Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Corey

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 212
1
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Questions Regarding Capital Ship Balance
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:23:47 PM »
That's more Golans being super OP in 1.0 than anything, it's just their range is too short to notice most of the time.

2
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Questions Regarding Capital Ship Balance
« on: June 22, 2017, 01:06:03 PM »
Quote
In the next update they will be implimenting frigate and cruiser lvl ups

Veterancy for smaller ships most likely won't be in 1.1, unfortunately. There's a crash issue associated with them somewhere that I haven't been able to sort out, partially because it only happens several hours into the game. Hopefully I'll be able to solve it.

Quote
1. Spread Fire seems to make Capital Ships 3 times stronger - as far as I can tell ships which have it will deal full damage to  three targets at once, with the weapon animations literally splitting into three identical streams.

Yeah, when we were doing 1.0 we didn't know exactly how it portioned out the damage with that. We've been making adjustments accordingly.

Quote
2. Capital ships seem too strong compared to their supply cost. The largest capital ships (besides the Praetor, which is in a class of its own) cost about 16 supply, while most top-end cruisers cost 8. Since mid-end game fleets are limited more by supply than resources, there ends up being no reason to use anything except for capital ships. The boost from attaining higher levels, capital ship abilities and generally superior durability make them more powerful than the equivalent cost in frigates or cruisers.

They're meant to be, partially as a way to make the AI actually able to build them. Once that bit is solved more effectively, we'll be able to raise the supply costs more (or before then, since we're
more concerned with multiplayer). Capital ships are more meant to be gated by the capital ship crews (which are being significantly reduced) as opposed to regular supply.

Quote
3. Titans are not that durable - as one per fleet flagship units I would like to see them stronger (in terms of durability, not firepower) and perhaps more expensive.

With titans we've always erred on the side of making them less powerful and scaling them up as we go (especially with abilities being added). If they're underpowered, that just makes them less useful If we start with them overpowered and everything else is fine, you get the same problem base Sins where titans are pretty much all that matter.



3
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: assertor and bellator
« on: June 22, 2017, 01:00:18 PM »
Ok better question what made you guys pick doing the Bellator over the assertor

The Bellator was chosen because, as others have said, it's different from the existing SSDs, ebing half the size of the others, whereas the Assertor is more in line with the Executor.

As far as the art limitation for the Assertor, I was commissioned to make it and am doing it for less on the condition that we get to use it if we like, so we will at least have one. Whether we ultimately use it for something, who knows. In general, we want fewer SSDs. I know a lot of people think they're cool because they're giant ships, but from a gameplay standpoint, they don't cooperate with the game very well, and the AI can't use them or kill them anywhere near as effectively as players.

4
The top post explains exactly how the process is going to work. It will be out soon and open to anyone.

5
We typically don't post personal stuff of our team not related to the mod, however one of our 3D Artists had some serious medical issues recently. If you could take a moment to read, share, or if possible, support the gofundme, we would all appreciate it.

https://www.gofundme.com/jakes-appendicitis-emergency-fund

6
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Wraith squadron
« on: June 20, 2017, 12:08:17 AM »
I mean more the actual mechanics of having a space squadron with a ground unit attached. The game isn't super cooperative with that.

7
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: skyhooks
« on: June 19, 2017, 11:07:59 PM »
Would be kind of redundant with the other kinds of structures available. Can also make it a bit harder for us to effectively handle the economies (we'd have to take into account all the planets that can build them on top of other types of income structures).

8
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Wraith squadron
« on: June 19, 2017, 11:06:06 PM »
Depends on what we're functionally able to do with them, really.

9
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: New ground unit ideas
« on: June 19, 2017, 11:02:14 PM »
We have no plans to do any of those droid types. They're very rare and obscure, don't really offer that much functionally, and with the limited amount of infantry we have the resources to make, we have much better options. As far as stuff like snipers, we're trying to diversify infantry functions a bit, but the problem with snipers when we've done them in the past is that units don't account for terrain differences while targeting, which gets more problematic the farther away they get. Most times, snipers tend to just shoot the ground.

11
Not really, all you can really do is try to reduce fleet sizes. SoaSE lag comes primarily from CPU tracking all the entities (especially fighters).

12
Star Wars Discussion / Re: Question about a New Hope Episdoe IV
« on: June 17, 2017, 07:58:31 PM »
Astromech droids can do the maintenance on any mechanical or computer systems they had, and since Tatooine was heavily based around the space port and their clientele, they would have needed a protocol droid to talk to potential customers for their big bottles of moisture.

