[quote who="JustAnotherName" reply="91" id="2824553" Focus fire has always been a strategy to use in every game. Having a system that gives huge focus fire penalty just implies that the player won't have to micro their units and there won't be any different between a skilled and unskilled player.[/quote] Exactly. What do you people over here have against focus fire? Prioritizing targets is a legitimate strategy and makes the game better from tactical POV, since you
ShotmanMaslo
[quote who="a110" reply="77" id="2820532"]Quoting Major Stress, reply 58 Get rid of the phase lane system i agree the phase lane concept induces repetitiveness[/quote] I also agree. Late game all sides are able to entrench themselves to the point the game is undecidable. Because of easy chokepoints. The game would obviously be better and more dynamic if you can jump from every gravity well to every other inside the same system.
[quote who="sareth01" reply="75" id="2820257"]"so tell me again why a faction can build carrier capitals and not carriers?" This is definitely not realistic, but have you thought of the counter argument? [/quote] It actually can be justified pretty easily - a faction has developed onboard strikecraft manufacturing and hangar technology, but initially its too crude, heavy and energy inefficient to be housed on cruiser sized ships, so it requi
[quote who="MindsEye" reply="69" id="2819298"] I would like to see shield adaptation to damage types implemented, though. Good idea This is already ingame with damage modifiers.For example lf do 150% damge(I think is 150)To ships like carriers and flak.[/quote] This are damage types, not on the fly adaptation of shields to different damage types - something like mitigation, but specific to each damage type.
[quote who="Stant123" reply="66" id="2818924"]If the sole purpose of mitigation is to effectivelly add more hp and shields (damage resistance) to capships compared to frigates and cruisers to prevent them dying from focus fire, why not do it directly? Because that's not the way the mitigation system works. It's supposed to increase as a ship takes a lot of fire from a certain damage type, and drop back down and start to compensate again when the ship starts being pounded on by ano
[quote who="SivCorp" reply="61" id="2818628"]Some more good stuff here! Though I think the shield mitigation is needed. If it were not implemented, there would be no need for cap ships, because they all would be dead.[/quote] The frigate and cruiser max mitigation is 57%, capship is 75%. So the same gameplay effect would be achieved simply by removing mitigation and increasing capship hp+shields by cca 25%. If the sole purpose of mitig
[quote who="DirtySanchezz" reply="55" id="2817689"]I like the current system with the shields and shield mitigation. Removing it would also essentially make phase missiles obsolete, or at least they'd have to be modified in some sort of a way. The shields/hull system is a core component of the game's strategy, actually. Maybe someone could just make a mod or Ironclad could create an option to only have a hull, but it shouldn't be the default.[/quote]
[quote who="a110" reply="53" id="2817385"]real-time damage system so that the different weapon effects and types arent merely cosmetic the sins damage system has always annoyed me, especially with the backloaded nonsense where it takes a ship what feels like forever to die [/quote] Yes, thats because of the shield mitigation thingy. Such artificial nonsense. I would completely remove shield mitigation, and increase HP and shields of all ships accordingly (+50% fo
Thanx for the replies, interesting reading.. :) Guess we would really have to wait for sins 2 then.. [e digicons]
[quote who="wbino" reply="44" id="2816345"]I'm going to insult a Ironclad employee, but a new ship designer. Some are great the Advent carrier, the Kol, but others are just not spaceships. [/quote] And Kodiak cruiser, thats just a brick with guns. I know TEC are oriented on industrial and functional designs, but BRICK WITH GUNS?
I agree, modding capabilities should definitely get expanded and made more user-friendly. I would suggest making integrated GUI modding tools like Galactic Civilizations has. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]
Cannot it be done automatically? I cant believe there is not an algorithm that can convert 32bit source code to 64bit, since almost everything can be automatized these days. Does converting code from 32 to 64 still require lot of human work? 32bit programs can be converted for 64bit processors even on the fly. Why the other way around requires rewriting the source code that cannot be automated? I am not a programmer, so enlighten me. <a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7406681.h
Glad to see you added some of my ideas to the list SivCorp [e digicons]:)[/e] Could also you add these two? Maybe under "Interface"? [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] I have suggested them since vanilla sins, and think they would be very easy to implement, but devs always ignored me.. - add a button to divide fleet in two or more fleets with equal numbers of ships of every type? Dividing huge fleets (frigates and cruisers) for example into one attacki
[quote who="onomastikon" reply="5" id="2811318"]Quoting ShotmanMaslo, reply 3- Temporary cloaking for ships and anticloak technology (tiberian sun anyone?) Yes, I can't believe I forgot to say "cloaking". Cloaking. Not like there will be an expansion, but hey, talk is cheap.[/quote] There wont be? Why they posted a poll on the mainpage then? Almost all voters want an expansion.
- Temporary cloaking for ships and anticloak technology (tiberian sun anyone?) - Could you add a button to divide fleet in two fleets with equal numbers of ships of every type? Dividing fleets for example into one attacking and one defending fleet is generally pain in the ass. I think this could be automatically done with some clever algorithm. Also, I would like to see something like fleet manager in Galactic Civilisations. - a Bug: I have noticed that strikecraft can fly straig
Disable mitigation raising, if you can do mods, thats why combat gets so slow in bigger skirmishes compared to other games.
doublepost
- Temporary cloaking for ships and anticloak technology (tiberian sun anyone?) - Could you add a button to divide fleet in two fleets with equal numbers of ships of every type? Dividing fleets for example into one attacking and one defending fleet is generally pain in the ass. I think this could be automatically done with some clever algorithm. Also, I would like to see something like fleet manager in Galactic Civilisations. - a Bug: I have noticed that strikecraft can f
I dont think I would like to have another excel from this game. Focus on combat and tactics, thats what I prefer. More complex does not mean more enjoyable, especially in economic simulations. Why would you want to directly control trade ships / fleets? Thats not the job of the emperor, but free market or clerks. What would be the advantage? Will there be serious disadvabtage if I dont want to babysit trade ships? What would be the gameplay advantage of more tradeable resources besides metal
I agree with the OP, it doesnt make sense not just because what you said, but also because player with better econ pays MORE for THE SAME amount of ships than player with worse econ (since FS in set as percentage) - that is the real issue here. If the whole point is to make player recovery harder because of military infrastructure costs, why not have upkeep a function of ONLY fleet supply research, and not fleet supply research AND income? Or make fleet supply the function of the total number
FreeSpace Universe Nodemap - Enjoy! [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e] All stars and jump nodes are created according to canon pre-great war Volition map. Some stars are moved to slightly different positions for claritys sake, and one non-canon star (Spica) is added, linking Ross 128 and Ikeya (the original shivan forces entry points) with shivan space. Shivan homeworld is located in the binary system beyond the Crab nebula. The composition of systems is largely my fantasy
[quote who="Ryat" reply="97" id="2671869"]Quoting ShotmanMaslo, reply 96 - upkeep system (based on irreversible research and fraction of income, not number of current ships built like common sense would tell) Actually have to disagree with this one. There is a big difference between having the ships and having the equipment to take care of them. So it can be logically concluded that the support you are paying for from your income points to how much support equipment, whi
- retarded ship movement (arcing turns) - shield mitigation (works when shields are down, feels very ad-hoc) - upkeep system (based on irreversible research and fraction of income, not number of current ships built like common sense would tell)
I like all of them, except that blue-white one which looks like a sky. Space should NOT be white, nor should it look like a sky. Even not using colored skyboxes is cool. Space should be dark. Dark, cold, and empty...
Could someone upload the program somewhere? Links are broken.. [e digicons]:annoyed:[/e]