Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
What is a good template then? And if you say R50, R52, or R64 im sure the whole strategy forum will go into a meltdown. Or if you mentione the worst stats ever, R60, i will go into a meltdown.
|
Sure, r50 is a good template. I'm not saying that because I made them, I made the r51 stats and I have no problem slamming those.
I will repeat what Tia said: they are a
template. That doesn't mean you should straight up copy the the r50 stats, or even use them as a starting point for new stats. I'm sayin that if you look at the high level design of the r50 stats and try to make something similar, you're well on you way to making something good. Go hybrid-ST/MT, don't make too many ships, give Zik reasonable teamups, ensure solo attack fleets are viable, don't make them too defensive.
From a cursory look, your stats don't have any of these properties. That doesn't mean your stats are bad, and unlike others, I'm not saying they are. I made some comments about aspects I think could and should be improved. If you choose to ignore constructive criticism, that's fine with me, I'm not particularly bothered. Just stop acting surprised when your stats aren't chosen if you once again ignore all feedback.
(Stay away from large cost discrepancies inside classes, though.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
Mz think R60 was a good set.
|
And stop lying.