13
Are other mods still working?

14
News, Dev Diaries & Announcements / Re: ICW/FotR: Microjump Preview
« on: June 16, 2017, 05:07:25 AM »
Yeah, if there's stuff that's not doing what we want it to and ends up just being interesting from a technical standpoint but not great for gameplay, we've never really had any problems cutting it. Just off of announced stuff alone, the migration system in Ascendancy was cut before release, and for ICW Pox had the full planet influence system which we released on its own for testing but ultimately didn't pan out. We also had a full population system in Ascendancy based on controlling planets (similar to EaW) which we cut. Some of it stays out (migration's never really come up again), some of it gets reworked and slotted in in better ways (the latter two are mechanics we wanna revisit in some form).

15
Discussion, Suggestions and Feedback / The Galaxy's Next Top Jedi
« on: June 16, 2017, 04:43:55 AM »
While we don't want to oversaturate the mod with every jedi that ever got some face time, there are a few slots available that don't quite have a story redquirement to be anyone in particular, so we wanted to let everyone weigh in (and help stop the spread of "Jedi X when?" comments/threads. There are some that do have narrative requirements to be in, which aren't included on this poll, and some on this poll we may ultimately decide do have narrative requirements to be in, so this isn't a written in stone guarantee sort of deal, but will definitely factor into our decisions. You do have the option to change your vote, and keep in midn, we cover more than just the Clone Wars. No Oppo Rancisis.

16
Discussion, Suggestions and Feedback / Re: The Shadow Collective
« on: June 16, 2017, 03:34:56 AM »
They're all fair game as far as we're concerned. The first releases will be a bit lighter on heroes for dev purposes. Anyone associated with the Trade Fed or CIS has a much higher chance of popping up at some point considering how much less they have than the Republic, and I don't think we wanna go as deep down the rabbit hole of random Jedi and Clone heroes that some of the other CW mods go through. We used to have a poll on the forums in the first go-round where we let the community vote on some of the edge cases/roster fillers (we obviously need people like Yoda, Anakin, Obi-Wan), so I may resurrect that now, actually.

17
News, Dev Diaries & Announcements / Re: ICW/FotR: Microjump Preview
« on: June 16, 2017, 03:26:41 AM »
I don't think it'll make it significantly easier, all things considered. You're giving up a lot of time where the ship can't otherwise move or fire, and then if you just try to jump behind, you have small ships entirely on their own. You'd have to start far away from the target ship, then jump in behind it and hope to do something before the enemy ship turns around, meaning you need to keep them otherwise engaged. It's situational. Yes, sometimes what you mention will work, but that's kind of the point. As it is, without other abilities, there's almost never any reason at all to use smaller ships. Considering cooldowns and everything, you're not just gonna be able to keep blinking around behind enemy ships, though. While stuff like microjumps and single-unit retreat do offer tools to the player, they're tools that have to be used properly, they're not just guaranteed benefits- if you start retreating or microjumping at the wrong time, you just wasted several seconds of that ships firepower and potentially lose a ship you may not have otherwise. That happened to me in my latest EotH LP episode with a Syndic. With microjumps, if you try the strategy of throwing units behind larger units but don't do it with enough support or micro it enough, you won't even have enough firepower to penetrate the shields and you'll just be making your ships easier to pick off.

More generally, anything we add to the game is almost always going to be used more efficiently by the player than the AI, from mechanics like this down to stuff that's as simple as different unit types or even weapon types that the player will know how to target better than the AI does, or the fact that pathfinding inherently favours players. Some features the AI can use, some they can't, some they'd never be able to use optimally, but it's not all a one-for-one thing. That's why strategy game AI difficult doesn't tend to be gated just by use of the mechanics themselves. If the game becomes to easy because of this stuff, we have other levers we can pull to make it harder.

Holistically, compared to 2.1, the economy is far more difficult for the player to manage, the AI properly builds and groups fleets instead of the trickle, and from the tactical level, among other things, SSD spam is no longer as guaranteed for the player, the defending forces don't just group under the shipyards facing backwards, and we're working on removing the same related behaviour with defense Platforms. We're also trying to figure out some algorithms to make the AI use corvettes and fighters/bombers better (something that, if it doesn't bog the game down too much, will be a huge advantage for the AI that the player can't have considering they can process more commands at once, unless the player makes copious use of the pause function). So, while trying to make sure the game isn't too easy or difficult is a concern, I wouldn't be too worried about the impact of any individual ability like this. Numbers can always be tuned, as well.

18
Discussion, Suggestions and Feedback / Re: The Shadow Collective
« on: June 15, 2017, 02:11:17 PM »
Quote
well for Story scripting that is kind of easy you could make like how Leia gets the hapes to join The NR. Send Maul and Oppress to a planet they wont be acess for a week or 2 and when they return you get acess

I don't think you understand what that actually entails. It's more complicated than that, and that's with a faction that can properly use story scripting. Especially when you're suggesting that this faction really only gets units at all through other factions being part of it, it doesn't have a core roster.

