[quote] I disagress about Siege Frigate HP decreased, how about Siege Frigate decreased rate of firepower? They seem go too fast for spam and spam missiles after missiles. Siege Frigate HP should stay, dont want end up Siege Frigate Hull is like a paper to easy to tear! [/quote] Go take a Howitzer or even a mortar into a battlefield and see how long you last.
[quote]Oh boo hoo. You have a chip on your shoulder about normal RTS gamers and you want to show it off by trying to deny them their chance to have fun. The reality is, including a faster option wouldn't effect the "Normal" and "Slow" players at all, it'd just divert some of the "Fast" players to "Very Fast". Your attitude is completely uncalled for and completely illogical. If IC wants success (and expansions and sequels) they should keep all gamers in mind, and if they can cater to more people
[quote] The good thing with Sins is that it's not an MMO - the rules are not universal. Why would anyone mind the implementation of a faster game speed - in addition to the ones already there? The community would self-moderate its usage and only the ones who prefered it would use it. Could even filter games in the server browser by game speed if it's a big problem to those who prefer it slower. All the more power to the individual, I say. [/quote
[quote]Sins was never designed to specifically be one type or the other. This is where he is saying describing sins as just an RTS is misleading. RTS = fast gameplay, 4x = Slow indepth gameplay. [/quote] Actually that's more misleading on behalf of the 'RTS' title. Strategy means large-scale, and I really have never seen an RTS that actually involves any sort of strategy whatsoever. It's just 'build factory, spam tanks, win'.
[quote] I bought this game solo on this site and a few opinions of people I know who've played it and like it. [/quote] Honestly, I bought it primarily because of the little blue logo on the bottom of this page :)
[quote] You are making your voices heard. People who buy PC games may have consoles but they don't necessarily want their PC games to simply be ported console games or console-like games. [/quote] I have been waiting [b]6 EXCRUCIATING YEARS[/b] to finally hear someone, someone "in the biz", say that. I daresay that Stardock may be the salvation so many of us have been hoping for. [quote]But please, for the love of al
[quote] Think about it...it's not just you winning when a diplomatic victory is achieved, it's EVERYONE winning. [/quote] I think you need to do the thinking. Here's a visual aid. Here's a diplomatic victory: <br
[quote] I play a lot of rts and this game just takes too long. Games should last at 2 hours at most not just starting the big battles at 2 hours. The should have trhe resoucres double thier exctractiopn rate. It would spped it up. i just took 6 hours to finish a game. that is to fucking long! [/quote] So go play a different game you ADHD douche. I know that people like you have been dumbing-down games for ab
[quote] Technically every time you win by diplomatic victory, so does the AI...at least the ones you ally with [/quote] No they don't. The first player to have an alliance with everyone wins. Granted it's possible that you're allied with everyone, and the only AI you're not allied with is allied with ev
[quote] once again the collective flight towards arrogance is unsurprising. [/quote] Maybe if you weren't a douche and had a point besides "I've played longer than you, so I'm right. Oh and you're all clueless idiots." Even when other beta testers respond, you tell them that you don't recognize them, so clearly they're inexperienced morons too. As has been mentioned, if the AI is doing it, it doesn't matter how long you've played. Even if you desi
[quote] from the previews i've seen of SC2, i'm more than satisfied with its graphics. RTS and TBS games are more cerebral than FPS and other games that are more about reflexes. the more info you can clearly and quickly pass on to the human player, the easier it'll be for the player to enjoy the game. [/quote] RTS games are 'cerebral' and not about 'reflexes'? Have you ever PLAYED an RTS? 1) Just about every RTS game is about build orders, speed, and spam. No
Starcraft wasn't balanced until over 3 years of patches later. It's amazing how short some people's memories are. [b]3 years +[/b] Any damn game eventually reaches a modicum of balance after that long. Starcraft is overrated. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good - World of Warcraft? Oblivion? Counter-Strike? All of these are popular for less-than-popular reasons. The campaign wasn't really that great - the story was uninspired, contrived, poorly-pr
