Two levels of tech will almost exactly equal the difference provided by a L20 maxxed combat hero (within about 2-5% depending on the exact tech levels and exactly which weapon types). So you are right, 2 levels of tech will negate the hero, but only to parity - it takes 3 levels of tech advantage to be "better" than the hero. However, as mentioned above, this only applies to the weapon/defense modules themselves - there are other advantages possible at certain "stages" of tech superiority that are not made up for by the hero (particularly when it comes to power/tonnage modules).

OK,



So...how does any of this invalidate my original point again?



Thanks.

Well let's see, so far I've heard you claim both that heroes are worthless, AND that heroes are uber-powerful with no amount of tech advantage being able to overcome them. So...just what IS your "original point"?

Message Redacted.

Obviously writing "idiot", insulting, every few words makes your argument so much stronger. oO'



False. A lvl 20 will tip the balance no matter what if the opposition has no comparable hero.



That pretty much means "if oppposition has no comparable hero, you will win every fight with yours" which we proved false since imho a 2 level tech difference (or 3 max if im worng eith 2) will negate a 20 level pure combat hero, and even a 1 tech level difference will be hard to counter with weaker heroes. And you really have 20 level heroes very seldom.



Basicly every good multiplayer player will tell you that combat heroes arent overpowered, most of the times they arent even that important. Since most people take militaristic trait x3 and spam fleet after fleet, tell me how 1-2 heroes changes anything when in a turn he attacks with 8+fleets.



And what bothers me most is you play the endless expert on forums, while you have some weird notions, becaue you dont seem to ever play a full or even a real half of the damn game.



Also for the sentiment that people dont listen to your posts, maybe if you knew what you were talking about from real experience, and phrased them in a way suggesting a intelligent being not a 12 year wiht serious problems (" i hate heroes i hate them so remove them" "idiot .. idiot... idiot") , maybe you would have more of a chance.

Please refrain from insulting each other... Take arguments into PM, or simply avoid them as it always results in infractions and whatnot. Thank you and keep the discussion clean.

*bags up the troll food and moves on to a different thread; explaining actual mechanics in this one has now become pointless*

combat heroes just make for spearheads in the armada, or a wall. extra damage to push through defenses, or some utility abilities like the +20dust/cp, things of this nature. A game that is defensively oriented will be stagnant, hence not dynamic, and boring. It would be who can race the fastest to the win, without interaction. Like 8 games of solitaire going on. A game that is offensively minded is dynamic, promotes interaction, and a stronger meta-game.



I was bored out of my mind when i played a trade/tech race. Literally just expanded some, and then sat there for hours doing nothing. When it was done, I felt i wasted those hours and should have done anything else. All I learned was that those victories feel hollow and boring, hoping to be not noticed enough to just say "hey i had next to zero impact on this game, but i win coz yay tech and nobody happened to kill me". Not my style.

oh, the only heroes that truly matter are Admins. Still.

Synaptic_AI wrote:
There is no argument to hear. MP is broken, period.



Some of the highest quality players I've had the pleasure of playing this game with have left for the same reasons long before I bit the bullet and decided to for myself. I was dedicated to making it work, but I'm f'ing done trying to manage it.



Thanks for playing, though.

Door, a**, way out.



There is nothing wrong with the multi-player. Well, that's a lie, nothing is perfect is what I should say. You seem to be someone that believes that no matter what anyone else says, HE is right, and anyone who does not agree with him is an idiot. And the general tone of your posts displays that. You have 'expunged' ES from your hard-drive? Yeah, that just screams arrogant. So, go off with the friends you 'claim' left the game because of poor Multi-player and leave the rest of us in peace. Have a nice day.

Kyu wrote:
combat heroes just make for spearheads in the armada, or a wall. extra damage to push through defenses, or some utility abilities like the +20dust/cp, things of this nature. A game that is defensively oriented will be stagnant, hence not dynamic, and boring. It would be who can race the fastest to the win, without interaction. Like 8 games of solitaire going on. A game that is offensively minded is dynamic, promotes interaction, and a stronger meta-game.



I was bored out of my mind when i played a trade/tech race. Literally just expanded some, and then sat there for hours doing nothing. When it was done, I felt i wasted those hours and should have done anything else. All I learned was that those victories feel hollow and boring, hoping to be not noticed enough to just say "hey i had next to zero impact on this game, but i win coz yay tech and nobody happened to kill me". Not my style.

No, to you they are hollow and boring. Other people find tech/trade and diplomatic games more rewarding. However, at the moment those systems are not the best that they could be. Particularly the diplomatic system. There is no reason to ally with anyone for example. Its just, a pointless endeavor with no real benefits at all, which is why so many custom races end up having 'Endless War'. There is still work to be done to the game, but dont assume that because you dont enjoy the slower, more thoughtful ways of playing, that the developers should ignore their playing styles thus tailoring the game to favor combatant play styles.