Quote
to be fair if they control mandalore then they have access to MandalMotors and Mandal Hypernautics
so maybe you could design ships based on what these companies

No, that would be overwriting canon, as opposed to expanding on it. With the Empire of the Hand, we know they had a fleet, we just didn't know what was in it. With the Mandalorians, they didn't have a significant fleet, the Supercommandos won, so Death Watch's ambitions were stopped, and the New Mandalorians were governing, so they were pacifist. We can't just design stuff we think MandalMotors might have been making at the time, because we know for a fact they were making nothing of consequence. The only way Mandalore would have started building up a fleet is if Death Watch had won the civil war initially, which would mean they wouldn't have joined some random underground criminal organization which almost immediately fell apart.

The bottom line is, they would not have had access to any significant naval power.

Quote
And yes Filoni and TCW destroyed this period, while Leland Chee and others were trying to heal the wounds with retcons. I ignored TCW since the "movie" until they put me the nose in it in FotJ. Only last year I had the fortitude to watch the show... For me this belongs to the Story Group Canon and should have nothing to do with Legends, trying to integrate it into the former Expanded Universe was the biggest masquerade ever saw in SW history.

Quote
For the FotR, frankly I am far less interested in it than in ICW, so I wouldn't be much bothered if the dev team chose to go for the TCW version but that would be a little sad as, if so it will be close to a Story Group Canon view of this period and that's the actual trend. It would be better for the Legends to still live a little through mods such as ICW.

Above anything else, the main source for not just FotR but ICW as well, since it came out, has been the Essential Guide to Warfare. This will likely stay the case. That book provides the most consistent overall view of the universe, introduced a lot of useful ideas, and has driven the mod's direction for the better part of 5 years. Some of it comes from pre-existing materials, some does come from the cartoon.

You again have to keep in mind, this is not the only era in Star Wars with conflicts. Also, the Clone Wars themselves are a fraction of what Fall of the Republic actually covers. It's the last 3 years of a mod covering almost 50 years. This is not a new problem for us to have to deal with. Hell, even the idea of the "Clone Wars" put forward in the Thrawn trilogy conflicts with all future versions of the Clone War. There's never been an overall treatment of any era, not just the Clone Wars, which successfully retcons everything. We're going to use as much as we can from the pre-existing Legends, but in places where that conflicts, we already have to make a determination, and there's a significant pool of planets, vehicles, vessels and heroes that the cartoon offers which we wouldn't be able to use if we just decided to disregard that. The faction rosters would be far too thin. That is the main use of the cartoon, when there's slots that need filling and they offer a good solution (there's no reason not to use stuff like the Malevolence, Admiral Trench, etc when the CIS pre-cartoon was such a thin faction). When there's significant difference in events, we will typically go with:

Essential Guide to Warfare -> Pre-existing timeline -> Cartoon

There's a lot of stuff in the differences between the timelines, again, that is irrelevant to the mod entirely. The mod doesn't deal with individual battles- it's a sandbox game, so ultimately, it doesn't impact the mod if Anakin fights Ventress on Yavin or not, or if Anakin got his scar earlier in the war than his duel with Ventress in the comics. The mod doesn't and can't have that sort of granularity. The mod doesn't and can't care whether the ARC Troopers were made or trained beyond if they get mentioned in the tooltip. Where people were during Order 66 doesn't matter, who specifically survives vs goes into hiding does a little bit, but that had already been questionable earlier on.

19
News, Dev Diaries & Announcements / Re: ICW/FotR: Microjump Preview
« on: June 15, 2017, 02:06:31 PM »
Quote
It's not clearly explained (?) in the EU but jumps can't be infinitely short.

Keep in mind, we have to design around game mechanics, not just canon. We can't always even impose the same canon restrictions on functionality if we wanted to (especially when the times it shows up, precision jumps seem to be handled differently every single time). For example, fighter squadrons can't materialize new wingmen out of nowhere, but the "replenish wingmen" ability is a useful game mechanic in some squadrons, especially for heroes. Ackbar telling everyone to target something wouldn't actually cause more damage than just everyone being told to fire on it regularly, but Concentrate Firepower is still a useful ability to have in the context of a game.

20
News, Dev Diaries & Announcements / ICW/FotR: Microjump Preview
« on: June 15, 2017, 12:52:11 PM »
A quick look at another ability coming in Thrawn's Revenge: Imperial Civil War and Fall of the Republic, Microjumps.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 212
Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!