Oopsie, I stand corrected. Confuzzled, I got



While I realize you're not going to give away much info until it's ready, will some/all of these changes be in the first patch, or is your first patch focused on other things?

Nice chat today Yarlen, also with Craig

Hope once more returns to SINS!

I hope my official time line suggestion gets implemented!

Oh Noes!

That's what I would have requested.

--------

On a bit more serious note, how high are the chances for slight changes in the economic and resource model of the Vasari?

For example the Vasari refinery could be changed to work as a resource generator without the trading ships. It wouldn't be a big change in gameplay (it would generate metal/crystal with an average rate compared to TEC refineries, or depending on the available asteroids it would just up their resource production?) but it would make the TEC and the Vasari more unique by presentation and "feeling".

Basically I'm speaking about changes which wouldn't have very large impacts on fundamental gameplay, but would be things that make the races feel more different, even in the basics and in the early game.

oh I hope the devs dont give into the "I dont know how to play this, make it simplerz!" pressure. I'm fine with nominal shifting of strength and tech levels and I'm certainly not against making the teams more diverse, but if they make the vasari as OP and 1-dimensional and (frankly) simple (cough) as many people on this board seem to favor, then I may have to reconsider my relationship with this game. this game has been too much of a step forward for the strategy game industry to be ruined by complaining within the first week of the new races.

or more simply: if too much ingenuity gets taken out for the quipping and whining going around these boards, I may consider going to. I'm simply not up to having a game of "TEC, TEC 2.0 and TEC 3.0"

Daton you're in a league all your own, most people here acknowledge the differences as significant, but not what they expected. I'm not explaining this to you again.

Nobody is asking for that. Please stop looking at this issues so one dimensionally.

Some people are asking to make individual Vasari ships stronger but less numerous, while other people (like me) are asking to make the Vasari more different from the TEC by changing certain parts of the Vasari which are either identical or similar to the TEC.

Nobody has asked "to make it simplerz!" in all the posts I've read on this board. Most of them actually asked for more diversification, which is the opposite of making stuff "simpler".

The devs stated well, Blair Frazer did IIRC that they made the races similar in lower levels on purpose, to make the beginning easier and to have complexity coming later (with higher research and levels of capital ships). What some of us are asking for (or whishing for) is to not make the races similar at the beginning.

Also the focus some want on more power for the Vasari then just agility doesn't make the game "easierz", it would just make them different with no influence on the need for skill and proper tactics (if they get balanced right of course).



Come on. Nobody has until now started to "threat" with leaving because of this. Now it doesn't need you to start with that. That's just no way for a reasonable discussion to happen.


Edit:
@GrandGnu
Personal attacks don't lead to anything, so please let's not start with them. It only achieves a hostile tone on the forums which would be sad for us players and even worse for the devs. After all, it's still a pretty nice place here.

But why then did you say the following?

Vasari ships are allready slightly superior to TEC ships on a 1 vs. 1 basis (specifically not looking at cost effectiveness at all). So they're allready "toe to toe". Making individual Vasari ships stronger (even to the extreme example of making a Vasari ship twice as powerful as a TEC ship) wouldn't change that.

But the TEC are able to outproduce the Vasari and win with numerical superiority (mostly thanks to the much higher resource and support cost of Vasari ships). Now if the Vasari ships get even stronger and more expansive, that wouldn't change that balance much.

Specifically it wouldn't make the game simpler or harder at all.

So I come back to my initial question, why did you then start with the assumption that people are saying: ?

To play devil's advocate, the ability to deal with 'difficult' people without reducing yourself to the same methods is as much a sign of intellectual and social maturity as not being so difficult in the first place.

Schod knows himself, and he doesn't deny his attitude or his ego, I have to give him credit for that. And, while I rarely agree with the way he goes about making his points, once you read through the outer layers of his posts and get at what he's trying to say, his points are no more or less valid than anyone else's on the forum.

Except that is a change.

A) It completely eliminates any possibilty of "trade attacks" -- attacking a persons refinery ships.

Since refineries send their units out interstellar, its possible, if not efficient, to have a bunch of them in a defended "node" of some kind that reaches out to a half dozen systems for the resources, can't reproduce that with your model.

hey, I did ask you nicely first.

yeah, not much of a rebuke, but its true.

  
uh, you mean its c) false

that being said (hey wait, havent you been around long enough to know I'm an intollerable ass?) I appreciate you coming to my aid... uh, sorta.

*JAMS the ignore button*
I will continue to do this until you stop quoting me, as I have no other judge of whether or not you're attacking me.

you see Daton, you so clearly missed what I said

I said I have NO knowledge of what you mean EXCEPT through what you say, something I'm VERY certain is a nonperfect system. hence why I say I do not know what you want, what I do know is what you say. thats a perfect paraphrasism.

no, thank you, completely forgot what thread we were on.

like theif said, enough banter. back to the OT