Darvin3

Darvin3

Joined Member # 3427815
3 Posts 1,842 Replies 1,395 Reputation

[QUOTE]Do those changes drastically change the way a game plays out? Esp. interms of pacing and overall strategy. Or does it just add some new cool features but nothing game altering.[/QUOTE] One of each. Entrenchment really changed the overall pacing and strategy with its starbases. It opened up a whole wealth of new approaches and tactics. Definitely a superb improvement to the game. Aside from playing multiplayer with friends who only have the base game, I

4 Replies 16,257 Views

[quote]Do you all think the demo is very representative of what the game is like now? Or have their been substantial changes in the gameplay graphics etc.?[/quote] The [i]content[/i] is there in the demo, but the game has been substantially refined since then. Many abilities have been reworked, units have had their roles refined, etc. The demo will certainly still give you a lot of insight into what the game's about, but it has evolved substantially since then.

9 Replies 24,336 Views

[quote] c: Resources specifiable[/quote] Of your list, this is the only one that I think is realistic (not that I wouldn't like to see the others, I just don't think they're happening). Being able to specify the resource levels would add much more control to galaxyforge. Especially with uncolonizable gravity wells, it would be nice to finally have some control over what actually ends up there. For that matter, militia are just as big of a wild card, and

181 Replies 541,237 Views

Given the antimatter regen bonus of stars, I find that you're better off buying carrier cruisers and parking them next to the bases than buying these upgrades. You'll get more strike craft that way, you can redeploy them for offensives, and because of the star antimatter is irrelevant.

7 Replies 24,153 Views

[quote]Maybe I could bug them on IRC and get more answers.[/quote] Probably; there's not a whole lot of developer activity on the forums. I'm crossing my fingers on this one; map and mod transfer would breath a lot of life and variety into Sins multiplayer. It would also be a great opportunity for the modding community to share their work.

32 Replies 20,046 Views

Heh, I modded [i]a lot[/i] more complex stuff when I was creating Warcraft III maps. Anyways, I'd agree they've probably prototyped what they're going to do, but I still had an urge to brainstorm, and I liked what I wrote down so I posted it. As I said earlier, these are the kinds of capital ships I've [i]wanted[/i] to build but couldn't because they don't exist. A protector/disruptor for TEC, a brute-force tank for Advent, and a mobile factory.

181 Replies 541,237 Views

[quote]I'd like to see such hammeradin, which could easily reach 10k damage with hammers with his own found equipment without any major farming[/quote] It's been several years, so maybe I've got the numbers wrong. I seem to recall reaching 10k just with the scraps I found along the way. At any rate, the point is that you can still solo hell easily with this guy, and we're in agreement on that! [quote]Such items like Enigma are pretty much unaffordable legimately[/q

21 Replies 80,337 Views

[quote]There's already an Advent ability named Suppression.[/quote] Ah, whoops. It's now named "Repression". [quote]Dont we already know that in Rebellion there will be additional capital abilities? maybe you want to add 1 more to each?[/quote] I've interpreted that as the existing abilities are getting more levels (ie, level 4 shield regeneration) rather than entirely new abilities to add to. Because I have no idea how they're going to peg the scaling for

181 Replies 541,237 Views

[quote]However you remember hammer paladin (especially him), summoner necromancer weren't such builds[/quote] That's because they got buffed in successive patches. Hammerdins were absolute crud after normal difficulty in the unpatched version of the game. Post-synergy, they're fricken insane, easily dealing over 10k damage per hammer unoptimized. The necromancer's skeletons were only good for lagging people out of the game. The "fewer, stronger" change they r

21 Replies 80,337 Views

[quote]50 shields drained/sec, 10 antimatter drained/sec and 10% shield mitigation drained/sec for all targets within attack range. It's like a super EMP combined with shield mitigation nullification(which is absolutely huge)[/quote] I'm not going to argue it's balanced, since I was pulling ballpark numbers out of a hat. However, the limiting factor for this ability was area of effect at 3000. This is the same area of effect as level 1 shield regeneration on the Prog

84 Replies 247,195 Views

There aren't many multiplayer replays for the latest version of Entrenchment, since most of the multiplayer community has moved on to Diplomacy. There were some good multiplayer Diplomacy replays posted up by a few players recently, but those won't help you much. Keep in mind that auto-record is enabled by default, so you can review your own games and see what your enemies did. The most [i]likely[/i] issue you're having is colonization. The key to a strong earl

