Space Voyager

Space Voyager

Joined Member # 2314234
6 Posts 266 Replies 10,010 Reputation

While industrial espionage is an everyday thing there is no way somebody's technology could just be stolen and he wouldn't have it anymore. The prerequisites for such a feat are so finely tuned it's just not worth looking into. FOr starters there should be no patent made and somebody would have to take ALL the existing plans (which is not a single map or something for high-tech equipment and it's never all in one place), grab ALL the scientists working on the project and so forth... Remember WWI

44 Replies 13,065 Views

If it's targeting a frigate, just send it behind the Kol and keep doing so each time it gets turned around into range again. It's plenty slow enough at turning (at least without upgrades) that you should be able to do this. How about the AI do it? Wasn't it supposed to be like that? Has intensive micromanagement become a feature of this game? Or is it just because the AI hasn't been given the final attention yet?

16 Replies 7,470 Views

Meh, screw current terms Ive never liked the idea of Destroyers being smaller than 'cruiser' If you don't like what the current terms mean perhaps you should search for other terms. Like "maneater class".

47 Replies 39,613 Views

Just a thought on this autocasting; IMO not being able to cast them manually at all would be the most consistent with "grand general" idea. Choosing them is more than enough, the rest should be left to the AI to make mistakes and for the general to swear about it. /hides from the micromanagement freaks/

38 Replies 46,069 Views

Planetary defenses, and garrison fleets are a must have for this map. You can see the pirates coming from a mile away (this is intentional). They will hit you pretty steadily, but you will have time to prepare for them. Yes, THIS is what seems RIGHT for a space strategy game. The need for static defenses and (a need for) a fleet of ships AT EVERY PLANET. And a possibility to send reinforcements (for both sides) so some battles could go on throughout the game!

12 Replies 8,807 Views

So if the AI was better, you wouldn't really have anything to do? Good thing you added the smiley, before I saw it the post gave me the creeps. But YES, you are correct and this illustrates the issue quite nicely. The battles were supposed to be simultaneous etc., so the AI should be so good one could concentrate on other things and only participate in th

47 Replies 65,084 Views

This debate seems to reflect the most basic divide among the players. We have the usual RTS players who want to have a fast-paced action, somewhere along the lines of HW. Meaning practically NO strategy and a lot of nice looking battles. EDIT: And he wants to lead all of them. The other side is the usual non-RTS players, meaning turn-based strategy players. Why do we have both sides? Because Sins was said to be a strategy game that combines the two... The real time ha

47 Replies 65,084 Views

It was the 1st time i saw the AI split its fleets up, and attack more than 1 world at once. I can now see the "whack-a-mole" the dev's were talking about. This would be a very annoying multiplayer map. But, that is exactly what the devs PRAISED in the start! Multiple battles happening, multiple fleets flying around, no time to oversee all the battles so you need to choose which ones to lead pesonally, the need for planetary defences building!!! Sudde

12 Replies 8,807 Views

Everything you do to speed up the game will make it less of a strategy and more of a finger twitching. What stops you from attacking with low-tech ships? AFAIK you can build the ships from the start. So there is no limitation to start the war. IMO the technology starting level is the way to go for MP, as others said already. With demands like this there is no wonder the game is turning from the epic it was said to be into a usually shallow RTS. If you have too much ti

47 Replies 65,084 Views

You can control Gas Giant systems by colonizing the various moons in order to have the "mini-planet" effects cumilate enough to allow a sizeable base being placed not on Gas Giants but with Gas Giant systems. Love your moon idea. Human players/other AI's might be influenced by bounties as well. I thought this was the main reason for the bounty...

297 Replies 220,575 Views

The superweapons in Sins can't target individual ships. If you think about it, there's really no way a weapon hundreds of millions of kilometers distant could hit a moving target like a ship. That's understandible, but can it destroy my preccccioussssss?! As I wrote, I'd hate to see the ship I "fell in love with" destroyed in one blow, no chance to defend itself of flee...

78 Replies 116,527 Views

While I don't like superweapons I guess they can be somewhat balanced. The real problem arrives when you mix RPG elements with superweapons. For instance; having a big gun destroy three of your fifth level capital ships that you trained so carefully with one blow. THAT is a problem. As long as the ships (bots, worms, whatever) are something you have no attachement to it won't hurt you too much to see them destroyed in swarms. As soon as you grow an attachement to some of them (

78 Replies 116,527 Views

. Nexus: The Dread of new "3D" space games Best 3D space dance yet. I was hoping Sins was heading in that direction; full 3D movement BUT with far less micromanagement possible. Meaning fleet formations and fleet orders with everything else being done by the AI. Leaving me the time to behold the beauty. Sadly it is becoming Warcraft with no visible terrain.

150 Replies 168,419 Views

I definitely agree with Karma and Polluxo. But they are fighting a lost battle it seems. I'd just like to repeat that if the AI is not 3D aware (able to use it effectively) and everything is reduced to a 2D plane than PLEASE limit the player to it as well. It's either all 3D or no 3D (I'm only speaking about movement).

150 Replies 168,419 Views

Perhaps they shouldn't? Than again, trying to save your behind by building defenses is something completely different from trying to demolish something to earn a buck. Normal people usually don't think too much about money when bullets are flying by their ears. Lord of War [movie] excluded. They do think how to survive and are prepared to do whatever it takes for it.

595 Replies 419,699 Views

My suggestion is to make the 'scuttle' command either innefective during combat (in the same gravity well), OR make the refund % influenced by any damage the structure might have taken. I'd go for both actually. So that if you started the deconstruction earlier and an enemy force jumps in the deconstruction will cease. So your refund would only be what was deconstructed before the fleet arrived. I'm sure people have better things to do when under attack than

595 Replies 419,699 Views

Notably at the moment, the majority of opinions in this thread support either the old inhibitor or a compromise. Few have supported the current system. Yes, but the trick is to spit over all systems and propose a new one, as I did. Kidding.

70 Replies 63,782 Views

I'd like it most when an inhibitor would have a range and would block all enemy jumps in it's area. This way you could place it to an exit point (area) to another of your systems and it would prevent the enemy to bypass it, meaning no grasshopping from system to system. This way you would have multiple inhibitors, probably one for each of your neighboring systems. One could be placed to an entry point of an enemy system and prevent an immediate retreat but this would at least m

70 Replies 63,782 Views