Don't mind me, I just got something in my eye. Seriously though, Steam can keep their SupCom 2 exclusive. If you could have revived the matchmaking system, this 12 1/2 year old game would beat SupCom 1 and 2 in every way except graphics. For those who bought it already, I would strongly recommend you get the following mods from http://switeck.tauniverse.com/: -TA Bugfix 1.6 - an unofficial patch that basically fixes all the issues with the g
lbgsloan
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="62" id="2555467"] its starting to irritate me now....most people who play vas now are spamming 3 carriers... It was the Halcyon last patch. It's always something. After the Skirantra, it will be something else. Many people have the mindset that they just want to "win," whatever the cost. Back in the "carriers ruled" patch, I never built a single carrier cruiser. I knew they were OP, and I didn't want to win that
[quote who="RevHumpjoy" reply="13" id="2555112"]The Beam pact doesn't upgrade "Beams". It upgrades damage overall, helpful to any race not just Beam weapons. Every pact is capable of helping any other race, just hover over it and it will tell you what it does. Beams pact doesn't mean it only improves beams, that's just the name they gave it.[/quote] What? Did you not see the first reply showing what the beam pact data file says? That's a severe bug if it's a 15% dama
Large team games can simply never be balanced unless it was designed with that in mind from the ground up (ie World in Conflict). Too many mechanics that keep things balanced in 1v1, 2v2 and FFA go out the window with too many players. Requiring three civ labs and a two techs to feed helps things somewhat, but at the end of the day people can still specialize to degrees that weren't meant to be viable in smaller games. Yes feeding breaks the game and removes skill. B
Maybe it's the bombers themselves that need a nerf, not the Skirnatra. If fighters and flak simply can't kill the bombers efficiently, then it doesn't matter if Scramble Bombers is nerfed slightly. A carrier with all fighters or an equal cost in flak should beat a unsupported carrier with all bombers. If the fighters/flak are losing, the counter system is broken and something needs to be looked at.
OP is right, the AIs do not seem to put bounty on each other anymore. Back in Entrenchment, AIs used to focus on their 'main enemy'. If someone bid on you, you could throw bounty on one of the distant AIs and they'd usually get pissed at their neighbor instead of you. Now throwing bounty of any of the AIs will always get them to throw it back on you. With this and other issues, might just be best to wait for another round of patch changes before turning the pirates on
Not a bad idea, advertising for lesser known games and PC exclusives that usually get none. There's a lot of games out there that people would probably enjoy, but know nothing about and aren't willing to take a blind chance on. With the big publishers seemingly getting more and more disinterested in porting to PC, this is the chance for others to shine.
Yes, sorry for being unclear. As long as you've seen the planet once during the game, you can now know if it's been taken and who controls it. It doesn't matter if your last intel was 2 hours ago and there's still neutral ships listed there, you can quickly see if the someone now controls it or not. Likewise you can also tell if someone didn't colonize it, or if the last pirate raid bombed it to death, etc.
Doesn't seem like it. My friend and I regularly play against unfair AIs, and I've never seen an AI superweapon.
The reviews for the full version are out, and the seem to mirror the general opinions of the demo here. It's easier to play than 1, but it now lacks depth and anything to really make it stand out in the sea of RTS'. It's not a bad game, just not one you'll still be playing months from now. SupCom 1 was complex, but at least that gave it a niche. Now it's just a bit too generic. Finally (and this isn't specific to Sup Com 2), what happened
[quote who="Agent of Kharma" reply="7" id="2540769"]The approach they should have taken from the very beginning was to make Vanilla, Entrenchment, and Diplomacy all work together. If you don't have a particular expansion, you can't play with those particular technologies and units, but you can still play in the same game with everyone else. This is the approach DOW 2 is taking with their Chaos expansion. It's a no-brainer, but especially with an online community this small.&
In a 4 players FFA game I'm currently playing, there's one player I have only seen one planet of. If I give another player a mission, I can cycle through ALL their planets. In another game, I saw a known planet on the list. I novalithed it and it was removed from the list. A scout confirmed it was dead. 15 mins later, that planet reappared on the mission list despite me not having sight to it (still grey on my map). A scout later confirmed
The trick is not to outbid the AI by one increment, but do it by two or three. If the bidding is tied, the attack still goes to whoever the previous target was. Thus if you have 250 bounty on you, and throw 750 on the AI they now have to bid up to 1000 on you to get it off them. The AI is more likely to 'think about it' when there's a larger gap in the bidding as opposed to only needing one bid to beat you. Generally the AI likes to go up by 500 or so at a time, so thi
They always go. Once the credits get deducted, the ships get spawned and move to whatever location you sent them to.
