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 - Lavo

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
1
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Unit Ability Discussion
« on: January 19, 2014, 06:13:22 PM »
All of those could work. The Assault module wouldn't work well, mainly due to how finicky planet bombing is is in Sins. Of course, there will have to be a specific module picked for the AI to use every time, because it can't pick and choose.

2
News & Updates / Re: Dev Diary #5: System Failure
« on: January 19, 2014, 12:57:55 PM »
I would avoid the "Capital Victory" condition in those cases.
The ability could be made such that it can't target capitals in Capital Victory, so that might not be an issue.

3
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: Unit Ability Discussion
« on: January 19, 2014, 01:11:54 AM »
The Mk. II is both weird looking and unecessary. I really don't know why it exists, or what connection it actually has with the Dreadnaught and Assault Frigate.
I like to think it's made from the remains of other ships, and was named the Assault Frigate Mk. II to throw off Imperial intelligence, who wanted to capture the Mk. I.

4
The Lounge / Re: Corey's Top 5: Mods We Didn't Make
« on: January 15, 2014, 05:33:59 PM »
All hail the Hotdog Supership! Bow before your sausage overlords!

5
Ascendancy Discussion / Possible Substitute for Hardpoints
« on: September 29, 2013, 02:28:29 PM »
Not sure what you're design plan is, but I was looking through finish conditions and I got an idea for a possible substitute for Sins' lack of a hardpoint system, making use of the finish conditions DamageTaken (can be exclusively hull damage) and OwnerHullAbovePerc. All buffs have a stacking limit of 1 of course.

This is all started by a passive ability, which in turn spawns multiple caster buffs, with the finish condition of DamageTaken. When this condition is met, it applies the weapon/engine/etc debuff, which has a finish condition of OwnerHullAbovePerc. Once the ship's hull is sufficiently repaired, the debuff is thus removed.

6
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Useless and Overpowered Units
« on: September 17, 2013, 09:55:59 PM »
I find the MPTL to be absolutely useless due to it's terrible range.

7
Star Wars Discussion / Re: Empire at War vs Galactic Battlegrounds
« on: September 02, 2013, 02:03:07 PM »
Comparing these two is like asking someone if they want a pile of crap or a turd sandwich. Sure one of them might have a slice of bread or two, but in the end it's still shit.

8
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Death Star?
« on: August 04, 2013, 06:44:49 PM »
For some reason, one example that always stuck with me was when I was looking over Consortium heroes and fighters, for whatever reason. Then I noticed that Bossk's concussion missiles did more damage than a Y-Wing's proton torpedoes. While it is a given that as a hero unit Bossk would be very strong, but that was just plain overkill.

9
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: Death Star?
« on: August 04, 2013, 02:44:52 PM »
And of course, only the Consortium could make it go that nuts, the Rebels couldn't. The Consortium totally needed another buff guys, it's not like it had the best units in the game or anything.

10
Star Wars Discussion / Re: Star Wars Empire at War "On Unity" ?
« on: July 05, 2013, 10:54:49 AM »
Why would you rebuild a game as terrible as EaW? The only good things about it were the hardpoint system, how reinforcements came in during battle, and how things such as scale, skins, and variants can be done in ship XMLs. Instead of remaking it, you're better off making a new game, RTS likely would be best, which takes the good elements of EaW and tosses out the many bad parts of it.

11
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: About naming our SSDs
« on: June 22, 2013, 10:32:21 PM »
Sadly, that EotH line is too long a name for Sins. But fitting nonetheless, when you have Phalanxes batter that Executor to bits.

12
News & Updates / Re: Ability Demo
« on: June 20, 2013, 08:39:20 PM »
Well ideally I'd like to fix the no damage issue rather than just make capitals not a valid target. After all, they're the main thing you'd want to ram.
This might be somewhat helpful, a working ramming ability, doesn't have any issues with capital ships. Though I wouldn't be surprised if your ability is set up the same way.

13
Empire at War and Forces of Corruption / Re: Latest EaW/FoC Patch?
« on: June 16, 2013, 11:32:39 PM »
No XML/AI folder, or an Enum folder. Probably should just get a clean install of FoC.

14
Empire at War and Forces of Corruption / Re: Latest EaW/FoC Patch?
« on: June 16, 2013, 10:56:05 PM »
Really? That's odd as I don't have an AI folder anywhere in the Data folder. All I got in there are Art/Audio/Text folders, none of which should have an impact on mods if memory serves.

15
Empire at War and Forces of Corruption / Re: Latest EaW/FoC Patch?
« on: June 16, 2013, 10:18:02 PM »
Was missing 1.1, that should likely help. Yeah I do have RaW installed. Now that you mention, seems I have an XML folder in the base game's dir... The GAMECONSTANTS file might be screwing with things, thanks for the heads up!

16
Empire at War and Forces of Corruption / Latest EaW/FoC Patch?
« on: June 16, 2013, 07:13:17 PM »
I've got an old CD version of EaW and FoC, for those who remember the pre-Steam days. I think I might be patched up only to 1.5, which I'm assuming is an old version, seeing how the AI is seemingly non-existent in ICW (Final Imperial Push, playing as Imps on Admiral difficulty). So yeah, if anyone knows what the latest version of EaW/FoC is, or has patch links, I'd be much obliged.

17
News & Updates / Re: Imperial Remnant Unit List
« on: June 14, 2013, 08:02:24 PM »
Will its planet razing function similarly to the Vasari Loyalist Titan (I believe it is) that can suck resources from a planet and suck ships into its maw to harvest resources?
Stripped to the Core, what the VL have for planet razing, is entirely scuttle based and cannot be used in an ability.

18
Ascendancy Discussion / Re: More Factions!
« on: June 13, 2013, 04:06:19 AM »
One of the Vong's most appealing pros, and at the same time one of their biggest cons, is that their ships have very little solid info, both in terms of armament/health and firepower. This pretty much gives them neigh unlimited breathing room. They also have biological ships which can be implemented through different directions, ranging from simply having a ton of health, to having slightly less health then a ship of "equal" or "equivalent" Galactic health, but with much better regeneration and, in the case of Sins, both can possibly make use of shield mitigation, which is something that doesn't really fit with other Star Wars ships. The reason I say the latter is purely due to the fact that you cannot have shield mitigation start off very strong, and then decrease as fire intensifies; if a ship survives and shield mitigation starts to "heal" it, unfortunately, will never stop increasing.

And your assets leave less of a footprint than base Sins. Don't know about SOGE's assets.
SoGE has a horrific footprint, worse then base Sins by a longshot.

19
News & Updates / Re: Imperial Remnant Unit List
« on: May 29, 2013, 04:43:57 PM »
By the way, I haven't seen diplomatic ships on either of the faction unit lists. Will they not be present in Ascendancy?
Well, the CR90 was used by diplomats, so that could feasibly play the role, with the DP20 being an anti-starfighter platform...

20
Sins of a Solar Empire / Re: Your Preferred Faction
« on: May 27, 2013, 11:57:52 AM »
Other than the Kol, LRF, and the carriers, the TEC are virtually all civilian ships converted for military use, hence they look ugly as balls.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
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!