic appeal of the other races (in my opinion, an artist could probably comment on this more intelligently than I could).

[quote]« Dr. Miguel Alcubierre, a researcher at the Max planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Pottsdam, Germany, agrees that "Matter/antimatter annihilation would be the most efficient way to achieve those [near light] speeds." » Quoted by physicist Jeanne Cavelos, The Science of Star Wars[1999], 2nd exp. ed., NY : St. Martin's Griffin, 2000, p. 136.[/quote] It's interesting that you quote Alcubierre as he was the first to propose a well-thought-out plan to t

[quote]I see, so despite the passing of hundreds of years & humanitys pension for advancing our technology (Quantum Computers). I should expect to see toasters, kevlar & technology we already possess now?!? (1) All I am trying to say, is that after the passing of that much time & knowing what we know about ourselves as a culture, I would think we would have far more advanced technology then even the experimental weapons of today. (2) If its something that has already been t

[quote]I just want to be clear here, we are taking about humans far far into the future & the best they can do is rail guns??? Seriously?!?! If the idea of rail & gauss guns have been around for years already, I, personally, find it difficult to believe that a human society hundreds or thousands of years beyond that would even still be using technology of that nature. I mean lets be honest, we as a "race" cant wait for the next, new proccessor or video card... or game (winks). It is a logical

[quote]Don't underestimate how fast capitals gain levels. I've gotten a Kol to level 10 on militia alone. (1) I've run into some sizable milita forces in my time. I've seen a militia with four Kodiaks at one planet before, so it certainly does matter when you want to keep your ship alive without having to flee. (2) What I was suggesting was not a change to damage, but to the "appearance" of the damage; just change the infocard so that it says that the weapon does 400 damage - o

[quote]SC was probably the most visually bland and uninspired game I've seen on any platform in the past 5-10 years. On top of that, the engine runs like shit.So yea, I've compared. Sins is the clear winner in that comparison.As for CoH... quite nice looking, but we're talking a small fraction of the units displayed.[/quote] I almost freaked out here when I thought you were talking about Starcraft... >_> Anyway, yes Supreme Commander is a nightmare to actually play with any r