Recent topics Log in
Search Profile
Memberlist Usergroups
Log in to check your private messages
Register
No C3 or C4 combat?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic
SpaceTrace Forum Forum Index » FAQ » No C3 or C4 combat?
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:42 am    Post subject: No C3 or C4 combat?
Reply with quote

Ok I am still a noob so this is news to me but it seems really really flawed. It could be a bug, it could be a purposeful mechanicc but a player already stated to me that he exploits this which brings me to my point: this is exploitable which would mean to me it should be ammended or removed.

If an opponent has no C3 or C4 in their fleet when you attack them, why dooesnt your own C3 and C4 ships have a chance to act in combat? Its like penalizing a person for the OPPONENTS lack of any c3 or c4 ships. Apollos and Cyclopses act like totally useless sitting ducks and your own C4 ships dont even get the opportunity to fire their effects making them all useless wastes of MP aswell...

There are already, IMO, overpowered anti-swank ships so this seems like a moot mechanic. Can someone explain to me the justification of such a bogus battle mechanic?
_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Thromen
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant


Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 41
Location: U.S.A

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:21 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

All you have to do is free your class one and two and allow their other ships to activate yours. Why it is that way I can't say.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:40 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

So I am suppost to let their c1 and c2 fire directly on my c3 & c4 just because they lost/moved their own c3 & c4? How is that a fair alternative?


_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Senor
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 1114
Location: estonia

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:19 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

The class combat in ST is very interesting and gives a lot of depth. Thats why you have ships that create dummy targets in the enemy fleet so that your special c3 ships can activate even if enemy doesnt have any c3 of their own.

Besides, there are not so many occasions when you can have an empty c3/c4. You can do that only when you are passively defending. Which means that you cant move those fleets around.

I think its not a problem.

EDIT: what thromen meant that you can free your c1 and c2 if you have cyclopses and apollos that get activated by enemy c1 and c2 for some massive damage to enemy. Its called a swank.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Stratagon
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant


Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 45

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:47 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

it can only exploited for defense (you cant move)

and the only class 3 type fleet that suffers from it is th e swank type fleet.

it's the logic of st battles...
_________________
JG 472 Störche ... delivered with love ♥ ♦ ♣ 🂡
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Stratagon
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant


Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 45

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:59 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

the logic is like:

c1 vs c1
c2 vs c2
c3 vs ... nothing... then... against what we should fight commander??? against class 2??
no... ///battle over!

it is less quirky that 1000 fighters get defended by one fighter.

and it is something that you need to know if youre using apollo/cyclops...
_________________
JG 472 Störche ... delivered with love ♥ ♦ ♣ 🂡
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:06 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

@Senor:
Bullhonkey! I would consider it much more than "passively" defending when you can deploy this strategy at any given location, including scoreplanets. Besides that it can be used on ANY occassion with two fleets present as you can remove your c3/c4 at any time and just to abuse the mechanic. Also; even though I think the idea that I would have to create ships in the enemies fleet to benefit myself is nonesense, to what ships are you referring to that create ships in the ENEMIES fleet? Besides the Plague ship I know of none.. In alot of instances that "tactic" would be horribly counter productive.

I understood what Thromen was saying and the mechanics by which it would be possible but I stand by my statement: You expect me to free my fleet of c1 and c2 and let the enemies c1 and c2 tear my c3 apart unopposed just so what is left of them will activate? That is ridiculous! How can you call that "massive damage" when your c3 is destroyed because of your own lack of c1 and c2? Thats more appropriately named a fail-swank. Abusing mechanics for your own advantage is cheating and cheating is cheating wether or not you call it or consider it "passive".

@Stratagon:
That is what anti-swank ships are for. Thats why this darn mechanic is not needed. You say its logic but how is it logical that when c1 and c2 ships are unopposed they fire up, outside of their class, but when c3 and c4 (c2 aswell I would imagine) go unopposed they dont fire down outside of their class? Besides that, this affects more than just swank-fleets.. It stops Constructors from firing, Carriers from firing, Pirate Flags from firing, etc, etc. Its overall bogus.. Its this kinda whacked out malarky that gets me hot under the collar because the people that are acting like this isint unfair or abusable are the one that are using it to their advantage. Your logic is like this:

(their fleet = containing all classes)
(your fleet = nothing but c1 and c2 because THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR NOT HAVING A C3 WHEN EXPLOITING THIS BUG!)
(their c1 vs your c1)
(their c2 vs your c2)
(their c3 & c4 dont even get the opportunity to act because you manipulated this mechanic into nullifying their classes!)
You think, "If I dont have them, why should theirs fight?", is fair? By that same "logic", ships should not "fire upwards" the same way they will not "fire downwards". (Not that I am endorsing that particular change; just illustrating a point)
_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."


