ledarsi

Having research cost computronium is an interesting idea. However as currently implemented computronium goes directly to VP's and this would need to be changed. Perhaps computronium would be collected from VP points, and the player's stockpile of computronium is converted into VP's at a certain proportion. Say, 10% of a player's computronium every specified number of seconds becomes victory points. This will mean that your computronium reserves will incr

Double post, somehow.

As much attention as they get, the experimental/T4/prototype units are easily the least interesting part of TA/SupCom. Experimental units always do exactly the same thing that they are designed to do. They're just giant chunks of HP with giant guns. You can't split them up, you can't choose to build only part of them or slightly more than a whole one. They just always play out the same way, with no player choice. Add to this the fact they cost so much resources that they t

[quote who="atmorell" reply="24" id="3567020"] I don't believe the current C&C construction style will scale very well with gigantic maps and thousands of units. [/quote] No kidding. With thousands of units, if you have to manually queue up each and every one, it's practically all the player would ever do all game. I think it is also worth pointing out that a separate UI list would be a very ineffective way to represent a reg

A really basic way to do it would be to allow players to issue construction orders without any engineers selected. Any engineers in the region that are not building something else would make sure it happens. This would mean you don't need an exhaustive list of every engineer you own- you would have a list of regions and a number indicating the size of the constructor team in that region.

[quote who="MindlessMe" reply="11" id="3566915"] If I take an RTS game and let 100 people play it I will most likely find 50+ different ways to accomplish a win. This means that almost everyone develops their own play style depending on the units and tactics allowed for the game. A lot of them will look the same, but will have small variations depending on the player. Instead of arguing over who is doing it right or wrong, lets explore the tactics and see what is fun. The pissing matches

Mass scout works much better than you would expect coming from other strategy games. But the scout is exactly the same price as the Brute and Archer, but as for its strength against T1 it has only two pips instead of three. I assume this means scouts deal less damage, but this could be incorrect. The Aegis scouts are very useful for their radar, but they don't move any faster, and the game seems to say that their weapons are inferior.

Currently in Ashes the Logistics system is a very straightforward limitation on the number of units you can have at once, which can be increased simply by building Logistic Arrays. These can be built anywhere without limit, and quite cheaply, with each one increasing your Logistics by +10. This Logistics system clearly needs improvement. Likewise, the victory point system requires capturing "Computronium Points" or VP points using military units.

How would factories assisting each other result in a different outcome than having them each build their own unit at their production rate in parallel? Being able to pump out units from exactly one factory extremely rapidly sounds like a set of serious glitches waiting to happen without any real benefit. I think Ashes should instead expect players to build a very large number of factories, and have factories build relatively slowly and in parallel.

I think the better solution to having both HUGE maps and positional play is to have transports be a staple of gameplay. Transports such as flying transports can potentially be much, much faster than land units, and also gives players a very compelling reason to control the skies. Air superiority actually makes your units more mobile by allowing friendly transports to operate safely, and reduces enemy mobility by destroying enemy transports or preventing them from enteri

After my limited testing, I have determined that it is an approximately optimal opening to have your initial engineer build metal extractors, and to build a second engineer that will immediately build a factory when completed. Once your metal extractors are completed, that engineer begins building one Logistics Array and will wait when completed. The reason for this is that 10 Logistics is insufficient to maintain an adequate expansion party, you need 20. So your first factory (assist

Another possible approach for research that might work well for a more macro-focused strategy game would be just having facilities research automatically (for free), with a very specific progression of techs for a particular facility. For example, a drone research center might have a few different techs which must always be researched in order; first Tech 1, then Tech 2, then Tech 3, and so on. That drone research facility unlocks the next tech when it finishes the one

[quote who="No_Menace" reply="15" id="3566549"] Why must I be forced not to play more defensive? I think I am old enough to decide how I prefer to play. [/quote] I think we need to settle this issue right now. Strategy games are not McDonald's where you can "play however you want." That sounds nice in a marketing-bullshit, customer-service

Engineers are a pretty basic functionality, but they are one you pretty much do need to have. They are how you go build resources. Allowing players to build directly on any resources in a captured sector is not a good idea because it doesn't cost any resources and cannot be denied. You can raid an enemy's engineers to limit their ability to expand and build, and costing them resources. In a broader sense, what this game needs is more soft

I think what is really happening is that the early stages of the game are constrained quite seriously by your low Logistics limit, meaning you take quite a lot of time to do some early initial expansion. Increasing the starting Logistics to a number more like 40 will mean you can build a larger army earlier in the game, and potentially have multiple expansion parties active at the same time. That should help with the slow early expansion. But in t

I think it is very important not to have silly upgrades that just add +% to damage or HP. Those things make it impossible to assess the enemy's actual effective strength. More research to unlock units and structures would be just fine though. It might also be a good idea to have research to increase available power and/or logistics, either by increasing the yield of existing sources, or by unlocking larger structures that yield larger amounts.

I do not think units should be sped up. In other RTS games, like Starcraft 2, a core design goal of the game is to create an "action-packed" experience, with frenetic battles, high-skill micromanagement of individual, speedy units, and rapid multitasking of units and production in multiple areas of the map. Ashes of the Singularity is clearly taking a very different approach, of focusing on the strategic decision-making aspect of the strategy game, rather than having individua

Good idea. Invite me- my Steam name is "ledarsi" just like my username.

1. Does it work on your computer? Yes, no crashes or other errors so far. 2. Does it perform well on your computer? Yes, actually, much better than expected, even with a large number of units in play. The biggest issue for me is that the selection box occasionally decides it doesn't want to start boxing on time and requires a second attempt. 3. Any other feedback you might have Although this game has a long</str

I think it makes more sense to have group creation be dynamic during the game. This has a number of advantages, like allowing players to dynamically change their deployment just by changing the size of two or more groups. Sure, you could specify outside a game, but there is no reason you couldn't change them on the fly as well. Suppose a player has two groups of units, A and B, in different locations. The player wants to move units from group A to group B. Y

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that players should lose control over their units or bases. If a player manually selects a unit and gives it an express order, that order should supersede all commands from the UI. However, the ability to effectively manage large groups of units and entire bases without having to select individual units allows the player to implement their decisions without necessarily needing to always rely on finding, selecting, and manually ordering the specific

The simplest approach would be to design the system so that it can supply an appropriate "where." For example, have each battlegroup request units for itself. Those units would rally to the group's location (which may be moving). Those reinforcements might even use transports automatically, if they are available. Likewise, a base would be a group of structures that would also supply a "where" regarding building those factories- where the base is. The assumption is that the player

I am definitely sensitive to wanting to use WASD for other functions. Those are among the most accessible keys on the keyboard, after all. But the reason why I think WASD would be good for camera movement is that mouse ops are expensive. They take a lot of time during which you cannot be doing anything else. Moving the mouse to the edge of the screen is a very slow and ineffective method of panning. Directional arrow keys are also not a good optio

I am absolutely in agreement with your assessment of wanting to augment the player's execution ability without impinging on the realm of the player's strategic decision-making. But I think that's relatively easy to do. For example, regarding building units. Construction is something the player is likely going to be doing constantly in every game. The actual decision the player makes in construction largely consists of two major decisions: placement of produc

I feel the need to disagree on the dislike of slow units. Other RTS games (notably Starcraft and those like it) try to create an "action-packed" game using speedy units and fast-paced battles. Player micromanagement and skill is a huge focus for these types of games. It is my understanding that Ashes of the Singularity is taking a different approach. With tens of thousands of units on the board, it isn't necessary for an individual unit