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 - MaxL_1023

Pages: [1] 2
1
News & Updates / Re: [2.2 Demo Patch] Loading Time Fix
« on: June 26, 2017, 01:38:49 PM »
I find your lack of loading time disturbing.

No seriously - I was used to being able to do something else while waiting for ICW to load. Now I need to be ready immediately!

2
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: New republic battleship
« on: June 25, 2017, 12:17:28 PM »
NR was always a carrier-focused faction. The fighters carried by the MC90, Endurance and even Nebula are very, very effective against Praetors, Allegiance and Phalanxes, as well as all SSD models. All NR fighters except for A-wings and Defenders carry proton torpedoes, which do increased damage against anything larger than an ISD.

Basically, NR fleets will stand off outside of turbolaser range, establish starfighter superiority, and then bomb down large capital ships.

IR style fleets will use their tie fighters to hold off bombers for a short time and rush the NR or Hand capital ships - Allegiance or Praetors will beat NR capital ships laser to laser if you can get to them quickly enough.

Maldrood and PA are hybrid factions - they both get heavy carriers and effective starfighters, however their fighters are not quite as good as the NR models squadron per squadron and are more vulnerable to corvettes in general due to the TIE models tending to lack shielding. They can screen bombers, but usually need capital ships to deal laser damage unless you load up on skiprays or use Providences for ARC-170s (which are being nerfed AFAIK).

If NR had a battlecruiser it would have to be a dedicated carrier - a true direct combat ship would make the faction overpowered due to the strength of their starfighters. There has to be trade-offs somewhere.

3
News & Updates / Re: Ascendancy 1.1 Overview & Testing Plans
« on: June 23, 2017, 06:56:53 PM »
I am definitely looking forward to this release - even in a beta state it shows how much work has been put into Ascendancy above and beyond what is available in 1.0. I especially like the fleshed out Titan abilities - they were one of the best parts of the stock SOASE Rebellion.

4
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Questions Regarding Capital Ship Balance
« on: June 22, 2017, 05:36:39 PM »
It understand the limitations of the AI - I was just wondering if anything like that had been noticed.

I was wondering about Titans mainly because a Tryhard difficulty AI sent one (an Executor) into 3 of my Golan IIIs  and a few frigates - the Golans won easily. Maybe Golans need to cost more, as the top level is stronger than most capital ships.

5
Ascendancy Discussion / Questions Regarding Capital Ship Balance
« on: June 21, 2017, 09:43:47 PM »
From my experiences playing recently, I have run into a few issues. I am wondering if anyone else has also noticed the following:

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.

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.

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.


I could just be crazy however, and if these are legitimate I suspect they are already being worked on.

6
Ascendancy Discussion / Optimal settings for Ascendancy on a B1 Battledroid Processor
« on: June 18, 2017, 12:34:41 PM »
Hello,

Is there anything I can do in the game settings to make Ascendancy run better on a slower computer? I keep getting severe lag mid to late game, especially on 6 player maps. I can't even try the largest Galaxies.

I want the epic SOASE battles without the epic SOASE Lag.


7
Ascendancy Tech Support / NR - Lost all Fleet Support
« on: June 13, 2017, 10:53:24 PM »
Hello,

Playing a game as NR, I suddenly lost all fleet support. Essentially, I was not able to replace lost ships - the available fleet support was listed as zero.

In this game, I also ran into a Mad Dark Fleet Remnant spawn (Executor SSD) - is that supposed to still be around?

8
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Playing against the Hand
« on: June 13, 2017, 12:06:37 AM »
I would recommend having a Titan in your fleet - especially once all the abilities get added. EoTH does not have an equivalent, and the area buff abilities will help. I usually use mostly capital ships myself, and have little trouble. ISD-II with Tie Defenders seem to outmatch most enemy fleets supply for supply.

9
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Anti-super heavy units on ground
« on: June 12, 2017, 12:37:35 PM »
Pod Walkers will beat AT-ATs credit for credit - they don't seem that hard to counter currently.

10
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Commenor Ground Map Pathfinding
« on: June 08, 2017, 11:06:38 PM »
Hello,

Would it be possible to slightly widen the paths leading into the central base area of Commenor? It is difficult to get units down there in a reasonable fashion, in addition to units tending to fire into the dirt due to not recognizing a blocked firing line. There is also a lot of 3-dimensional overlap and camera difficulties when maneuvering in that central area. It can't be avoided, as the base buildings are placed there by the AI.