Using the mission screen, you can give someone a mission to attack a certain planet. Problem is, you can see every planet your target currently controls here regardless of whether you've seen it or not.
That's way better than what TEC gets from beams. As for Visari, just include skirmisher weapons. If that can't be done, oh well. Advent doesn't get anything from the TEC missile pact, and it's not like Visari were getting anything from the beam upgrade.
Considering the tech or cap ships levels required to 'exploit' the pirate base, it's really not much of an exploit. In fact, it can actually be required to kill the pirates late game as it becomes impossible to kill them with conventional tactics.
[quote who="Greyfox2" reply="16" id="2549357"]All the carrier caps have always had their place. I am fine with having a cap variety being a good thing. Now it is not a variety. You say that carrier caps should be the centerpiece yet ask why don't other caps compete. I disagree that carrier caps should be the centerpiece. It is just as easy for caps to die(if not easier) to skirantra/bomber spam from scramble bombers than it is from LRFs. If you have any amo
Pirate strength is a little better, but still needs some minor tweaks. The real problem with them is that the raid and mission timers are not really taking how powerful they are into account. By the time one raid gets fought off, another will be forming. If you lose the bidding war again, you will never be able to expand unless you can get the pirates to repeatedly attack a starbase. And this is someone who's played the game since day 1; there's a good reason why new p
There's still a lot of tech that sucks/isn't priced fairly, but again that isn't the scope of the thread. I made thread a while back on tech in general that needed help but it fell into oblivion. I mean look at Visari Wave upgrades. Why are these so high on the tech tree when TEC and Advent HC weapon upgrades come much lower on the tree AND benefit more ship types? The problem is Ironclad priced all research based on tech level, not on usefulness. And si
The problem isn't so much the carrier caps being too good, it's that the other caps haven't been brought up to the same level. For years colonzier caps and the Marza were the only cap types worth looking at, and only recently have the carrier finally been made worthwhile as well. I mean, how is the poor Kol, Antorak, or Rapture supposed to compete these days? Carrier caps have once again made caps the centerpiece of a fleet as they should be. Nerf them and it's back
[quote who="top vasari" reply="5" id="2548495"]one thing i would like is the beam pact be changed to a laser pact. That way it doesnt only affect caps and SBs if you are not Advent. Maybe for Vas pulse guns could be upgraded by the laser pact. Right now Beam pact sucks, unless you are another advent player. And there should be some diversity in who you give pacts to. [_]-Uber[/quote] This is a pretty good idea actually, if Visari pulse weapons a
[quote who="VicenteC" reply="94" id="2547280"] Quoting lbgsloan, reply 92Consoles may ironically doom themselves as their hardware becomes more and more advanced. Take the PS3 at launch; $600. Then you need a second controller, a memory card, and some games if you want it to actually do anything beyond play movies. I don't know in your country, but PS2 costed that when it came out in mine, and it sold like pancakes...[/quote] Never said they won't sell, but the c
Wait a full year after Starcraft 2 finally gets released, and you MIGHT start to be close to a release date of Diablo 3. Not worth thinking about for the time being. Just get Torchlight if you want Diablo for now.
The Advent envoy abilities are in fluff with the race design. They're religous to the point of zeal, and technologically advanced. They more or less would look down on other races, so their definition of 'helping' would mainly come in the form of 'religous guidance'; or in game terms, culture boosts. Benefit-wise, Advent pacts and envoys are selfish. Things like the culture boost, culture pact, beam pact, and shield pact are far more beneficial to another Advent play