1 Replies 16,860 Views

[quote]I was just responding to the previous post. [/quote] Fair enough. [quote]Frankly some of your capital ship ideas sound just as overpowering, in relative terms. [/quote] Compare them against the low-end stuff like the Antorak or Kol and then yes they're quite powerful. Compare them against the high-end stuff like Progenitor and Skirantra, and it's another matter entirely. As I've stated countless times before, I believe the Halcyon is golden standard

84 Replies 247,195 Views

I don't think I can get it to a state where it's strong against players without being too strong against militia without losing its flavour and concept. Besides, the more I think about it, the "lovecraftian tenticle horror" aspect of this skill would make a better ultimate than nano-assemblers. Actually, after having rewritten nano-assemblers as a non-ultimate, I quite like it, so I'm making the swap. <

181 Replies 541,237 Views

It occurs to me that nano-leech has to go. It can allow the Rakul to defeat a virtually limitless number of militia singlehandedly. Once it has 5 or 6 units "leeched" its repairing so quickly that it's never going to die. I think I'm going to redesign nano-leech as a level 6 ability and retool nano-assemblers as a regular ability...

181 Replies 541,237 Views

[quote]darvin i would love the Vasari Overlord idea. With a few of those sent through wormholes you could completely blindside opponents[/quote] I've always wanted a mobile frigate factory. It doesn't seem glamorous, but for those who have played the game you'd know that's something [i]worth[/i] spending a capital ship on. [quote]Oh about the advent Maven. What happens if the target is a starbase or capital. Would it just damage them or what?[/quote]

181 Replies 541,237 Views

[quote]Advent SB's can have something like 20 squadrons already. 2 freebies, 3 levels at 4 each, and a fourth level that grants 6 squads[/quote] Ludicrously expensive. Even ignoring the fact that this starbase would almost invariably have other upgrades (at very least 1 hull so it won't be destroyed in the blink of an eye), that's already well beyond the cost of two superweapons. [quote]A single Halcyon alone can field 11 squadrons if it survives to make enough lev

84 Replies 247,195 Views

[QUOTE]And Darvin Yay for the first vasari cap with no Phase Missiles.[/QUOTE] Technically no; since it starts with two strike craft squads and relatively low base weapon damage, the [i]majority[/i] of its damage is actually PM-based. At any rate, the Jarrasul doesn't have phase missiles, either.

181 Replies 541,237 Views

[quote]oh! how about a late game tech to get capitol ships up and running at higher levels because a lv 1 sucks late game. basically a mass trancendance thing[/quote] Mass Transcendance is Advent's thing. TEC and Vasari can still buy capital ship levels, it's just expensive. I think the bigger problem is that there are too many capital ships that suck at level 1. The [i]good[/i] capital ships that get used in online play are generally quite decent even from level 1

181 Replies 541,237 Views

[quote]I have never beat either Diablo or Diablo II/LoD, it is very difficult to pull off[/quote] D1 ultimately came down to abusing stone curse. The bosses themselves actually weren't that intimidating in hell mode compared to the regular baddies, which were the true monsters. You could make the bosses flinch often enough that you could tank them with potions, whereas the regular monsters made YOU flinch and chopped you up to mince meat. In D2... I recommend loadi

21 Replies 80,337 Views

[quote]Feeling useless because your sword barbarian hasn't found a sword in days is really frustrating.[/quote] This was [i]especially[/i] true in D2 due to absolutely crap item drops once you got into nightmare. Ironically, the only place you could get half-decent item drops were from the bosses that you couldn't beat without said items. I've never beaten the game on hell difficulty with the gear I've found myself as anything other than a caster.

21 Replies 80,337 Views

As I said, there's something to be said for simplification. SupCom got a bit wrapped up in base management and you spent too much time nit-picking engineers. There was a lot of room for improvement there, but instead of trying to reduce the management load and technical sophistication while maintaining the depth and strategic sophistication, they threw out the depth.

52 Replies 139,495 Views

There's something to be said for streamlining and simplification if it's done right. Many traditional RTS games have [i]unnecessary[/i] complexity that don't really add anything and in fact distract from the game. Sins of a Solar Empire is actually a great example of what good streamlining is; there is nothing [i]missing[/i] from this game, but the nuts and bolts of your empire more or less manage themselves. You don't need to juggle construction frigates to optimize work or

52 Replies 139,495 Views