But it was answered: [quote who="Frogboy" reply="5" id="3528527"] The max number of players is largely going to be determined by early access results. Basically, if each player has 10,000 units what kind of bandwidth is needed by each player to handle that in a fun way? [/quote] I.E. We don't know but will be leaning towards the 4 players/map maximum because that's what the game's intended to be like.
[quote who="Raevn" reply="34" id="3533799"] I agree with your point, but feel obliged to point out that the Mammoth and Orca aren't Cavedog units [/quote] I know. It's simply that I wanted to list a few of the more iconic RTS units out there. Blizzard's been the king at this back in the day but their approach of units with portraits and such doesn't really match up with AotS at all, hence the C&C comparison. A game that's much closer to AotS in this d
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="26" id="3533731"] Orbital transporters moves units between planets; Egg unit moves Commanders [/quote] Eh, you may have made a small mistake there, Frogboy. [quote who="Ticktoc" reply="28" id="3533737"] I do wish there was more than 13 units a side, even if it was primarily for visual variety with some function overlap. The units in Ashes, at least on the side without the shielding, so far look quite similar, floating,
[quote who="Raevn" reply="17" id="3533384"] There are very few TA clones, not dozens. In fact, the entire family of TA-like games is: Total Annihilation Supreme Commander / Forged Alliance Supreme Commander 2 (debatable, due to how much was changed) Planetary Annihilation [/quote] No, there's more. There's much more just like there are more AoE-like games than you could count, not just AoE, AoM and EE series. See: Zero-K, NOTA, Evolution RTS
[quote who="ASADDF" reply="10" id="3533301"] Total Annihilation-inspired games, hmm you mean SupCom 1&2? [/quote] No, I'm talking about the dozens of more modern T:A clones that lay dormant on Steam. Neither me nor you can remember a name of single one of them, that's how unsuccessful they are despite fully providing what they've set to accomplish unlike PA. [quote who="KaneTiberian" reply="7" id="3533261"] 10 conscious actions per minute [/
[quote who="ASADDF" reply="3" id="3533206"] Hmm Not really. The truth about RTS is that people lost interest in them because of a big reason, the games got smaller and smaller, the maps, the units quantity, the map size, even you don't see strategy games that often that you build your base. its all about a small number of units in a small map with an objective that's it! [/quote] What about Planetary Annihilation, then? What about all the Total Annihilatio
So was Planetary Annihilation. :^) !spoiler! Seriously though, the game has far from the successful finish line. A game that is simply technically impressive and done by a passionate team isn't an assured smash hit that will amass a massive cult following. RTS games simply don't work that way which is probably one of the main reasons why so few actually attempt making them. !/spoiler!
Why show a concept of Apollo to showcase more turrets in a design when, as shown per the zoom screenshot, the final version actually only packs an MLRS and a single flak in the middle? Looking at those turrets in the front of the Destructor, I guess it has a minimal range inside of which those beam guns can't converge to form a beam, right? [quote who="ColaColin" reply="2" id="3532328"] So Terrans vs Protoss eh? [/quote] I don't k
It's a pretty common thing in 3D movement. I believe it was implemented in SoaSE as well. What do you do when two cruisers go at each other? Well, one dives and one raises altitude so they pass by each other easily and efficiently. If you don't want towers to form and there's not enough room for a unit to 'duck', you simply use a movement algorithm that has 3 dimensions with 2 possible values on the Z axis. A little more room for the pathing algorithm, more
[quote who="psychoak" reply="46" id="3532252"] If whatever force that keeps them afloat would simply bore through the water under their weight [/quote] It's held up by gravity, anon.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="40" id="3531075"] They are channeling gravity so water is a no-go. [/quote] I'm completely in favor of separating land and naval units. However, this explanation makes no sense whatsoever.
On the topic of pausing, is it restricted to singleplayer only or are you implementing it for multiplayer as well in some manner (Warcarft 3 had a system for it, though largely unused, it found its way into DotA and has been implemented into Dota 2 from the get go)?
[quote who="ColaColin" reply="19" id="3531368"] We'll see once the game is in the hands of more players, my bet is something like a zoom will quickly be decided to be really helpful to get an overview. When I played SupCom it usually was a quick in and out, as controlling units was best done from closer zoom. So can't really follow. I think even Starcraft 2 would see players get massively better if they had a strategic zoom in it. [/quote] And Frogboy's b
What about the black spots on the map, Frogboy?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="11" id="3531241"] The Meta unit concept isn't something we invented, I would give credit to that to Kohan (if you haven't played it, see if you can still buy a copy, great game). Being able to use these meta units is key to handling the massive scope. [/quote] Kohan's unit groups were more or less the predecessor's to Relic's squads though, weren't they? Unless things changed drastically between the games as I've
I'd have a question if you wouldn't mind. What architecture will the multiplayer work on? P2P (the old-school), Client-Server (still old but standard among other games) or something different like SC2, which creates game experience resembling P2P but routes it through a server under the hood to keep hacking at a minimum and make sure you will use Battle.net as the middle man (hence no LAN and tourneys outside Activision Blizzard's control)? Oh, and what's the b
Ah, OK. What about something like Metagel? Though something like that might clash with metal that's already a part of the resource lineup. Maybe morphogel or morphigel? It would depend a lot on how you're portraying this matter in the game if you already have some plans/concepts regarding that.
[quote who="GoaFan77" reply="9" id="3528607"] I couldn't find the real world concept you were referring to. [/quote] Comporting is a real verb, thus concept. We're supposed to name this imaginary substance that represents the computation behind said thing. In other words, it's most likely about reprogramming the opponent to do your bidding, thus winning.
Scratch that.