I wasn't pleased by it either...you might convince them to lower the value, but I highly doubt the functionality of the modifier itself is going to be changed...
Seleuceia
[quote who="Sinkillr" reply="76" id="3383536"]The Stilakus Subverter has a bug where instead of allowing 25 % of phase missiles to bypass shields, it allows 25 % of all weapon damage to go through the shields (thanks zombie for pointing it out). This should definitely be added to the list.[/quote] Yarlen has stated that this works as intended...apparently the devs wanted the modifier to affect all weapons.., so the real bug is any string incorrectly suggesting that it only affects pha
[quote who="ARESIV" reply="22" id="3383399"]Agreed. Altough, if you make it Tier 1, the temple of communion should become tier 1, too.[/quote] It's not "clean" but basically the only reason I'd want mass communion at tier 1 is for the cost of a tier 1 tech...not sure advent should be getting culture at tier 1... [quote who="ARESIV" reply="22" id="3383399"]Imho the AM regeneration would be far moré important... Furios Defense could do 200 DPS splash damage... tha
Yep, you really got me there...my butt is still sore from that little escapade...I won't be walking for at least a week.... Back to the OP.... I think Unity Mass should do chaining damage...that ought to bring AL back into balance...
[quote who="Sinkillr" reply="17" id="3383281"]I don't know why you insist on perpetuating this myth... read my recent points as well as aresiv's on the TL balancing thread to see why this is false...[/quote] Wonder what your buddy cat has to say about the Ragnarov...
My 2 cents... Don't buff disruption matrix....if you want to buff the Ankylon, give it more raw firepower and let furious defenses grant splash damage (like finest hour and desperation).... Ragnarov needs work...increasing the raw damage (not frontal, just sides and rear) would help but something needs to be done for its abilities, not sure what though.... Mass communion should be lower tier, no doubt...tier 1 or 2 works....may be strange at tier 1 since you can
I could do that, but that does limit some of my options... For example, what if you wanted the mission to start with a massive fleet already in phase space coming at one of your planets? Galaxy Forge would allow me to place the fleet at either the starting or ending planet, but it wouldn't allow for "placement" (where the fleets are relative to each other in the same gravity well) and if I had the fleet start at the initial planet, there's no guarantee the AI wo
I am serious, but not serious....if that makes any sense..... My schedule allows me to work on SoaSE stuff only in small bursts, so I do what I can... My current thought right now is that the only way to do a campaign is to use save files....unfortunately, that means that every updated could potentially break those saves...obviously you can see why one might not be so inclined to do such a thing if there isn't even much demand and it could come under heavy critici
Ooooooooo....you know, you might be right on that......
[quote who="Sinkillr" reply="3" id="3382474"]Seleucia- After you disabled auto-record, did you experience less MDs?[/quote] Yes...but to be fair, that was before v1.5x where I dealt with all that....it is quite possible that the specific behavior I experienced is version specific.... To be safe, I disable autorecord regardless... Recently I have gotten MDs in the lobby (I know a lot of people hosting games have too), so autorecord obviously cannot be the only reas
[quote who="JinglyGoo" reply="36" id="3382306"]I love that choice of words, i guess fancy words like periodic are the domain of the super smart modders lol. Superiority complex much zombie?[/quote] Cute.....
[quote who="JinglyGoo" reply="51" id="3382208"]I have even written a small guide how to test it for you, THIS was the original topic of discussion not some random scenario where badly skilled Marza and 50 (?!) cobalts attack the orky versus a prog with Shield restoration(?!) and 62 discs.[/quote] First person to do the test was the OP himself...I merely contested his results because he did not use equal fleet supplies and so I posted a fairer trial of his test ....Sinkillr con
[quote who="Sinkillr" reply="12" id="3382876"]I don't think I will play any more matches until Ironclad fixes this problem. It is completely ruining the multiplayer experience by throwing away a 1-2 hour game. [/quote] Concur...I've left ICO temporarily because of it...it just defeats the point...
Sin, I constantly got lobby MDs after a game ended because autorecord was on, so I had to disable it...not exactly the problem you have but I can sympathize with your frustration...
I miss the good ole days where one could pop in Halo 3 and guarantee a grand conversation on Xbox Live...
[quote who="JinglyGoo" reply="47" id="3381968"] Mate, i think you missed the point. We are discussing early game orky rushes under the above conditions. You cap ship doesnt not have enough time to lvl past 1 unless you buy a level. [/quote] An early game Orky rush is in no way comparable to the conditions extensively tested above...your recent post may be about early Orky rushing, but the vast majority of this thread is not.... The claim being made is that disciples
One of them has been on the forums for a while...I suppose you could dig up old posts, see if they "sound" the same...
[quote who="JinglyGoo" reply="37" id="3381958"]TAR is less useful after 1.50.[/quote] Did you mean DLC? v1.5 (without DLC) didn't really affect TAR, it's the DLC specialization that did... Otherwise, I basically agree, that's how I'd rank the factions as of now....moral of the story is that TL doesn't need any buffing...
It is limited in how many units it affects, but once it kills a unit, it can suck in another.... Basically, if the target cap is 10 then it can only suck in 10 units at a time ...but if one unit dies instantly, only 9 are currently being affected and thus another ship can now be sucked in.... That's my understanding anyway...haven't really tested it extensively but that's what seems to occur...
[quote who="ZombiesRus5" reply="1" id="3381810"]And account resets[/quote] Yeah....I've never smurfed (yet) but it gets more and more tempting with each steam sale....
[quote who="Greg30007" reply="9" id="3381600"]I dont think that is a good idea. If you nerf damage they will be useless until you get your shield bypass research[/quote] Vasari bombers are the hardest to kill and on a per squadron basis their base damage is barely below that of the Advent bombers (PM research puts them well over the top, obviously)... What would be wrong with putting Vasari base bomber damage more on par with TEC bombers? No one is claimin
[quote who="ZombiesRus5" reply="7" id="3381583"]Either way... KISS theory rules here. [/quote] Remove PlayerVasariLoyalist from entity manifest?
I don't think it's even necessary to change the weapon type of Vasari bombers...reduce their base damage just like everything else with PMs to compensate for the shield bypassing.... Advent also could use some nice PM blocking...my favorite would be to give PM blocking to their shield techs...even if you gave it only to the highest shield tech (the one that gives shield mitigation), if the value was right then it would be enough to balance the Vasari/Advent m
Well I have noticed for a long time that corvettes are not entirely treated like frigates when it comes to the empire tree....