ribuh_7

[quote who="KidInTheHall28" reply="79" id="3863833"] Well old timer, looking at your Wikipedia page, that's quite a laundry list of games you guys have been able to put out. Thank Epic for that I guess. Again I get why you did it and I accepted it but trying to paint Epic as a savior for anyone but yourselves is dishonest. Yes you get more money but that doesn't guarantee consumers get a better product. [/quote] Stop t

[quote who="RonBurke" reply="74" id="3863812"] From a purely financial perspective, Steam takes 30% of every dollar you make. That's effectively a 30% tax on the entire industry before you make a single dime. Epic takes 12%. [/quote] Thank you for your reply. I think most people actually understand the decision and those people usually do not complain. (Only a loud minority seems to care...) It is true that I

Agree with Whipp almost entirely. The last part is tricky, there is a reason we don't play alternate victory conditions. I rather have it open end (some people like to just toy around after the game to see how their fleet would perform). If you have a dragger in enemy team, just leave? :D Who even cares about the stats there...

[quote who="mantakree" reply="3" id="3863589"] It should already tell you everything you need to know that your epic apologist thread remains devoid of supporters. This is a blatantly anti consumer move, as is everything Epic has done with their store since launch. A real shame because I was hyped as soon as I heard about SoaSE2 being announced. With all the recent great space strategy games released and more ready for next year (falling frontier looking

PS: Also since when do the vasari look like robots and not like insectoid organic creatures?

[quote who="WHIPperSNAPper2008" reply="10" id="3863543"] I understand in multiplayer we want clear textures that indicate ship teams. It Rebellion there was a toggle to make ships display paints more prominently. I would hope to see something similar, that way we could toggle off the paints and show more of the metal. Actually, in online multiplayer, at least in PvP, most people probably wouldn't be zooming in to enjoy the pret

[quote who="LGear6883" reply="5" id="3863390"] Most of the points here don't really seem like objective critiques, and more like personal preferences, especially the likes of the Kodiak where the critique more or less came down to "I don't like how it looks". [/quote] Like how in the world can someone give an "objective critique" on something subjective as design? At least when it come to liking something or not. What is certainly an objective statement here is t

Would be cool, but for now I believe that the "vanilla" game would be what they should focus on. Working on some kind of DLC with new race and campaign of some sort after the game is done and ready should be the more realistic solution. Would be a shame if they tried to do everything at once only to deliver a half baked product that does not please anybody.

[quote who="MrIrksome" reply="1" id="3863306"] I'm not going to say much about your critique, except to say that these are next generation ships. what you are calling the Kol class looks derived from the Kol, but I think it might be a different class all together. same for the Akkan. More especially for the Kodiak. it looks derived from the Kodiak, but it looks to be a new class of ship. [/quote] Would be cool if it

The love to details was amazing. Voice lines and acting as people mentioned was superb, the little upgrades like demolition bots, lingering presence, probes etc. that enabled distinct play styles. The ultimate of the advent planet bomber cap aka the "shoe" was actually sinister and cool. Economy was great, if someone over focussed on trade (at least later on) one could leach from it with smuggling, resource focus etc. (or details like the Vasari being able to capture deep space neutrals with

[quote who="droid_orat" reply="1" id="3863253"] It is infantile. Here I have summarised what you wanted to say in three words. [/quote] great feedback from your side as always. [quote who="The Poena4484" reply="2" id="3863287"] Agreed, it doesn't look related to Sins 1 at all except for the shape resemblance of the Kol. The new Javelin and the giant turrets on the Kodiak and Kol look especially bad and toylike, and as someone said

Also: - More artifacts - More random planet bonuses and penalties - More capital ships (or more ship designs in general) - As someone mentioned before: Another class of ships (something between caps and cruisers maybe) - Maybe 2 different starbase designs per faction - Similar to supcom 2: Maybe release titans or capships in emergency situations earlier with a penalty to armour and weapon systems before they finished construction t

[quote who="lexxicon" reply="18" id="3863305"] Quoting Frogboy, reply 2 It would likely be in your best interests to find a way to discuss it so that the epic haters can be with you on this instead of against you. this deal will likely cost you more money than you'll save by going through their storefront as the people who will wa