Last edited by Cloudgatherer on Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:15 am; edited 3 times in total
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Board Admin
Board Admin


Joined: 09 Jan 2002
Posts: 2938

 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:32 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

oh, i see, editing wasnt allowed... now it works.

about your topic:

it is worth a discussion, what you say.
it was always like it is now for years, so we all got adapted to that tactics.

i don't exactly know it it really gives us more strategical depth, like it is now, or just more confusion to new players.

we will discuss it again...
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
admin
Board Admin
Board Admin


Joined: 09 Jan 2002
Posts: 2938

 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:37 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Cloudgatherer wrote:
to what ships are you referring to that create ships in the ENEMIES fleet? Besides the Plague ship I know of none..


here you see all ships, that create ships during the battle:
http://spacetrace.org/man/tec.php?techname=commando-fighter&search=add

search for "create,enemy"
or "create,both" to find the modifier, that creates ships in the enemy fleet
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:34 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Ok I stand corrected.. The Holo-Generator: created specifically for this purpose. Never took notice of it before. Probably because I never seen it on a planet and I am not a fan of holo-tech so I never gave its syntax a second look.

Heres my problem with this: Its only useful for this purpose and it just adds to the difficulty and confusion of countering the no c3/c4 exploitation. Its basically impossible to have this ship on hand when it would actually serve its purpose well unless the "anchored" fleet is close enough for you to get to your base and switch your layout without them just simply putting the c3/c4 back into place, otherwise its just getting in the way... How am I suppost to know when an opponent will use the exploitation? If it actually activates against someone who isint using the exploit they get the advantage yet again as it potentially saves the opponent 10 shots from my own c3 OR saves their x-x-0-x fleet from having its c4 fired upon. I am damned if I do and damned if I dont! Why should I have to *potentially* give the enemy an advantage just to let my ships fire when they should have all the right in the world to do so already! What was the point of inventing anti-swank ships at all when the real anti-swank is this cheat? I am expected to constantly carry holo-generators in ANTICIPATION of someone cheating even though I get the shaft if they dont "anchor"? What if I dont even have access to E-Ray tech? It makes this cheat uncounterable. Also, what about "anchored" c1 ONLY fleets? This doesnt help against those at all as it wont even get its chance to activate and spawn the holo-ships.

This just seems really daft to me. Its unnecessarily complicates combat and from a realistic standpoint it makes no sense at all. Ships that have special abilities all of a sudden go dumb and forget how to use them, magically nullified? Yes there is nothing for them to "fire upwards" at but that shouldnt prevent the use of their abilities completely.. Honestly I feel that all the thought and reflection I have used on fleet design has been wasted! Apparently I should have only been building c1/c2 ships this whole time!
_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Stratagon
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant


Joined: 22 Dec 2011
Posts: 45

 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:37 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

normally it's really bad to let your class 3 fight against a lower class (execpt swank fleet etc.) so this makes sense...
_________________
JG 472 Störche ... delivered with love ♥ ♦ ♣ 🂡
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
spacetrace
Board Admin
Board Admin


Joined: 24 Dec 2001
Posts: 1624

 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:04 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

first: i appreaceate your effort to analyse this game and your search for flaws.

but i dont think this is a flaw!

on the first glimpse this could really look quirky, but i think it is part of the battle system of st.

i understand your concerns, but there are many odd things in the battle system and we constructed them deliberately.

when a subbattle ends (1 fighter against 1000 fighters) , the battle stops.

if we would enable a class 3 battle, with cyclopes f.e., against a empty class 3, then we must consequently continue a sub battle.

example: class 3 with cyclopes against a single selfdestruction ship: the enemy ship selfdestructs ... and now? all the cyclopes need to shoot in this logic.

if we implement this people will ask then... why are my fighters not fighting against class 2 after they destroyed a single class one ship.

aso.

yes it is unreal , somehow, but this is a game, and we shouldn't sacrifice a cool game engine for realism.
if this issue is really out of balance we would find a way to balance it - within the existuing rules

Naturally, there should be a good guide to make the rules clear. as long as the rules are clear and balanced it should be o'right.

in order to have a more easy access to ships that can help in this situation, we should consider to add the holo-generator to the tec tree (and some similar ship on the other side of the race-wheel)
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Senor
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 1114
Location: estonia

 Post Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:18 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

I think you are overreacting here a bit Cloud.

