Author Topic: 1.3 General Review and Feedback Thread (Read 49278 times)

Slornie · « **Reply #60 on:** February 28, 2012, 07:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Senza on February 27, 2012, 09:30:43 PM

I think its damage needs to be maybe a little higher than the MC90, which is basically a worthless ship that can only take damage and nothing else, which, by the way, I think needs to have firepower more on the scale of an MC80b.

Eh? Why would the MC90 be worse than the MC80b? The MC80b was only an interim design and canonically the MC90 has 43 more weapon emplacements (an extra 27 turbolasers, 10 ion cannons and 6 concussion missile launchers).

Senza · « **Reply #61 on:** February 28, 2012, 10:34:25 AM »

I suppose you're right

Willhelm · « **Reply #62 on:** March 01, 2012, 08:19:41 PM »

Ive been playing as the empire of the hand quite a bit lately and well they seem like they need some balance help the furion bombers really are wayyyyy overpowered for their cost and ease of production, players can simply spam them and kill everything, except for fleets of carracks and lancers but the a.i is rarely smart enough to use that counter, plus the empire of the hands two corvettes are both good but the devastator (or whatever its called) is practically unnecessary, the gunship is hand over first better and its duty and actually can hurt other vessels and is only like a measly 100 credits more exspensive

Corey · « **Reply #63 on:** March 01, 2012, 08:50:16 PM »

Quote from: Corey on February 27, 2012, 10:51:20 PM

The entire mod has been rebalanced since 1.3 in order to make it more canon, so making balance suggestions at this point isn't really going to get anyone anywhere until we post the finalized stats publically (they're currently available in a mostly-finished state in the Admiral's Lounge), it's essentially talking about a different game.

Senza · « **Reply #64 on:** March 02, 2012, 03:24:41 PM »

What I'm saying is that I would want its damage to be a little higher than the MC90's is in 1.3, and the MC90 get beefed up significantly, since in 1.3 the MC80b is a better ship all around. How it is in 2.0, I don't know, but these are my thoughts on 1.3 :p

Corey · « **Reply #65 on:** March 02, 2012, 09:21:16 PM »

Quote from: yutpaeksi on February 22, 2012, 11:30:09 AM

Actually I've also noticed that the AI rolls over at a certain point too. But I don't think it has to do with the fleetcommanders.

After you take enough systems, the AI is limited greatly by the galactic population (thus reducing its economic advantage), it loses the ability to build more ships. The AI also seems to like to attack with large numbers of capital ships, which is fine and makes for good battles. However, I suspect that this combination leads to the AI becoming passive in late game situations, as the AI's frigates and other ships that can be built from light and heavy shipyards are still sitting around, taking up galactic pop. Then after you take away a lot of the capital shipyard systems from them, they're left with the option of only building frigates, and in the case of the NR, fighters. The AI seems to then decide that these are underpowered fleets that can't quite go toe to toe with your capital ships, so it neglects to attack.

In my experience, by the time you hit this point, you really do own a colossal advantage anyway. I mean do you really enjoy taking on an NR fleet that has 70 E-Wing squadrons, 20 CR90s, and some Marauders? It might seem funny but at that point, the GC is pretty much over, you've won.

It's less that it can't build things, more that it doesn't want to. Once it feels it's in an untenable situation, it'll just stop producing any units. I've watched it happen from their point of view. They throw everything they have at you, and once they decide they have too few units to do anything with, they'll stop building and then stop attacking, even if they have enough money to support reconstructing a huge fleet. Usually once I step in and build up to about a third or more of their population (or roughly where Sebastian said he noticed it), the AI will then take back over, rebuild even more and then go on to continue the fight. I even just had the Yevethans win the Black Fleet Crisis GC this way. I'm trying to find out where or if this can be changed to lower the threshhold for this.

yutpaeksi · « **Reply #66 on:** March 14, 2012, 05:25:07 AM »

With the introduction of the Mortar TAT, I'd like to recommend that the garrison for the EtoH heavy vehicle factory be switched from the Megamaser Tank to the Mortat TAT, it's better suited as a defensive unit anyway.

I'd also recommend that the garrison for the light vehicle factor be switched to the Rapid Fire Tank as well, as that's a better standoff unit. The Kirov tanks are better suited for hit and run attacks...

Senza · « **Reply #67 on:** March 22, 2012, 01:01:44 AM »

Quote from: yutpaeksi on March 14, 2012, 05:25:07 AM

With the introduction of the Mortar TAT, I'd like to recommend that the garrison for the EtoH heavy vehicle factory be switched from the Megamaser Tank to the Mortat TAT, it's better suited as a defensive unit anyway.

I'd also recommend that the garrison for the light vehicle factor be switched to the Rapid Fire Tank as well, as that's a better standoff unit. The Kirov tanks are better suited for hit and run attacks...