I did not mean 1 on 1 but rather as part of a fleet. Lets take e.g. this scenario for instance (even before rebellion): You jump into enemy roid with 30 Cobalts and a Marza. Enemy has 30 Cobalts and a Sova. The 4 bombers would not be able to take down the Marza by themselves, but while you bomb you force the enemy to either engage the Marza or lose the planet. If they attack the Marza one could go for the kill on the Sova while the Marza survives (HP and Armour wise). But thats

[quote who="droid_orat" reply="10" id="3863214"] I already started wondering where are all the white knights. Being able to start seeing that something is really off with all bits and pieces so far is like two add two now. Of course, we do not know what we will get in the end, but at the moment, there are more red flags than there should be. [/quote] ok bro

You guys are the worst lol, imagine not buying a game that is not even that expensive because it is currently restricted to a store you dislike. Imagine being this ridiculous... they finally put in the work, money and risk into this and now you make demands as if you were some big shots... absolutely pathetic. I'll buy the game on epic AND on steam just to support Stardock, a company that was always fair in its pricing and that supports a game I bought over 13 years ago... Absolutely not unde

In theory I certainly agree. However, the Vasari "micro phase jump" support cruiser for instance would have been an amazing ship but the ability was almost never to hit and too much of a glass canon and therefore rendered the ship more or less useless. In 5 v 5 games many people would reach the tech level to get the support cruisers but usually it is literally smarter to get the dmg or hull upgrade instead. The cruisers eat fleet supply, have almost no damage on their own and the buff they ge

[quote who="RAZ0RLIGHT" reply="25" id="3863051"] Looking forward to the game release (on Steam/GoG) but the epic exclusivity is a really terrible dick move. Lost alot of trust in Stardock thanks to this. [/quote] You guys should really get your act together wtf. Stardock delivers what we longed for and a lot of stuff I read here is hate for choice of publishing. I mean, obviously I'd prefer steam too but now what? Get down of your high horse and support this dev s

[quote who="RonBurke" reply="5" id="3863123"] I hear you, and you've got my attention. We do support 5v5, and it's going to get heavy attention from my team. We are all very eager to hear the community feedback on what they'd like to see from multiplayer, including a focus on 5v5. I'm sure you folks would crush me under your boot, but when the time is right, it'd be great to get out there and duke it out. Rest assured, we aren't ignoring this critical part o

[quote who="Yarlen" reply="2" id="3863056"] A 'classic' mode isn't in the cards. However, multiplayer is getting a lot of attention. [/quote] Thank you for your reply and consideration. Multiplayer in Sins, as far as I am aware of, usually consisted of several factions. Usually the "comp stompers" or "casual players" who enjoyed the game as a brawl between friends and the more or less "competitive" 5s community, the latter, as far as I am concerned was often overlooked

Good old impulse launcher :3

It would be indeed cool if you could research like an "overhaul" to the existing prototypes. So for example the first time you build it it is kind of a prototype ship, like in the original and if you research "advanced designs" or something like that you get the upgraded version... but you are right, its too early to speculate what the final product will look like!

This is a message to the developers out there: The 5s community has been playing Soase for over a decade and we know the core mechanics, up and downsides like the inside of our pockets. Therefore, please listen to our pleas during early access, especially when adding major changes to the overall game. Thank you for supporting this game so many years after, we are really happy about those news! Love, your loyal 5s community.

I mean if the advent look clean, that would fit their style right? But TEC were supposed to have repurposed old trading ships for the job afaik with I guess the Kol being the exception. But maybe the people in charge of the design are not the same as the ones before so they might not have noticed the details (like your mentioned adaptive shield generator for instance)...

In the online community, some of the players actually made charts and calculated what ships are actually strong and which are bottom tier. Despite high costs utility cruisers, planet bombers and some capital ships were the underdogs no matter what and soon you would only see Marza or Akkan openers for TEC and usually only Progen and sometimes Radiance for the Advent. Making every ship viable (or at least excel at their role) would be important to make diverse fleet comps instead of