Instead of calling this a cheat, i would call it a tactic. Its actually the first time i hear anyone complaining about this.

Yes, you can have really powerful defense with fleets full of only penguins and interceptors without any c3 or c4. (penguins wont recycle if there is no c4 battle). This is basically the best use of having empty upper classes. But, this setup will fail miserably if the enemy uses cyclops or spectres without lower classes so that all cyclops or spectres activate in the c1 versus c3 or c2 battle.

Its a tactic, just as legitimate as swank fleets (basically the reverse situation). Everybody can use this tactic so its not unbalanced towards anyone. You just have to be prepared for this.

I agree that the battle mechanic of Spacetrace might not be the easiest one around, but that is what gives it so much depth and a much higher skill ceiling than any other browser strategy game i have seen.

The real problem is lack of easily accessible content about all the special tactics for newbies. Maybe i will write a ST special tactics tutorial or something.

cheers!
senor
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:18 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Well I am not trying to come in here and tell anyone what the mechanic should or shouldnt be and I will admit my opinion on this is biased as I learned of this mechanic the hard way!

Obviously I didnt know about it as I wasent sure if it was a bug or not when I first posted. Seeing as it is indeed purposeful you are right, "cheat" wouldnt be an appropriate word. Frankly, I was just using that word in particular to illustrate my discontent. I think I more accurately dubbed the technique "anchoring".

I know that everyone in the loop is familiar with using the technique (I stated above that those that do not have a problem with it are the ones using it) and it is unusal and makes the game that much more deep and complex; but, "bell and whistle" mechanics should not flourish over solid reasoning. Your ships should do something when they go into battle. This mechanic caters to people who use low class only fleets and "anchor". There is no penalty for not having c3 ships in this way.

My problem right now with the Holo-Generator is that it has the potential to totally screw you bringing it into battle but from what I have gathered so far, it is basically manditory to have it with you. It's "niche but nesscessary" and I dont feel that is fair. Someone can "anchor" a fleet whenever they want at a desired location, so you MUST carry one with you in case they do; however, if they DONT happen to "anchor" their fleet, the Holo-Generator becomes a total footin' nuisance by SAVING the c4 of an X-X-0-X fleet from being attacked by providing c3 cover -OR- by providing the enemy with 10 extra blockers to save their exsisting c3 from being hit. Anti-swank ships totally shut down any hope of using a swanker and only cost you the risk of potentially losing their MP worth of points for the service, this ship on the other hand is suppost to be a NESSCESSARY BALANCER but costs a hell of alot more than just it's own MP.

I feel it should be recycleable off base or something, so that it doesnt screw over the user. Maybe if it provided a button on the Nav menu that enabled/disabled this ships ability from activating it would be a little fairer. In ANY event, to make things balanced, there will absolutely HAVE to be 3 more ships put into being. One to serve as the Holo-Generator for the other races, one to serve as a minor Holo-Generator that creates a c2 ship in the enemies fleet to counter the currently unstoppable "anchored" c1-only fleet, and another minor Holo-Generator for the other side of the race-wheel. Since these ships are nesscessary it would be nice if they were buildable but that itself would mean very little to me if everything else about this remained the same.

Senor wrote:

Yes, you can have really powerful defense with fleets full of only penguins and interceptors without any c3 or c4. (penguins wont recycle if there is no c4 battle). This is basically the best use of having empty upper classes. But, this setup will fail miserably if the enemy uses cyclops or spectres without lower classes so that all cyclops or spectres activate in the c1 versus c3 or c2 battle.

Its a tactic, just as legitimate as swank fleets (basically the reverse situation). Everybody can use this tactic so its not unbalanced towards anyone. You just have to be prepared for this.


This illustrates my point about the overpowered "anchored" c1-ONLY fleets. Though I feel Senor is missing the point I was making about higher classes being ripped to shreads by lower ones thus dimishing the great gains these cyclopses and spectres are suppost to be getting.

Yes, anyone can "anchor"; however, as of right now, anyone without e-ray tech cannot very well counter it.
_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Senor
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 1114
Location: estonia

 Post Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:44 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Cloudgatherer wrote:
Though I feel Senor is missing the point I was making about higher classes being ripped to shreads by lower ones thus dimishing the great gains these cyclopses and spectres are suppost to be getting.


nope. you understand the mechanics wrong here.

lets say the enemy has 500 penguins and 500 interceptors in a fleet without c3 or c4. you attack this fleet with 10 cyclops without c1 or c2. What happens is that all of your cyclops activate and destroy the whole enemy c1 with no losses to you what so ever.
That is because in ST ships take turns to fight.

