Sins Forums
It appears that Talion saviors can be replicated by Return of the Fallen for constructing a starbase. Can anyone reproduce this?
BUG!
Don't think that should happen as the ship technically doesn't die but is built into a star base. But the game code most likely "kills" the ship and replaces it with the star base. Devs may need to find a work around.
Not technically a bug. It says in the tooltips that it destroys the ship in the process. Destroy. Reanimation brings back destroyed ships!
EDIT: I should say that doesn't mean I don't agree. It's a really expensive ship, one that shouldn't be brought back.
This isn't really a bug.
Hes not talking about reanimation, hes talking about return of the fallen. Its not a bug its working as intended.
A support carrier is quite expensive as well. Should the ability just be limited to the "frigate" frigates since getting cruisers back is too strong? (my answer is: no)
I'm just waiting for what happens when the first player gets a Raloz and builds a TEC starbase with it. If that works and the starbase stays I'll probably go Migrator hunting all day.
But it should not work like this. It will be way too powerful if it is "intended".
How will it be to powerful a 10% chance to bring back a Talion. starbases are not even that powerful(unless you are the TEC, bullshit red button). You people worry about things to much chill. The TEC Tech actually got retardedly good tech and when the advent finally get one it is questioned. Its fine the TEC can build TWO starbases per grav well when upgraded, its time the Advent got some nice things.
tech loyalist cant get dual sb till lab 8 and only have rly expensive and long tech and it take a while to get
with that said i dont c any issues with the return of the fallen
This isn't the schoolyard playground, bugs shouldn't stay in just because another race has something strong and you're jealous. With other ships that are "resurrected," their death means they lost any utility you could have used them for. With this, you're getting the utility that the ship is built for AND you're getting another free instantly.
Granted, the chances are fairly low but I've gotten lucky enough to get two free out of three starbases I built.
It is NOT a bug. That is the point red. The ability is doing what it says it does. It has a 10 percent chance to revive a frigate/cruiser. What is a Talion a cruiser. So no it is not jealousy that is like me saying you are a TEC player afraid of the Advent getting something good.
*sigh, I play random and I was pointing out the lack of logic behind your thinking. X being good right now is not justification for Y going unfixed. Two wrongs(balance oversights) do not make a right. You're only saying it's intended because you want advent to have more advantages or "nice things." You totally ignored my argument as well.
For any other friendly ship, it's death means you can no longer use it for it's purpose while getting a percentage resurrected mitigates the loss. When you build a starbase, you used the utility of that ship which was not technically destroyed (won't show up on any graph other than fleet capacity). To randomly get a 2000-350-250 cost ship for free while using it in it's only intended purpose is a BUG. Because you're not losing anything like with the other ships.
I'd hate to point this out to you but that is not my logic of thinking its merely if this was a TEC tech no one would be complaining it is not to strong and it is something you are going to have to deal with. It is not a bug regardless of what you think. It is doing what it is supposed to do and that is how it is regardless of if you think it is fair or over the line or not. The ability clearly says it revives Frigates/Cruisers, what it does not say is it revives frigates/cruisers except for Talions. It does not say it has a resource limit to what it revives, it does not say anything.
Sorry but there is no polite way to say this. You are wrong. If this does get fixed it will be because Stardock thinks it is to strong, not because it is a bug. Also going by your way of thinking is resurrection to strong or is that a bug also? You're actually getting much more than you pay for by using the ability. There is nothing random about getting 2000 credits, 350 ore, 250 crystal. You got what you payed for which was the 10% chance to revive them. Also you do lose something should it re spawn it is not at your capital planet and now has to move all the way back to its original destination.
Do you seriously think this is a conspiracy to hate on advent? That the fact that it's an advent tech rather than a TEC tech is the only reason we're talking about it? I would wager we'd be talking about it EVEN MORE if was a TEC tech because of the synergy with loyalist being able to build double starbases.