I would have to agree with the former point here, the MMTs are a little overpowered in garrisons anyway. As for the Rapid Fire tank, I'm not so sure about that, never really liked that unit. What I want to know is what the purpose of the AT-CW is supposed to be!

Corey · « **Reply #68 on:** March 25, 2012, 04:52:41 PM »

The purpose of the AT-CW is to be cut when we get a suitable replacement. Garrisons in general will be reworked along with ground starting forces for all 3 factions when we're farther along with adding the units we want to add, so we'd be happy to take any suggestions.

yutpaeksi · « **Reply #69 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:28:30 PM »

I'm glad to hear you're reworking starting ground forces. In addition can you add infrastructure, especially on key planets like Mon Cal, Kuat, Syca? The AI doesn't seem to prioritize hypervelocity cannons or ion cannons, so maybe setting up some of these on those planets would help the AI a bit.

Also, having to build up heavy frigate shipyards and capital shipyards doesn't seem to make sense canonically. After all those systems are key because they have those resources/infrastructure. And it's crazy easy to take several systems early from the AI, when they're still building up ground infrastructure. The AI seems to prioritize building buildings before units early on. And a single barracks simply doesn't present much of a defense. I doubt you guys want to mess with the AI scripts too much so perhaps just giving border planets more buildings to start with could allow the AI to build units earlier.

Thrashia · « **Reply #70 on:** May 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM »

Hello again,

I'm playing the Art of War Light version at the moment. And here are some more opinions and reactions that may or may not have already been addressed elsewhere.

1) Interdictor's should not be able to be built except with larger factories and in specific locations. Instead of being able to build on on practically every world, it would make more sense to have them only be built on such shipyards as Bilbringi, Yaga Minor, Kuat, Rendili, Corellia, Fondor, and Sluis Van. Although this may be countered by the fact that Interdictors are fragile and cannot be considered front-line ships...

2) Executor-class Super Star Destroyer is a joke. A Strike Cruiser has a better range and it can't fire forward in the same manner that an ISD can. I grew so frustrated with its performance that after using it a few times I just had it garrison Coruscant, instead making use of a mass ISD fleet for my main march of conquest. I would recommend lessening the number of hard-points perhaps, increasing its range to at least the same as the Strike Cruiser's instead of the knifing distance it now has, and increasing its arc of fire so it can actually fire forward and not spend minutes turning *just right* in order to fire.

3) Something I've been noticing is the speed of the standard TIE Fighter. It's too slow. It is barely faster than the TIE Bomber in the game, which isn't very accurate to the fighter itself. It should match the X-wing in its speed, at the very least.

4) I think the Era method of technological advancement is flawed. It's interesting and I liked it, but having to get your leader killed just to advance your technology seemed a bit...stagnant to me. Playing the Art of War Light on medium at this moment and I've re-conquered half of the galaxy, and I am still in possession of Ysanne Isard. I'm not sure how to do it within the functionality of the game, but it would seem pertinent that there should be some second pathway to getting other technological advancements than just by waiting for your leader to die.

Cheers,
Thrashia

Thrashia · « **Reply #71 on:** May 01, 2012, 11:59:51 PM »

And just to add in one other thing: I think you re-include the ability to recruit Fleet and Army commanders. The Imperial Remnant had other officers and unsung heroes besides the main characters like Thrawn, Daala, Isard, etc. Same for the NR and EotH.

Edit: Also, Gilad Paelleon's "concentrate fire" little ability, never worked once. I would click it and attempt to select a target, but every target (even the big MCs) were "invalid targets"....it was annoying.

tlmiller · « **Reply #72 on:** May 02, 2012, 02:20:44 AM »

Quote from: Thrashia on May 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM

3) Something I've been noticing is the speed of the standard TIE Fighter. It's too slow. It is barely faster than the TIE Bomber in the game, which isn't very accurate to the fighter itself. It should match the X-wing in its speed, at the very least.

Cheers,
Thrashia

Can't say I've ever looked, but from canon, Tie Fighter should indeed be the SAME speed as the X-Wing (with S-foils in attack mode).

Corey · « **Reply #73 on:** May 02, 2012, 03:33:47 AM »

Quote from: Thrashia on May 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM

1) Interdictor's should not be able to be built except with larger factories and in specific locations. Instead of being able to build on on practically every world, it would make more sense to have them only be built on such shipyards as Bilbringi, Yaga Minor, Kuat, Rendili, Corellia, Fondor, and Sluis Van. Although this may be countered by the fact that Interdictors are fragile and cannot be considered front-line ships...

We've discussed increasing their price and potentially limiting the locations they can be built, but it doesn't really make sense for the Immobilizer-418 to require the capital level shipyards in order to be built, there's no reason that they should require bigger facilities than other ships of that size; the limiting factor is supposed to be cost, not space.