So it goes like this:
1. an enemy penguin deals 4 damage to one of your cyclops.
2. one of your cyclopses destroys 100 of his c1.
3. an enemy interceptor activates and does nothing because there is no c1 on your fleet.
4. one of your cyclpos activates and destroys 100 enemy c1.
5. an enemy penguin deals additional 4 damage to the previously damaged cyclops.
etc etc...

The point here is that all of your cyclops get their turn and activate before enough enemy c1 can go off to destroy one of your cyclops.


Oh and i think i have used the holo-generator maybe 2-3 times total during my 20+ accounts. Its definately not mandatory to have it with you. Remember that an enemy can have an "anchored" c1 only when defending. So you will have the initiative and control because you choose when to attack. You can make several fly overs before the real attack to see what changes the enemy plans on making on the final minute.
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:28 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Ok in these examples, you are assuming the attacker even has access to Cyclopses, you are assuming that the "anchored" fleet has no c2 that would kill a Cyclops with 10 turns max and be untouched, your assuming that their c1 doesnt contain B-Runners that are untouchable by Cyclopses OR that they dont have anti-swank ships that would annihilate the Cyclops for even trying to swank such as evaps. Its definitely not as easy breezy as you would portray. So yes, in your purposed hypothetical situation, one would not mind facing direct fire from a lower class; however, in the majority of circumstances your justification is not applicable. I thought I made it pretty clear that this is horribly out of balance. You may have control over when you attack an anchored fleet but that is little comfort when a successful counter is IMPOSSIBLE or ridiculously complicated and difficult to arrange. Whatsmore, if NOTHING else, this is an unfair mechanic simply because penguins wont recycle if anchored. (Something I didnt know about until your comment) How is that fair? Isint the point of Penguins that they recycle after ANY fleet confrontation? That is what their description says anyway... By removing their only drawback they become ridiculously overpowered. Just a small example of how this is unfairly exploitable. When you can only anchor a fleet at your base then I might agree its only use is for defense, but that is not the case.. Anchored fleets can be set up on any coords, at any time and they can be set on the Attack attitude or with an attack code attitude, so dont you tell me the are only for defense. "Defensive" fleets dont attack.

Holo-Generators are manditory because you never know when the enemy will anchor or you will run into an anchored fleet, so you either have these ships on hand to attempt to try to counter an anchored fleet or you have to take the direct fire on the chin. You may have only used them 2-3 times in your career but I am sure fleets have been anchored and this mechanic exploited thousands of times. How many times have you anchored Senor? Alot more than you have used Holo's, I am sure. Thats part of my complaint. Holo's suck at their job and just complicate countering this unbalanced technique that much more.

Lets say your 10 cyclops go up against a Blockade and Evap ONLY fleet. Your cyclopses are toast only for the cost of the evaps. What about a Protector fleet? How would you like to have them directly fire on your c3? Way too much is revolving around saving this mechanic. Anti-Swank ships already exsist and their job is simple and clean cut, they balance out combat and put swankers in check. This on the other hand is far from simple or balanced and becomes more and more complicated the more thought I put into it.
_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Senor
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 1114
Location: estonia

 Post Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject:
Reply with quote

I feel like we're not understanding each other here.

Having an anchored c1/c2 fleet is not impossible to counter in any way. Its not even tricky. You can give me any c1/c2 setup and i will tell you how to counter it with any race.

If the enemy has also c2 then mix apollos with the cyclops. Or you can use mass eagles.
If the enemy has blockades and evaps mixed in the c1 then use mass fighters and commandos if you have them. mass eagles work here aswell.

When i said the anchored fleets work defensively i meant that you are a sitting duck with them and cant move them around if needed. The person attacking can choose if and when to attack. So if you see the enemy has a setup you don't have the right ships for then just don't attack him, go back to base, build something else and come back. Or find some other target. Its impossible to always carry enough different ships to be able to fight any setup. Sometimes you just need to back off.

For your last example. Yes, cyclops are toast against blockades and evaps. Thats how it is meant to be. Evaps counter the swank the same way a swank rips a lot of c1/c2 based setups to shreds. But this has nothing to do with anchored fleets. If anything then having no c3 makes your opponents life easier because they do not have to think about protecting their own expencive c3 ships or mothership.