To win a war you need a bigger/better fleet. To make said fleet you need lots of FIDS. To get lots of FIDS you need to outplay your opponent in the expansion, tech and even diplomacy game



So why people who like boring or (slower more thoughtul ways or playing, depending on who you ask) think they can win the game neglecting the military aspect?



No matter what victory you might pursue every aspect of the game comes into play, including wars.

Balam wrote:
To win a war you need a bigger/better fleet. To make said fleet you need lots of FIDS. To get lots of FIDS you need to outplay your opponent in the expansion, tech and even diplomacy game



So why people who like boring or (slower more thoughtul ways or playing, depending on who you ask) think they can win the game neglecting the military aspect?



No matter what victory you might pursue every aspect of the game comes into play, including wars.

Buuuuutttt.....?



You are forgetting that in this game there are more than just conquest and destroy victory conditions. There are diplomatic, scientific, population and other ways to win as well. Sure, you will need a fleet for defense, Im not saying that, but, you dont necessarily need the biggest and the baddest fleet to win. This is a good thing.

Actually you do. How are you going to defend yourself against the biggest and baddest fleet around unless you got an even better fleet?



No matter what victory you are gunning for, when war comes the one with the biggest and baddest fleet will win.

Balam wrote:
Actually you do. How are you going to defend yourself against the biggest and baddest fleet around unless you got an even better fleet?



No matter what victory you are gunning for, when war comes the one with the biggest and baddest fleet will win.

Actually...no, you dont. I have won a match before with 8 players, with just a fleet of tier 3 ships. I geared all my colonies to scientific study, kept to myself for the most part, made a few alliances and won the game through a scientific victory. L2P bro...L2P.

Let me guess... you won because no one with a better fleet came to take your stuff?

DeamonStorm wrote:
Actually...no, you dont. I have won a match before with 8 players, with just a fleet of tier 3 ships. I geared all my colonies to scientific study, kept to myself for the most part, made a few alliances and won the game through a scientific victory. L2P bro...L2P.

nice , out of curiosity how many tunrs did it take and what game speed?



In my experience only once did a player win against me by a wonder victory and only because hekept building throw away indutrail ships fleets that i couldnt kill in time , he drowned me in them.

FireStorm wrote:
nice , out of curiosity how many tunrs did it take and what game speed?



In my experience only once did a player win against me by a wonder victory and only because hekept building throw away indutrail ships fleets that i couldnt kill in time , he drowned me in them.

It was a normal speed game, I cant remember just what turn it was. Well over turn 200 as I recall. Trick was this. Hissho and Cravers were being played. I allied myself with the Hissho, offering them technological goodies, I kept peace with the Cravers the same way. They didnt see me as a threat and went after the other players, who had to get through the Cravers Hissho to get to me. So, while the rest of them were busy killing each other, I just sat back, kept researching, giving little treats to my two pet players now and then to keep them happy while going for the wonder victory.

Nice well played.



The truth about war in endless imho is you dont really have to maintain big fleet for defense in time of peace, imho its even a bad idea , drain on resources and it will fast become obsolete.



Maintain 1-2 full fleets that you can upgrade anytime with newest techs or not even that, just build bunkers everywhere.



Sure even with bunkers enemy may take 1-2 panets before you rdy to counterattack, but first 5 turns at least on newly conquered planet is no gain for the conqueror.So essentialy you hit back with the advantage of allt he turns you didnt have to worry about military that you put to developement/research.



Ofc if enemy is hisho its a problem , you cant let him take any planets, but apart from that its my philosophy that imho works well.

FireStorm wrote:
Nice well played.



The truth about war in endless imho is you dont really have to maintain big fleet for defense in time of peace, imho its even a bad idea , drain on resources and it will fast become obsolete.



Maintain 1-2 full fleets that you can upgrade anytime with newest techs or not even that, just build bunkers everywhere.



Sure even with bunkers enemy may take 1-2 panets before you rdy to counterattack, but first 5 turns at least on newly conquered planet is no gain for the conqueror.So essentialy you hit back with the advantage of allt he turns you didnt have to worry about military that you put to developement/research.



Ofc if enemy is hisho its a problem , you cant let him take any planets, but apart from that its my philosophy that imho works well.

I usually try to keep around 5 active fleets at any one time. My first 2 fleets always have the best ships and tech, they are the ones that hold onto choke points, eg: Wormholes into my home constellation. Then I have the other 3 fleets providing homeguard. If I get War Deced, I usually have a high industry planet at that time that can churn out Dreadnaughts(Top Tier Ships) in about 2 turns, so I can raise horrifically powerful fleets quickly if I need to.