Erebus6937

Erebus6937

Joined Member # 7240533
8 Posts 71 Replies 7,860 Reputation

Isn't one solution to the challenge you're describing to patch those "holes" via Garrisons & strikecraft? I've been using them to snipe siege vessels so that the planet won't fall immediately (if my fleet is too far away). Usually if I have issues it's because I've over-extended myself. For the TEC specifically, would bringing back the Gauss' [Burst Rockets] and/or the [Meson Bolt Cannon] abilities help with buying you time to get a fleet to defend? Or the stand-alone planet shiel

28 Replies 84,380 Views

Other changes that can be made are the "little things" such as ship names or the color of the autocannon tracer rounds. I haven't had a chance to submit anything to sit-reps as of this post, but as examples for Sins2: ~TEC-L ships all have "TDN" (trader defense navy) as a prefix. TEC-R ships can have that altered slightly to something like "TRA" (trader reclamation armada). ~Differentiations in the weapons used. For example, the TEC-L's Garda Flak frigate would stick with the

6 Replies 10,780 Views

Not all of us are looking at this from a cost/benefit efficiency. With all 8 slots I'm only barely able to equip each of the titan unique components, nevermind any others. I want to see all the visual changes at the same time; to me the titans are mobile starbases (which do have 8 component slots) so the titans only having 6 gives them a stunted feel.

4 Replies 15,057 Views

I prefer the current arrangement where the structures aren't inherently moveable. If they do wind up orbiting the planet I'd prefer they do so in such a way that the players can't control them. Players who don't like the moving phase lanes do already have the option to turn off orbits (giving them the static maps and always-perfect structure placements that they want). Giving all structures the ability to move would detract from what I've seen so far. Outside of the Vasari, who are or

28 Replies 84,380 Views

Similar musing from me, although I'd be curious about how it'd look with some variation between the factions. ~TEC, being the most primitive faction 'technology wise', would keep the current set-up of oversized shields. The two more 'advanced' factions would be more refined in that they'd both have small, localized shield impacts. ~Advent, would be kind of like item#5 from the OP when it comes to shield impacts ~Vasari shields would be kind of like item#4 from the OP

5 Replies 18,388 Views

This is a wishlist/feature request compilation. Nothing here pertains to the 'technical preview 1.5' that's currently live. These requests/musings are very likely to evolve with the game as it develops. I'm not sure if this is the best location for this kind of feedback, but I don't want to bog down sitreps with items beyond the current build's scope. Some of these may get submitted as sitreps-requests later on when the game nears release. Some may be modified and resubmitted as the g

3 Replies 27,774 Views

Would it make sense to have a slider bar in the game-start menu, so players could select an integer between [51,100] for a percentage of galaxy to control?

3 Replies 14,089 Views

For the tech preview, you can click & drag the planet structure slot up into your screen to remove it. For the future, if they keep planet structures as removable items, it might eventually be something you can scuttle.

1 Replies 4,991 Views

My feedback is based on the Tech Preview_1b. I am assuming that balance/UI/gameplay is placeholder at this point. Any comments I make about the gameplay are made with the understanding that nothing is final – it may seem redundant to write this out but I do not want to come across as expecting a finalized game. Bias disclaimers: I only play in single player and only with random maps. I treat my games as little stories, so I will always focus on seeking immersion i

8 Replies 22,692 Views