Quote from: Thrashia on May 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM

2) Executor-class Super Star Destroyer is a joke. A Strike Cruiser has a better range and it can't fire forward in the same manner that an ISD can. I grew so frustrated with its performance that after using it a few times I just had it garrison Coruscant, instead making use of a mass ISD fleet for my main march of conquest. I would recommend lessening the number of hard-points perhaps, increasing its range to at least the same as the Strike Cruiser's instead of the knifing distance it now has, and increasing its arc of fire so it can actually fire forward and not spend minutes turning *just right* in order to fire.

All ships have had significantly increased firing range and line of sight for 2.0. As it was in 1.3, however, its range was definitely longer than the Strike Cruiser and any other Imperial unit (1400-2000 for all other units, 3000 for the Executor), and we're definitely not lowering the number of hardpoints; the weapons in the mod are based on a representative system applied to all ships, and they most certainly could fire forward. Every firing bone on it is at a 45 degree angle, and each hardpoint has a 160 degree firing arc from there. Besides, that turning to fire issue has nothing to do with the number, it's the space between them. It doesn't matter how much you increase the range unless you meake each hardpoint able to cover the whole map. There's enough space between the hardpoints that some are always going to be able to target things that others aren't and increasing the range doesn't change the size of that bubble of non-overlapping arcs, it just pushes is slightly farther out. It also has to do with basic pathfinding and targeting systems in EaW being absolute shit, but there's nothing we can do to modify those (nothing at all for pathfinding, and nothing significant for targeting, all that can really do is change priorities rather then tell it it's okay not to have everything firing at once).

Quote from: Thrashia on May 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM

3) Something I've been noticing is the speed of the standard TIE Fighter. It's too slow. It is barely faster than the TIE Bomber in the game, which isn't very accurate to the fighter itself. It should match the X-wing in its speed, at the very least.

The difference between speed in the TIE Fighter and X-Wing is currently 0.5, but I'll change it.

Quote from: Thrashia on May 01, 2012, 08:38:11 PM

4) I think the Era method of technological advancement is flawed. It's interesting and I liked it, but having to get your leader killed just to advance your technology seemed a bit...stagnant to me. Playing the Art of War Light on medium at this moment and I've re-conquered half of the galaxy, and I am still in possession of Ysanne Isard. I'm not sure how to do it within the functionality of the game, but it would seem pertinent that there should be some second pathway to getting other technological advancements than just by waiting for your leader to die.

It's not a method of technological advancement, it's a method of chronological advancement. The era system is used to give the factions the heroes and units they could or would have built during that era, and under that leadership. There isn't "technological advancement" in the traditional sense at all. If we were to do what you seem to be suggesting and have a dual tiered system where you advance chronologically one way and technologically a second way, it would basically make no sense. You'd spend a bunch of resources as Isard trying to research your way up to the Tector, Praetor and Executor, and then lose them when the era changes to Thrawn who would never have used them, and then wouldn't have any of his higher tiered units of his at all at that point. So, you'd be screwed and have to research your way back up again, then if he dies you would lose all of Thrawn's better frigates without having access to any of Palpatine's units at all, rinse and repeat for Pellaeon and Daala. There's a huge difference between the Katana, Byss and Maw Irregular fleets, after all. Not to mention that the New Republic and Empire of the Hand would have no such problems during this time since neither went throuigh any kind of paradigm shift or regime change. The only way to have fair technological advancement like that is to just cut out the era system entirely, which I'm definitely 100% against. It makes no sense to have a single pool of heroes consisting of Thrawn, Daala, Pellaeon, Isard, Palpatine and whoever else while mixing Thrawn's Katanas or Vindicators with Palpatine's Sovereigns and Daala's Venators. We'd basically be cuting a metric ton of content in order to allow the build or research options to fit, for a much less satisfying result. It would essentially make the existing GCs essentially pointless (since you'd be playing the Thrawn campaign with a fleet of Sovereigns and Preybirds and Isard as a hero, which makes no sense). I've always found the diversified unit and hero loadouts between the different GCs to be infinitely more interesting than a research thing where you press one button and suddently you have the exact same options as you could have had otherwise. The only way it could make sense is if we designed an advancement system within the single-era GCs so you have to research your way up to capital ships and whatnot, but that means we'd just be adding a pointless section to each GC which you have to spend upgrading. As it is you get to jump in and get to the campaign you're supposed to be playing through as it was right away. It wouldn't be Operation Shadow Hand if Palpatine started at Byss with a VSD and a couple Carracks. To top it all off, the AI would have absolutely no fucking clue what it's doing, and it would never upgrade a single thing.