Is it just me? I was playing as Maldrood, using infantry and Pod walkers. I can't imagine trying to use Juggernauts, AT-TEs or AT-ATs down there.

11
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Star Destroyer suggestions
« on: June 05, 2017, 10:15:39 PM »
That makes sense - I only had knowledge of the old stats. I rarely see the Maldrood AI use them though - they seem to spam Secutors more than anything else.

12
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Star Destroyer suggestions
« on: June 05, 2017, 07:24:28 PM »
So 7 batteries with 5 pulses each, for 70 turbolaser shots and ~20 ion shots per round? 40 if they are dual ion cannons.

Seems a little light - the VSD-I has 40 dual, 10 quad and the 72 missiles, so 120 turbolaser shots per round plus whatever the missiles are worth. Does it have significantly better shielding?


13
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: June 05, 2017, 12:12:08 PM »
I thought so - do they need a capital shipyard?

14
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: June 05, 2017, 11:31:50 AM »
Where can Zsinj build Lucrehulks? Are they limited to certain planets?

Also, the Zsinj AI seems to spam Dominators, especially when attacking. It seems a bit weird, since they are basically worse ISDs considering their ability is never actually used by the AI. Is there a way to tone back the use of them, or to make the ability passive?

The smaller interdictor could still have to stop and use the ability, but the ISD-scale model could reasonably have the same capability without stressing the power systems to the same degree considering the larger reactor the ISD carries.

15
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Star Destroyer suggestions
« on: June 05, 2017, 11:27:38 AM »
What is the armament of the Procursator anyways? It also looks slightly undersized to me - it should be about 1/3rd larger than a VSD. It looks to be almost the same size, unless there is just an illusion due to the shape.


16
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Star Destroyer suggestions
« on: June 05, 2017, 01:17:03 AM »
At the moment I don't see a reason to build an ISD-1. For 300 credits you get something like 50% more firepower, better shields and hull (albeit not by that much) and I believe better fighters as well, or at least basically the same complement.

The ISD-I has trouble competing with the VSD-I in ship to ship combat, let alone ISD-IIs.

17
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: June 02, 2017, 12:25:54 PM »
I think the larger ships (anything bigger than an ISD) should be more minor aspects of gameplay - the engine can't handle them, they can't really move around and with the unit cap they are hard to balance and reduce the variety in fleet composition.

SSDs should be a flagship-type unit - something unique which is only rarely seen. I don't like the factions being able to spam them like a normal unit. The AI can't use them properly to begin with - Zsinj must be drunk behind the wheel of his SSD, as it spends most of the battle randomly meandering around the jump-in point.

I can live with Battlecruisers - the Alliegance and Praetor are good counters for the VSD/ISD type ships while being rightfully vulnerable to bombers. Secutors and Lucrehulks are well-defined units with a role - maybe not completely balanced but they can fit on the map.

SSDs can basically zerg-rush almost anything. They have twice as much effective HP just due to overkill damage against destroyed hardpoints - that negates a lot of the weaknesses against volley-type attacks like bombers. Not to mention that they often have trouble getting to the battle to begin with - I just jump one into the middle of everything and let loose with the 1000+ turbolasers. Even if it takes damage, it is worth WAY more than 18 pop points before it goes down.

Call it the Thrawn doctrine.

18
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: June 01, 2017, 07:39:20 PM »
I think the Tector is supposed to fulfill a battlecruiser-like role when it is available - AFAIK it has 8000 shields/hull and similar firepower to the Allegiance.

There were a lot of smaller SSD designs floating around (like the Bellator) - maybe the IR could have two SSD designs (one about half size) to compensate for the lack of a BC. The Empire was always an ISD + SSD fleet AFAIK - most of the mid-sized ships ended up in the rim.

19
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: June 01, 2017, 01:22:13 AM »
Just wondering - is the Allegiance supposed to turn as slowly as it does? It seems to be slower than a SSD in terms of turn rate, which seems backwards (like they love to face when not micromanaged).

Also, why is the Providence so torpedo heavy? AFAIK in canon it was primarily armed with turbolasers and fighters.

20
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: May 30, 2017, 12:26:39 AM »
Looking in the XML files, the Bellator seems to have 54 turbolaser batteries with 10 pulses each, 54 heavy turbolaser batteries with 10 pulses each and some missiles + ion cannons. It is supposed to have this much armament? AFAIK, this is what the Executor-Class carries (at least in terms of turbolasers).

Would it be possible to replace some of them with quad mounts (with fewer pulses) to match the visual model of the gun turrets?

Pages: [1] 2
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!