Its good that we are discussing this, but i fail to see your point, Cloud. You think that having an anchored fleet is some super setup that is completely unbalanced, but its not. Trust me here man, I've destroyed these fleets many times many ways and my own anchored fleets have also been defeated many times by different setups.

Cheers!
senor
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Cloudgatherer
2nd Rear Admiral
2nd Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 177
Location: Florida, USA

 Post Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:45 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Most definitely we are not understanding each other here. Really its becoming very frustrating and lonely on this side of the discussion. I know very well you cannot have a fleet that defeats all other fleets. Of course sometimes you have to go back to base and change your build, BUT one of the reasons this is so footin' unfair is that while you have to fly back to base to change youre build to be successful, the opponent simply has to anchor his fleet which doesnt cost any considerable time at all and FORCE you to change your build which requires you take HOURS or even DAYS to do so. At which point they could yet again "unanchor" and cause you to have to fly back and start the painstaking process all over again. In what world is that balanced and fair? These fleets are hardly "sitting ducks that cannot move" when they are being purposefully utilized in this fashion and CAN be moved at any given time by retaining the original warp-capable ship that brought them there in a secondary fleet.

Whatsmore is that it is indeed IMPOSSIBLE to "out-gun" someone who abuses the anchoring technique. These people do not have or use c3 so how is a legit player that actually devotes a percentage of his MP to expensive c3 ships suppost to compete with their smaller fleets? This factor needs to also be taken into account. It all comes back to there being no serious penalty for not having c3 ships and anchoring c1/c2 fleets. On a less important note: I would also like to point out that only ONE race has access to both Apollos and Cyclopses and Protectors/Roaches will demolish an Apollo fleet with no/minimum damage and if (considering the tech is able to the race) you use mass Eagles that would mean you didnt attack with empty c1 and c2 which means you risk your c3 not activating at all at the hands of the same mechanic you are trying to defend! Same with your example regarding mass fighters: those examples are irrelevant because it would mean you would have to have to bring your own c1 which would mean no c3 combat would happen at all which starts this whole damn debate right back over in a loop!

Another key factor is being ignored here: the ships that are being rendered obsolete and useless because of anchoring that do NOT act as swank-ships. Those would be the Minor Reconstructor, the Carrier, the Doomstar (though I suppose it is a TYPE of swanker), the Deconstructor, the Major Reconstructor and the Pirate Flagship. Why should these ships not have a chance to use their inheirit abilities? Where is the justification in that? They typically don't attack in class combat anyway so in this case "they dont act because they have nothing to attack" is NOT an acceptable excuse!
_________________

"One of God's own rejects. Some sort of high-powered mutant, not even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, but too rare to die."
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Anachronism
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 67

 Post Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:24 am    Post subject:
Reply with quote

Quote:
Another key factor is being ignored here: the ships that are being rendered obsolete and useless because of anchoring that do NOT act as swank-ships. Those would be the Minor Reconstructor, the Carrier, the Doomstar (though I suppose it is a TYPE of swanker), the Deconstructor, the Major Reconstructor and the Pirate Flagship. Why should these ships not have a chance to use their inheirit abilities? Where is the justification in that? They typically don't attack in class combat anyway so in this case "they dont act because they have nothing to attack" is NOT an acceptable excuse!


Those ships are not rendered obsolete and useless, they just don't work against a specific setup. Like every ship in this game is meant to be useless against certain fleet-setups.
On the other hand I see your point. It is not very realistic, that a doomstar inexplicably decides not to explode when the enemy has no mothership. But the alternative, as spacetrace pointed it out, would turn the whole game upside down.

Maybe you should try out to "abuse" this anchored c1/c2 tactic and see how it goes. If it is really that hard to crack you should get a lot of score and eventually the system would be changed somehow for balancing reasons.

Personally I really don't know who is right in this discussion, but you both could easily try to prove your point ingame and I would be quite interested in the outcome
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message
Senor
Admiral
Admiral


Joined: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 1114
Location: estonia

 Post Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:42 am    Post subject:

Basically what you are saying is that you want all battles to be c1vc1 c2vc2 c3vc3 without a possibility for different classes to fight each other.

I have failed to make you see my point and i will not try it again.

cheers!
senor
 Back to top »
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
SpaceTrace Forum Forum Index » FAQ » No C3 or C4 combat?
Post new topic   Reply to topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Solaris phpBB theme/template by Jakob Persson
Copyright © Jakob Persson 2003



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Impressum