Quote

And just to add in one other thing: I think you re-include the ability to recruit Fleet and Army commanders. The Imperial Remnant had other officers and unsung heroes besides the main characters like Thrawn, Daala, Isard, etc. Same for the NR and EotH.

They've had to be removed because they cause a pretty obvious bug.

Thrashia · « **Reply #74 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:02:18 PM »

I'll have to take some screen shots, but I promise you that the Executor had shorter range than the Strike Cruiser and was not firing forward. I was literally almost on top of an enemy ship, the arrow-head of the Executor SSD pointing at the target, and it none of its hardpoints were firing. It wasn't until the enemy craft began to move past the SSD to its flanks that the hardpoints opened fire, and even then only at knife-fighting range.

Also, Gilad Paelleon's "concentrate fire" little ability, never worked once. I would click it and attempt to select a target, but every target (even the big MCs) were "invalid targets"....it was annoying.

Corey · « **Reply #75 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:14:34 PM »

The code and the model say otherwise on both counts, and even if it weren't true then the code and model are setup in the only way that would allow longer range (meaning having a bigger number than the Strike Cruiser hardpoint range lines) and firing forward (meaning the bones point in a direction and have a firing arc range that allows firing forward).

Regardless, here's some pictures of the Knight Hammer hardpoints forward as well as on top of itself.

Yes this one's on an angle, but the ones from the left side are firing at something on the right side, which requires a firing arc that includes the forward direction, and they tracked the ship as it moved that way, I just didn't get a shot fast enough.

Asfar as the Pellaeon thing goes, we're aware. That kind of thing should be posted in the bug report thread (which it has been) and I believe you posted it in the 2.0 Wishlist thread as well. We read everything thet gets posted here, so if you post something once, don't worry, we've almost certainly seen it.

Thrashia · « **Reply #76 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:21:05 PM »

I am referring predominantly to Isard's executor. For some reason, it was acting as I described above and not engaging units until they were literally on top of it. It might be a bug, I don't know.

Corey · « **Reply #77 on:** May 02, 2012, 05:25:45 PM »

Isard's Executor is the exact same as the Knight Hammer and the generic Executor. Same models, same code for both the base ship and the hardpoints. Every Executor in the mod uses the exact same hardpoint set and model, except Knight Hammer has a different skin applied and Wedge's version of Lusankya has two added planes with the NR logo on them.

Penegrin · « **Reply #78 on:** May 03, 2012, 05:13:14 AM »

Now that I played some GC I'd also like to add some thoughts

I played the game when it came out since I was a huge SW fan but the game really didn't attract me too long and I almost forgot it. A few weeks ago I came across it again and looked for some Mods. SInce the game is kinda old it was hard to fin anything after 2007ish. Then I checked youtube, found some videos with this mod and was like 'WTF IS THIS THE SAME GAME'?

This Mod made me pay 20 bucks for a steamversion of EaW since I had language problems between EaW and FoC and so far I didn't regrett it.

The special effects are awesome and I can hardly believe what you did with the game. I have some issues with the audio though since sometimes when I click on a ship I get a respons with the wrong shiptype (I'll write it down the next time it happens to see what shiptype it is).

The gameplay on the other hand is kinda odd. I find Spacebattles extremly easy. I barely lose ships and the 'AI' doesn't the deserve the 'I'. Very often he attacks me with several small fleets within minutes instead of massing them. I also have the feeling he isn't very good at building and composing a fleet. The AI behavior is very predictable but I enjoy every single battle due to the amazing graphics and the whole atmosphere.

On land battles I have a hard time when they attack me really clevery with a well balance army and from several sides. In the later games I can't invade any planets since the AI spams the planets with factories and units.

Now I have some questions:
- can you limit the amount of free units you get per factory?
- is it possible that ships stay damaged after a battle and either need time (and a SY) or money to repair? I think I saw once a hero's ship (Lusankya??) which was still damaged from an earlier battle
- is it possible to start with less units? I feel like the IR is really powerfull in every GC so maybe it's psosible that playing on 'hard' not only makes the enemy tougher but also gives you less ships
- is it possible to get a GC where you controll just one or 2 planets from start? It'd be nice to build your own Empire from scratch

In short: the Mod is awesome and I can't wait for 2.0 (or 1.4?)

Senza · « **Reply #79 on:** May 03, 2012, 01:04:07 PM »

The AI is apparently being fixed in 2.0 so it doesn't send half a dozen microfleets at you, and ground battles are being rebalanced.

On the subject of autoresolve, I think I may know what one of the big problems is. It seems to me that the Carrack cruiser has way more autoresolve power than it should. Frequently when I autoresolve when the enemy sends like, 1 carrack against my multiple capital ships, golan IIIs, and ion cannons, I end up losing a capital ship or two.