that means when your industry is at 100% you are employing your entire population as government workers. All those billions? When you adjust the military,social,and tech sliders you are adjusting how much of your labor force is being utilized in each area ... what is the problem?? All those billions?! Nope,
when possible throw the luck ability in as well. Ok, a suggestion. Get rid of Luck. What it does in combat (increase min roll), have Attack and Defense do it. Makes more sense. Some changes will probably be needed of course, like capping them at 100% (or not, from that point on hye can increase attack/defense as normal by increasing max value correspondingly). Attack and defense values will be lowered, but average rolls will be higher. Starbases will be
One random question: does Star Federation increase income 40% rather than the documented 30%? The manual says 40% (was 50% in DL).
On the flip side, you produce more. A LOT more. But again, you have to figure out a way to pay for it. The problem here is all the *other* exploits. The long term leases (which you won't pay for fully), for example, the tech whoring, etc. There are too many exploits, and you can use them all to make one big exploit. Other gripes about the game aside, and not impuning the character of anyone who disagrees with me, does
They were called employment sliders in the DA manual because of all the talk about the sliders making no sense (and hence Frogboy *must* know about the "problem"). They needed an explanation so people could actually understand how the extremely unintuitive system works, and that's what they came up with. Of course it doesn't make sense in the RW, so doesn't the whole economic system. If it helps people to understand the system... As for Iztok's statement: Maybe we shoud be more v
HEY!! *I* am the grinder over here, with an axe and all! (evil grin)
@DoJ The differences are, Nope, the difference is noone tried to triage your posts (unless they were completely wrong assumptions, which would be natural. I don't criticize the developers. Well, I wouldn't want to generalize, but I've seen some replies from "them" that made me go WTF?! Some attitudes are recurrent, and that doesn't help. If I was part of writ
The point *you* don't seem to get is that different people have different experiences and interpretations. You talk about major developers, but you can't really compare. Else I'll point you to *freeware* sites, where developers work for *free*, on *free* games, with constant updates, and we're talking people that have *jobs* and code on their spare time - they're usually *very* small teams too. Their devotion is unprecedented, and I could even throw in my own experience with a small dev company,
If Torian reproduction is unrealistic, Yor reproduction is as least as much so, so who cares about realism there, just focus on game balance. Purge brought that one up, and it is indeed strange if you analyse the numbers alone. Of course it's a game balance issue. But look at the flagship issue for example. That's not a balance issue. It *directly contradicts* the game rules. You don't have the techs, you can't build it. Period. And there are more in th
Ok, here is where I have to chime in, because your problems with the game have now transformed into whining about the amount of community involvement that the developers have and how it affects the quality of their games. Sorry I had to force you into it No, the rest of the 30+ coders are just sitting around playing Oblivi
I preemptively replied to this ("judgment call", etc.). For some reason you deliberately refused to include that part when you quoted me. That it was a judgement call, there's no doubt. That doesn't mean I can't elaborate on my point of view, right? For that I don't need your judgement call sentence. I wasn't refuting it. So I don't see why I should mention it. No, you can't fix everything with 3 coders. <br/
Seems he did: An additional analysis has beed done using spreadsheet data about weapons' properties and research costs . Also look at the 3rd table.
Realism is always secondary to gameplay; I was pointing out that flooding a starport with ships for upgrading should actually be a *strategic* consideration. Which should be upgraded first, etc. This system removes that. just consider the extended upgrade time when away from a planet as transit time for unseen supply shuttles. Out of curiosity, how is this calculated? Does it take into consideration the
A good opportunity to overhaul the techtree. Create the Subspace Annihilator. Streamline the weapons/defenses by giving all versions of the same item the same attack/defense value (all phasors/disruptors/spike/photon/etc deal the same damage; all barriers/fields/kanvium/etc soak the same damage); if need be, make up new names for them. For consistency sake. Same with engines, Warp Drive V and above. Make Sensors increase with each level, and decrease hulls' base sensor range -
It's an interface issue because if you had to manually move the ship back to a planet, upgrade there, then move it back, that would take more player time. The current setup is very convenient. Can you imagine upgrading a large number of ships by bringing them back to planets. Putting 10 of them at a time into port. Upgrade them, then re-launch. Move the next 10 in. So on and so forth. That would be fine IF this
Actually, that was a legitimate question. What's an awesome idea for an AI? I'm curious, that's all. Granted, the AI in this game is better than the AI for most comparable games. But it has a lot in its favor, like the simplified techtree. It doesn't need "tactical squad" coordination. It was considered excellent in DL, yet it managed to get a huge boost in DA with lots of player input. Its flaws are labeled as not really AI related. It doesn't have any kind of situational awareness, especi
The distance modifier is comparable to moving back to the planet, docking, and then returning to your current position. The time doesn't match precisely, and you can argue that that needs to be fixed. But the interface is fine. Heheh. You see the ship moving? How is the interface fine if the ship (which could be attacked on its way to the planet and back) stands still? And who said it was an interface issue? I'm sayin
Maybe we are all missing the 'bigger picture' with this in the sense that the MAIN, at least in my opinion, feature of this game is 'supposed' to be the AI... nothing more. You're buying a game, not an AI. All of the other things obviously were thrown in 'around' the AI more than being added during the 'development' phase. That doesn't preclude throwing them in in a logical and intuitive fashion. <b
Actually it already makes sense -- the further you are away from a friendly planet, the longer it takes to upgrade. Feature, not bug. Apparently you didn't read. Upgrades need a docking bay. Period. You don't get the *new* components from the Precursors. You don't build the new components aboard the ship. The distance modifier doesn't cut it. Feature, yes, bad one. One of the simplified "strategy" features. It would be
@ ToS - Why do you still play the game if your opinion of it is so low? Why do you spend your time here continuosly criticizing the developers? No flame intended - just really curious. Apparently you don't know my opinion about the game. So let me try to enlighten you. On a conceptual level, no doubt the game sucks. I'm just being honest here, since you asked. It lacks imagination and depth for a *space* *strategy* game. It does,
Am I the only one that thinks that researching with factories or building with labs is crazy!? Of course not! Though crazy is not the word I'd use... I don't mean it is a bad strategy; I wouldn't call that a strategy, but rather (ab)using poor design. in fact it is a good way
Transfer PATH!? Were you asleep in "N Dimensional Physics 301"?? (grin) Nope, apparently YOU were. Resources are *beamed*, not warped, or any pocket dimension or time distortion related bull Then there's the issue with resources actually decreasing with distance, but we're really not getting into a physics discussion here, are we? <img src="http://images.
one tries to use the "pure element" transmat technology in/near a significant gravity well (and/or atmosphere). You're not forgetting that the *receiving station* is in that category, are you? Not to mention that there can be other planets or objects in the transfer path...
They have a small team that focuses on these problems first. The theory is nice. But like I said above, concentrating *only* on these problems postpones other problems, and since fixes more often than not either don't fix or create other problems... that's a problem. Like I also said, all it takes is one person, and little time. If other people like the game the way it is, why complain about that? Beca
since resources are beamed to planets, you can actually redirect asteroids to planets in *other* star systems There's also the smallish detail that you can beam resources from asteroids to planets, but not from one planet to another... rather curious. It was fixed in an earlier patch, if I recall correctly. In the latest apparently. It's not. It was, un