The research description of Return of the Fallen is: "The power of the purified unity causes some ships to be revived from time to time." It does NOT mention frigates/cruisers like Reanimation does thus it IS a bug as it is a likely an unintended target for the ability.
So you know the inner working of Stardock now? That's pretty cool how you can know their exact reason for fixing it in the future and how it conveniently lines up with what you already assume. Being strong and working on special case targets (which are not listed in the research description) are two different things.
Getting a free Talion but it being far away from the front lines is not "losing" anything. To lose something implies you already had it whereas this is just an advantage that isn't as great as you would like and certainly not a detriment as you're implying. If you don't want it or would rather have the fleet capacity you can even scuttle it for resources. There's literally only gain in this scenario.
You're looking at it with very biased glasses to put it bluntly. Your feelings for a race should not get in the way of perceiving or judging how a game mechanic works. I don't mean to single you out but you're crusading against this being a bug for very poor reasons.
Actually, by that description of the ability, there's absolutely nothing wrong about it reviving a Talion. It does not mention how the frigate / cruiser should be lost and so it is entirely normal for a Talion, lost by building a star base, be revived.
It's nice of you to critique Mayall for "knowing the inner workings of Stardock" but then assume you know the meaning of an ability regarding aspects it does not even mention.
The difference is that I'm going from the ability description which is the only evidence we have. By that description, there's no reason it shouldn't work on Caps or Titans. He's making up the description (or confusing it with reanimation) and trying to justify that it's intentional and saying that's how Stardock wants it with no proof.
It's possible it's intended but unlikely since the wording isn't explicit like Reanimation's description is and assuming it's correct fixes nothing. Treating it like a bug at least brings the issue to their attention to fix it or not (not just ignoring it because it's for people's favorite/least favorite race). Unintended or intended it should be at least considered.
No, you're AFFIRMING that it is absolutely a bug, based on the description because it does not mention Talion saviors specifically.
The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. The only part of your post I can agree with is:
It does not mention anything specifically. They could have copied the explicitness of Reanimation but they didn't. You disagree that it's logical to assume that because they intentionally left a loophole on the description and that this is a very odd case that it's unintended?
Maybe it's just me being too literal as programmer myself but I would definitely consider that a bug or an unintended consequence. Bah, I'm getting to involved over such a trivial thing. I'm tired of semantics, back to coding.
It says ships will be revived.
Ships hath been revived.
Aenima hosts cost a crapload too, they get revived as well.
Heck, you still have to pay for the actual star base itself, as well as all of the upgrades. If you couldn't already afford the Talion, then you probably can't afford the second star base anyways.
I'm getting a headache just listening... erm reading. Question is not wether it is a bug or intended that building a starbase can grant you a new, free constructor, but rather:
How does it influence gameplay?
The chance of getting a starbase constructuro from building a starbase is rougly 1 out of 10 (all the math we've seen in that other thread aside). Not to mention you get it at the far end of the universe, in a place unlikely to be where you need it. It is not an instant secondary starbase right next to he first one. How much effect has it economically? About as much as getting a support carrier or a pair of crusaders back. It is a buff, but a marginal and very situational one. Chances are you needed those 10 fleet supply at the front to quickly set up another starbase at the front and now are forced to scuttle that nice free constructor for it (you didn't lose it in battle after all, you might just have used up all other ship slots).
Everything considered I don't really care wether it is kept or removed (as long as I can build starbases with enemy starbase constructors 
).
Slight problem with that one, you won't get all their fancy upgrade tech.
If you take over an enemy ship it keeps all researches that the enemy player invested into it. I'm not sure if this expands to starbases you would gain indirectly trough a constructor, but I consider it a possibility. Even if not, a Vasari starbase with 3 weapons/4 hull/1 fighters is stil pretty scary (maybe you can even circumvent the 1 starbase er well limit?).
Would be nice, I'm just saying: don't get your hopes too high.
I'm not. If this works, though, I'll try to make the most out of it until they decide to "fix it".
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