So I set my Spending to 100%. It said I was -48bc in the hole, but the totals didn't add up. So I clicked back to 99%. My spending dropped to -26bc but all the totals increased. I fiddled around, and found that, at least on the economy screen, the data displayed is for the PREVIOUS level you chose. So if you click from 98% to 99%, it'll show funding data for 98%. If you click forward to 100%, it'll show data for 99%, but if you click back again, it'll show data for 100%. <b
[quote]Prof I've seen you a grand total of 1nce during the beta, there are far more experienced people who have been keeping pace with the game and can handle the siege frigs with the ease of a lazy dog shooing a pesky flee. I hate to say it: but most of the people here are newcomers, you need to give the game more than a few minutes pause to begin to develop a coherent strategy. for godsake, I felt like a complete noob switching over from beta 4 to release, and I'm one of the most expe
GalCiv2 Forums
[quote] The Games Division of Stardock isn't their primary money-maker I think- Stardock is more of an apps company. [/quote] Frogboy can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they said that their applications (ObjectDesktop / Windowblinds (Windowblinds BLEW UP my computer when I used it like 5 years ago)) are used to provide funding for their games, little side-projects. Hopefully that, given the success of GC2 and the fact that th
[quote] Personally I rely on user opinions and reviews. Gamespot has a few right now. [/quote] I'd LIKE to, but generally gamers either like or hate a game. People who like a game are pretty much the worst critics, as they won't mention any flaws, give it 132/10 scores, and talk about inane, petty crap. To me the more cynical, jaded, and hostile the review is, the more truth there is behind it.
Hype = High Reviews. Oblivion, Supreme Commander, Bioshock - all games that were severe letdowns with ridiculously high reviews. Yes, that's right. Oblivion was utter trash, Supreme Commander was as deep as a dried-up oil stain, and Bioshock was repetitive, linear, and dumbed-down.
I was about to buy this game, just because it looked awesome and I like Stardock. But I decided this on the 3rd, and figured I'd read some reviews. Nothing. I waited until the 4th. Nothing. It's on shelves today, and there's still nothing. This, to me as a consumer, is a bad sign, as usually crappy games made on a bad budget shooting for a quick "WalMart market" sale dont' send their games to review magazines and sites early, as the 3.0/10 scores would reduce
[quote] So no, given that you accused me of being retarded, of being a moron, of having suffered brain damage, of arguing against changes just so I could point whore on the Metaverse just because I didn't agree with your pet changes to tech trading, I don't think I owe you the time of day, let alone an apology. Hell, I'm not even sure why I'm explaining any of this to you. [/quote] It's not an accusation if it's true. I mean, hell, you insisted, [
I play on Rare anomalies, and they're EVERYWHERE. I really don't see a difference between Rare and Common, I think the 'regrowth' has nothing to do with how common they are, so it just ends up saturating them.
Thank god, this has been annoying me for awhile. I've been using the thumbnails but people STILL insist on having their huge 1920x1200 picture straight on the forum. Another advantage of the thumbnails is that less bandwidth to download the thumbnail, which means your picture will stay on Imageshack for longer, as every time someone just opens the thread, it doesn't download the whole image (just a tiny 3kb one). The pages will also load faster too.
Do what I do - create a new game, save it, and then use the Shift-U all-map cheat to see what spread you got. I like playing with a somewhat limited spread of planets (about 10-15), but it's pretty game-ruining when, as in one game, the nearest habitable planet is 25 turns away, while the AI is sitting with 2 class 20+ planets right next to their capital.
[quote] Its not the card because its not the heat artifacts that you get when the card is trying to cook itself. [/quote] 2 minute education: Heat doesn't cause the artifacts. Heat damages your VRAM. VRAM gets corrupted. Game tries to write to faulty VRAM. Faulty VRAM spits back corrupted data. Artifacts! If your card was damaged, you probably wouldn't know it right away, but it most likely is permanently damaged, no matter how c
[quote] I guess they already used the 'weapons of mass destruction' line on the last race they conquered. [/quote] Winner.
If you're getting artifacts, that'd be a bad card, not the game.
Sins Forums